Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Been to Court for refunds, going again
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
The defence claimed the County Court was not the proper venue to challenge these. Remember, this is the same day as the Jackson ruling which was not available to me.

Here is my skeleton argument:


The claim is for refund of Penalty Charges based on the following but not mutually exclusive limbs.

1) The Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are a nullity and void.
2) TWBC knowingly issued PCNs not conforming to Statute rendering them Ultra Vires.
3) TWBC have enjoyed “Unjust Enrichment” by duress and/or undue influence.
4) The TWBC enforcement process wrongly expresses the mandatory requirements of the 1991 act.

The Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are a nullity and void.

The form of the Defendant's Penalty Charge Notices did not comply with the requirements of section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, in that the Penalty Charge Notice did not specify a "date of issue". This is undisputed.

The form of the Defendant's Penalty Charge Notices did not comply with the requirements of section 66(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, in that the Penalty Charge Notice carries the statement 'you are therefore required to pay...'. In London Borough of Wandsworth v Al's Bar & Restuarant Ltd the Adjudicator states. “Under section 66(2) the person legally liable for payment of a penalty charge is the owner. It may or may not be that the person in charge of the vehicle is the owner. Therefore, the person who receives the Penalty Charge Notice may or may not be the person legally liable to pay the penalty charge. It is no doubt for this reason that the draftsman chose the impersonal 'that the penalty charge must be paid'. For the notice to say 'You are required to pay' will be an inaccurate statement of the legal position in a great many cases.”

The form of the Defendant's Penalty Charge Notices did not comply with the requirements of section 66(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, in that the Penalty Charge Notice carries the statement 'If no payment is received within 28 days of the date of issue, a Notice to Owner may be sent to the….'.

PCNs whose wording did not conform to Statute have been struck down on many occasions relating to date of issue alone. The totality of deviation from the Statute and the Guidance of the TWBC PCN is amply covered in those decisions. In May 2005, NPAS issued its circular “WORDING OF THE PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (“PCN”)” to all DPE Authorities following the decision of the review in Mr Roger L. Macarthur and Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. Mr Macarthur argued that the Bury standard PCN failed to comply with section 66(3) of The Road Traffic Act 1991 in ways that were “significant, material and potentially prejudicial” so as to render it void and unenforceable. The appeal was allowed, both at first instance and again following a review under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

The effect of a council disregarding the statutory provisions set down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 for notices and time limits was considered in Moulder v Sutton London Borough Council (1994 LPAS 1940113243). The Adjudicator, G.R. Hickinbottom, following Sedley J.’s (as he then was) judgment in R -v- The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association, (1993 unreported) determined that where the Road Traffic Act 1991 stipulated that (in the Moulder case) a Penalty Charge Notice “must state” certain requirements (Section 66(3)), those requirements are mandatory. Therefore a Penalty Charge Notice failing to contain each of the requirements set down in Section 66(3) is void and unenforceable. The review decision in H Moses -v- London Borough of Barnet covers the issue thoroughly

TWBC knowingly issued PCNs not conforming to Statute rendering them Ultra Vires.

The decision in London Borough of Wandsworth v Al’s Bar & Restaurant Ltd (London case reference 2020106430) is that the “date of issue and date of notice may not be the same.” This decision dates back to 2002.

Notwthstanding the May 2005 NPAS guidance TWBC continued to issue PCN’s which did not specify a "date of issue" carrying the statement 'you are therefore required to pay...' and 'If no payment is received within 28 days of the date of issue, a Notice to Owner may be sent to the….'.

In Rejection Notices where this issue has been raised TWBC have always insisted that their PCNs are valid without a date of issue. (Notices of Rejection, 27th , 29th and 30th March 2006).

TWBC have enjoyed “Unjust Enrichment” by duress and/or undue influence.

Wednesbury principles would suggest that a Local Authority such as TWBC would be considered to be acting within the law at all times. This renders the relationship influential in that if a Local Authority says so, it must be right. An official looking document from that Authority demanding payment threatening ever increasing sanction must be considered duress. Even the process of appeal makes the sum payable double that of the initial demand. The threat of further sanction is real. The appeals process first two stages are to the Local Authority whose rejection of appeals automatically imposes a higher sanction.

The TWBC enforcement process wrongly expresses the mandatory requirements of the 1991 act.

The form of the Defendant's standard “Charge Certificate” states ‘If payment is not received within 14 days, action will……’

The form of the Defendant's standard “Notice to Owner” states ‘If you fail to pay this Charge or to make representations to the Council by xxxxxxx a Charge Certificate will……’

Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator at NPAS in C –v- Hastings Dated 25th May 2000 struck down a Notice to Owner with exactly the same wording.

The decision in Lukha and Aylesbury Vale District Council on 9th May 2006 strikes down this form of process.
Here is a summary of the judgement

B E T W E E N :
on 2 August 2006
In the Tonbridge Wells County Court, Small Claims Track.
For the Claimant: in person
For the Defendant: Jonathan Auburn
After hearing argument the Judge gave the following judgment.
“The action before the Court is rather unusual. It involved the claim by Mr David Hayward in which he claims £300 being the refund of parking tickets. In a beautifully crafted skeleton argument, Mr Hayward has raised a whole raft of technical points. The skeleton is well researched and includes many points on the attack of the tickets and the scheme. The Defendant defends the claim and also raises a jurisdictional issue at paragraph 2 of Mr Auburn’s skeleton.
[Judge read out paragraph 2 of JA’s skeleton]
“The matter was listed in the small claims track for 1 hour. We were unlikely to get the case done in that time. I decided it was right to deal with the jurisdictional point first. This judgment relates purely to whether the claim is an abuse of process.
“Mr Auburn’s arguments are at paragraphs 2 to 6 of his skeleton. He says that there is a scheme for appealing parking tickets; that is in the 1991 Act and in particular Schedule 6. He has produced authority to show that this applies to Tunbridge Wells and this matter is not in dispute. He also refers to regulations relating to the Parking Adjudicators.
“I return to the 1991 Act. Schedule 6, paragraph 2(1) provides that there is an appeal to the local authority.
[Judge read out paragraph 2(1).]
“The scheme says that the first port of call is the local authority. Mr Auburn says it is established authority that the scheme must be used and it is an abuse of process to do otherwise. He refers to the case of Boake Allen.
[Judge read out paragraphs 97 and 98 of Boake Allen]
“Mr Auburn says that what we are dealing with is an attempt to evade the statutory scheme. Mr Hayward takes issue with those points. He says that the system and the scheme assumes that the tickets are legal. He says that what he is doing is not making representations as regards why he should not receive a ticket, but is making an attack on the whole scheme. Second, he attacks the scheme. He says that the local authority is the judge in its own cause and here it is the same individual person doing both. So questions whether it is truly an appeal or a thinly veiled rubber stamp. He says the local authority is issuing tickets it knows to be wrong. He also says that there is a penalty built into the scheme and it is a deterrent to motorists to use the scheme because the sanction is out of all proportion.
“I accept Mr Auburn’s argument that there is a statutory scheme in existence. No issue is taken that that scheme applies to Tunbridge Wells. An important aspect of the scheme is that the initial representations to the local authority. That is a decision of Parliament. This accepts the scheme exists and he could approach the scheme. There are restricted time limits of 28 days. The parking adjudicator can relax the time limits.
“There are three issues raised by Mr Hayward. First, he says that the scheme of the 1991 Act assumes that the tickets are legal in the first place. I am against him on this. I refer to many authorities, for example, the Wandsworth case, the Moses case etc and these are all cases decided by the parking adjudicator. So it is plainly open to the adjudicator to rule that the tickets are illegal and that is a matter for him. That makes sense.
“Second, there is the argument that this is a thinly veiled rubber stamp. I am against Mr Hayward on this. Parliament provided for this. He can attack this. This court has no jurisdiction. This is a matter for the Administrative Court. Alternatively he can argue that there is a Wednesbury flaw. That is a matter for the Administrative Court. This court has a narrow remit.
“The third point is in essence that there is an unconscionable penalty in the operation of the scheme. There is much merit in this view. There is a strange position that you can end up with a penalty four times the original amount. Mr Hayward says that this is wrong for this penalty and it acts as a deterrent. Unfortunately, it is a feature of going to court that there are disincentives to access to justice. If the case had been handled in another track, there could be significant costs. The fact of the legal penalty does not render ... (?).
“I am bound by the authority of Boake Allen. It is clear that in Boake that the use of the alternative procedure with the primary mode of challenge provided by the legislation is an abuse if it were simply open to someone to come to court then that would render the scheme nugatory. This would also allow cherry-picking of jurisdictions. I find that this is a case which has the effect of ignoring the primary mode of challenge and as such is an abuse of process.
they are wrong about jurisdiction

the adjudicator has no jurisdiction if you pay the purported
penalty charge

in the adjudications cited which struck down pcns
the person had not paid and the adjudication was to determine if
there was a liability

so the comment is not relevant to your situation
Defence skeleton

case no. 6QZ2221
1. The Claimants car was parked illegally in Tunbridge Wells on a number of
occasions. The Claimant has attached documents showing his car was parked
illegally on 6 or 7 occasions in August and September 2005. The parking tickets
state the location, date and time of the inhngement, and the parking attendant
who witnessed the infringement. The Claimant now makes the point that these
parking tickets did not expressly state on the face of the notice the date that the
ticket was issued, ie separately from the date of the contravention. It is the case
that Tunbridge Wells always issues parking tickets on the same day as the
contravention. The Claimant is raising a purely technical point.
2. The claim should be dismissed for any of the following reasons.
(1) The County Court is not the appropriate forum for such a challenge. The
Claimant is seeking to evade the statutory scheme for challenges to
parking tickets; and in particular the strict time limits on such challenges.
(2) The Claimant, by paying the parking fine and not appealing, has
&M voluntarily accepted the validity of the fine.
pxiW h bi'd (3) If there is a technical defect on the parking tickets, such defect does not
render the tickets ultra vires.
(4) Even if the tickets were considered to be ultra vires, that does not imply
retrospective nullity.
(5) Any restitutionary claim is bad in any event.
111 Wrong forum/evasion of statutorv scheme and time limits
3. The County Court is not the appropriate forum for the present challenge.
Parliament has provided for a detailed statutory scheme and a specific tribunal to
hear such challenges, namely the parking adjudicators. See the Road Traffic
(Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (S1 1999 / 19 18).
4. The time limit for appeals to the parking adjudicator is 28 days or such longer
period as the parking adjudicator may allow: see paragraph Schedule 6, para.5 of
the Road Traffic Act 199 1.
5. It is wrong for the Claimant to seek to bypass the Tribunal set up by Parliament
to determine liability under and the validity of parking tickets. It is wrong for
the Claimant to seek to evade the express statutory time limit Parliament has
provided for such appeals. It is notable that the authorities cited by the Claimant
are decisions of the parking adjudicator.
6. It is "an abuse of process to ignore the primary mode of challenge provided by
law [in that case challenge by judicial review] and instead to bring an action
which evades the controls on that mode": Boake Allen Ltd v IRC [2006] EWCA
Civ 25 per Sedley LJ at [97].
121 Voluntary payment; acceptance of validity
7. Second, the Claimant, by paying the parking fine and not appealing, has
voluntarily accepted the validity of the fine, and the commission of the offence.
Any procedural irregularities were waived a year ago.
J31 Not ultra vires
8. Not every failure to comply with a specific statutory procedure renders all action
taken under that procedure ultra vires.
9. In R v SSHD. ex varte Jeveanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354 the Court of Appeal held
(1) in determining the consequence of non-compliance with a procedural
requirement the court had to consider the language of the legislation
and the legislator's intention against the factual situation and seek to
do what was just in all the circumstances;
(2) that, in the majority of cases, an inquiry whether the requirement was
"mandatory" or "directory" was of limited assistance;
(3) that a more just and intended result could usually be achieved by
asking whether
the requirement was fulfilled by substantial compliance with it
and, if so, whether there had been substantial compliance,
whether the non-compliance was capable of being waived and,
if so, whether it could or should be waived, and if it was not
capable of being, or had not been, waived, what the
consequence was of the non-compliance [see, e.g. p.3621
(4) Lord Woolf M.R. at p.359G-H held that procedural requirements are
designed to further the interests of justice and any consequence
which would achieve a contrary result should be treated with
considerable reservation. He also stated that "Because of what can be
the very undesirable consequences of a procedural requirement which
is made so fundamental that any departure from the requirement
makes everything that happens thereafter irreversibly a nullity it is to
be hoped that provisions intended to have this effect will be few and
far between."
See also their Lordships judgments at 358A-G, 359A-C and 362C-F.
10. In the present case what is said to be missing is the date of issue of the notice.
However, parking tickets did contain the date, time and place of the
contravention and the identity of the officer who witnessed that contravention.
Further, in Tunbridge Wells parking tickets are always issued on the date of the
contravention. See the letter of 29 March 2006 from the Defendant to the
Claimant, which states:
"In Tunbridge Wells, the date of issue can only be the same as the date of contravention
because we are only able to issue a PCN by either attaching it to the windscreen of the
vehicle or handing it to the driver. The date of issue would only differ from the date of
contravention in some London Boroughs where they may send a PCN through the post
to a driver, for example, for driving along a bus lane."
1 1. Following the Court of Appeal's test in Jeyeanthan (above):
(1) the procedural requirement that the Claimant know the date of issue
of the notice has been substantially complied with. As the Claimant
has always known of the date, time and place of the contravention
and as parking tickets in Tunbridge Wells are always issued on the
same date of the contravention, then in reality the Claimant has
always known the date on which Tunbridge Wells says the notice
was issued. There is no prejudice whatsoever to the Claimant. This
challenge is a purely technical one.
(2) Any issue of non-compliance with this requirement was waived by
the Claimant as he was clearly aware of the parking ticket issued
against him, and paid it without any compliant to have been
prejudiced by any procedural irregularity.
12. It is notable that the Claimant has never advanced a substantive ground of
challenge against the parking tickets. He has never put forward an explanation
to say that he was not substantively liable for those parking tickets.
J41 No retrospective nullitv
13. Even if the tickets were issued ultra vires, that does not imply retrospective
nullity. As explained by the leading text on Administrative Law:
"The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order only if the right
remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances" Wade
and Forsythe, Principles of Administrative Law (8" ed. 1994) 306,3 12.
14. Further, as explained by Lewis, Judicial Remedies in Public Law, 05-025
[attached] it is now well recognised that recognition of an act as ultra vires does
not necessarily lead to it being declared a retrospective nullity; void/ voidable
are relative concept and do not necessarily confer absolute and retrospective
nullity. This explains much of the machinery associated with review of
administrative actions, for example:
Judicial review time limits and statutory limitation periods, for example
for appealing; if a finding of ultra vires necessarily led to retrospective
nullity then such time limits or limitation periods would be irrelevant.
Other procedural hurdles such as standing; again if ultra vires led to
automatic retrospective nullity then there would be no need to consider
the standing of a litigant.
The fundamental nature of judicial review remedies as being
discretionary in nature; they can be refused for example on grounds that
relief would be futile or that the issue is academic.
The very fact that there can be a right of or a requirement to appeal
against an ultra vires act, as in the present case.
15. This fundamental framework of judicial review of administrative action is also
backed up by countless cases, for example the House of Lords decision in
London & Clvdeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council [l9801 1 WLR 182.
Lord Hailsham held at p. 187 that a procedural defect had the effect (at most) that
a decision was "effective until it was struck down by a competent authority".
Lord Fraser held at p. 194:
"the effect of the omission in this case was to make the certificate invalid in
the sense that it cannot stand, if challenged by the appellants. It is not a
complete nullity - for example it could have been appealed against by an
appeal taken timeously - and it exists until it is reduced, or set aside in some
151 Restitutionarv claim is bad in event
16. Even if all the above is wrong then the Court would need to work out what cause
of action the Claimant is asserting. It is clearly not contract or tort. It is
submitted that the only cause of action will be one in restitution. However any
such claim would fail for any of the following reasons.
(1) There was no unlawful demand. The demand was lawful: the
Claimant's vehicle was seen on a date, time and location which
7 amounted to a parking offence.
(2) This is also relevant to the issue of unjust enrichment. In the present
case there was nothing unjust about the Defendant seeking to recover
parking fines in circumstances where the Claimant has not at any
point said that he was not actually responsible for the commission of
the offences. The Claimant's only case appears to be that he has
spotted a loophole and wishes to take advantage of that loophole.
The Claimant has not shown that any enrichment would be unjust.
To put the matter simply, the Claimant cannot claim unjust
enrichment if he is actually guilty of the -offence in any event.
(3) The Defendant could bring a defence of voluntary acceptance to any
restitutionary claim. The Claimant has voluntarily accepted the
procedural omission and paid the fine without appealing.
1 parked illegally - 'surely that should be parked whilst in breach
of the regulations and so a contravention'


wrong - see moses JR

how can you 'waive non compliance' ?

your claim is restitution

its not a loophole - it is the law !

etc etc
Wayne Pendle
There are also numerable references to an 'offence'
Well done, a fine piece of analysis and example to many.
Many issues, the response or defence skeleton is a tatter, that can be broken on most if not almost every point.
Start with their semantics on

The Claimants car was parked illegally in Tunbridge Wells

Which shows if they like you it's a contravention, and if not it's illegal. Watch how they mangle language. Teufel and Wayne, (The best there are), are perfectly accurate, illegally and offence are NOT the permitted language. See how they use it against you? If they can say that, then you can go the whole hog with naming minor acts of ignoring statute as offences of malfeasance with accompanying malice aforethought. They can't have it both ways. Either treat it as contraventions or offences, once the framework is accepted then you convert all your semantics to match theirs. SERIATIM.

The location (within the UK HR ACt section 6 derogating the EU HR P5,6) under the EU HR Protocol 5 article 6 does not say where the fair and public trial must be carried out, forget that argument, they simply don't like being away from home, --- their comfortable place at the adjudicators where bias has its day.
Ultra vires payments are a contravention of the Audit Act 1998 section 17.1, and DO imply retrospective refunds, becasue it's illegal for a public institution to retain such funds.
Knowingly ignoring statute, and rulings IS malfeasance and nonfeasance, in the same way and much stronger than a mere contravention mostly carried out by error of judgement.

The comparison is a brief contravention in good faith, as opposed to, an act or omission in bad faith, constructed over a period of time, discussed within a team, and biased with zeal for revenue, to retain unlawful revenue. Essentially malice aforethought if you see it in plain view. I could go on and on. Each point of the defence can be shown to be NO defence at all.
Good work for all of us who see contraventions belonging to the same class of conferring subtractions on the electorate that expect much much better from so called authority.. Please keep us advised, and see a pm.
The court is in my view the ONLY place to take these deplorable bulk white collar muggings. The courts rulings will , like Jackson's, get these councils and their adjudicators boxed into legitimate frameworks.

PS, important, don't let it get away.
Their attempt to undermine your integrity for multiple “illegal offences” can be annihilated by an obvious counter argument. Can you think of it?
They probably issue some 4,000 PCN per week, making them MUCH BIGGER operators on all levels in the matter of multiple offences. Tell them to think out their arguements in a balanced framework of TRUTH & JUSTICE rather than suppress their (0000, s) errors as trivia, and make yours (paltry ones) a calamity.
Wayne Pendle
Very interesting Tony. Another one for the sticky board as I think we could all learn alot from this.
Hi Wayne, nice to hear from you & thanks for your recent pointers for one of my local cases. I have another Q re that on pm.

Meantime, I have added quite a few, behind the scenes work to the side columns of both sites, you may find it worth a revisit. Look over the new right hand columns near completed with their links. The Caselaw and maxims are sets of legal rulings with which to frame these people back in their pens to conform with principles of justice and truth. They support representations to compel thinking towards upright principles. Thereare some layghs too. Didge has them through a pm.

I am shortly adding the near complete list of arguments & rebuttals for those like Didge, to use. eg the one I did last post on the PS, where the defendant tries to derogate the claimants character, their being beyond the pale themselves.
A few suggestions on how to tackle the skeletal.........

1. The Claimants car was parked illegally
The defendant's paperwork is illegal, ie; contrary to statute. Secton 66, --3. © without TWWO expressed dates, it thwarts statute,Jackson ruling Barnet V Moses. It cannot ALWAYS be the case that parking tickets are issued on the same date as contraventions, Jackson AND PATAS rulings indicate prejudice can occur when contravention occur at 11.59 PM on say a Monday, making it impossible to issue on the same day.

The claim should be dismissed for any of the following reasons.
(1) The County Court is not the appropriate forum

Forums are not the place for challenges of any kind; Statute determines hearings at Adjudicator's locations, but only where compliant documentation is under discussion. The paperwork in question is non compliant.

(2) The Claimant, by paying the parking fine and not appealing, has
&M voluntarily accepted the validity of the fine.

Where did you get that idea? The claimant is disputing the matter at the county court, BECAUSE he didn't consent the validity of the fine. Nobody pays a fine, voluntarily, payment was made simply to stop the fine increasing in measure. Technical defects DO render tickets unenforceable,tickets aren't ultra vires, simply compliant or NON compliant, this is the latter.

(4) Even if the tickets were considered to be ultra vires, that does not imply
retrospective nullity.
An interesting notion, so by that rule, if a person exacts money from me, beyond their powers, I cannot ask for it back. I thought that was called mugging. { What planet are your from? Not the proper response, just for amusement}

(5) Any restitutionary claim is bad in any event

Bad? Bad for who? Certainly not bad for me to ask for my money back. Would't the defendant ask for their money back if they had been penalised unlawfully? .....
BAD and GOOD, are to do with morality, and three Judges back for me, I was told by that Judge, the Court doesn't deal with morals. An arguable point,since laws are derived from customs of morality. Nevertheless, if that is so,then the correct place to discuss BAD is perhaps a forum, since the defendant has forums in mind I suggest they go there and discuss that issue. Here we are discussing compliance within a statutory frameworks, and breaches of that thousands of times weekly.

3. The County Court is not the appropriate forum
Forums aren't the place for challenges, ( repeating themselves ). An adjudicators hearing doesn't have the relevant powers to treat the matter of injustice 'intra vires'. PCN compliance has been treated at PATAS many times,and as Jackson's ruling states, been ignored..........

4. The time limit for appeals..........

This is not an appeal, for the alleged offence, its a dispute of ticket compliance with statute. PATAS rule years ago on this,and it continued to be ignored. That's why it ended up inthe High Court.

5. It is wrong for the Claimant to seek to bypass the Tribunal set up by Parliament
This is not about right or wrong, these again are issues of morality, and not for a court.........., it's about statutory compliance or NOT.
So now it's not a forum, it's a tribunal..... is it? Parliament did not set up tribunals to hear appeals where the penalising authority for many years, at a a rate of thousands per week, were provided with a statutory framework to work within, not outside of it.

6. It is "an abuse of process to ignore the primary mode of challenge

It's certainly an abuse of process to ignore statute, as has been done by the defendant thousands of times,and has been ruled on by Justice Jackson.
re: Boake Allen Ltd v IRC [2006] EWCA Civ 25 per Sedley LJ at [97].
this may need a little perusal BUT...... From that transcript......
148. The appellants submitted, in the alternative, that they have a restitutionary cause of action based on a mistake of law."

As per the above from that case, the claimant IS NOT claiming a mistake in law when he paid the penalty. This was for the purpose of preventing an escalation of the penalty with restitution in mind at another hearing, location and fair and public accordance with NO derogation on the part of the UK HR 1998 (section 6 (6), ?? off the top of my head) towards the EUHR convention protocols.

Point 10. is false, misdirection, laughable and ignores Jackson, and the issue referred to in WOOLF can be turned upside down to confute the defendant, who appears to be an equivocater, like most, able to equivocate on both sides of the scale against the other, but not against statute, or truth. I think they SHOULD have a hard time making all this stick, especially since every point is a diversion from Justice Jackson's suling, so why don't they call him backto re-discuss it all, and get him to DEEM thir PCNs are compiant substantially, that's what they do when bending rules and showing bias. Pass mark is 45, but 43 is substantially a pass so why not make it a pass? Now I had a funny notion, when statute says MUST, it means MUST as in mandamus, mandatory, not perhaps 'if you fancy'. Watch them twist and turn with semantics. Just apply the laws of thought, the law of identity says a thing is itself and nothing else, so if compliance with statute IS COMPLIANCE it can't be substantually compliant, that's something else, its near the mark but not on the mark. I'm quite fed up with this sophistry aren't you? Law of excluded middle, either it's compliant or not compliant, no middle option. and Law of non contradiction, it cannot be both compliant and non compliant (ie;substantially compliant, which is NOT compliant.... Do they get it now, do you think or perhaps they prefer to come up with some new laws of thought for us to consider.?). 'Ceteris paribus' of course.

I didn't get a pm reply, so I will let it rest here....
I hope this is a help along the way, the rest can be tackled in like manner with the right hat-function on. I don't think at first sight the defendant's languages is very sophisticated, and references to case law, always can be the subject of counter references. That's a matter for more research.
I suggest you look at my pages on maxims, and case law references to find counters.
The forum here dosn't like my giving own urls, so use the pm url I gave you. Othere readers will have to guess at it. Not my stipulation, the restriction makes me a lesser contributor since I can't re print all my pages here for lack of space. I only particiapate here if inclined.
Pheasant Plucker
In submitting the revised claim to the COunty Court, the claimant may want to consider whether to claim that the behaviour of the defendant was fraudulent - this related to the ultra vires element of the claim. If a public body knowingly continues to demand payment when it has no authority to do so it is committing fraud.
it is not a mistke of law - the law was passed in 1991and is clear

it is a mistake of fact of compliance with the law

prior to the moses JR a cliams court might have been the wrong
forum for determining the mistake of fact but post moses
this is not tenable
YES, all absolutely correct..........
Ultimately there's only ONE question to answer.
IS the PCN compliant or NOT, in respect of the two date issue re Jackson. If the answer is NO or NOT, then everything that follows is a nullity and unenforceable. The payment was non consensual, and illegally obtained. Kindly hand it back, plus costs. Do the same to allof us too.....that is hand it back!
Don't move away from the straight answer to the question of compliance YES or NO.

Perhaps you ought to have challenged it in PATAS first, but the comment of an abuse of process can be answered by, ---- PATAS rarely if ever orders restitution, and would be acting ultra vires to instruct on it, bearing in mind the magnitude of the issue being of principle in the rule of law, this has to be a higher court, since it affects many, AND both the ALG and Jackson had consequences in mind when they advised appeals to not be enforced where non compliant. PATAS is the appropriate place to challenge a PCN within its framework, but not the appropriate mode or location of challenge of PCNs that are external to the framework set up by Parliament. IE, Exactions from nullities.

The defence skeletal is a skeleton only.......... no flesh on it, save equivocation and diversion. It's like a student sitting a two hour exam, unable to answer the question (in this case for obvious reasons of commercial consequence). And then turns to 'padding' his answer to fill the time. The Judges final..... Case has no merit..... I have heard this before. It has merit because it concerns millions of motorists and the electorate. On what grounds does the Judge rely on to support that view? Is it a Civil Procedure Rule, if so which one? Or if h simply feels it is not the correct place, then how was it that Justice Jackson's Ruling was of merit, and required the HIGH court? High Court rulings are to be followed in lower courts. The defendants have no doubt made their PCN's compliant, if so that is the admission they were non compliant. Also they can look forward to a rosy safe future of plundering us all within statute, but for the time being they must purge their contempt of due process this past ten years.....????

Anticipate defeat, but while doing so, JUDGE those who determine the outcome and carefully note how they achieve it. That in itlsef is knowing what has been done, and not coming away confused about the ways of British Justice, where the term Justice is mosly absent, except where used as a prefix to names.
Excellent stuff, may also come in very handy with my claim for restitution so thanks for posting. Tony, if it's not too much trouble could you also PM me the url mentioned? I'm getting a real taste for this now.
Im due in court this friday and the council have submitted a defence which replicates the judges judgement in this case. Im fairly confident with the two dates and Judge jackson ruling but would appreciate any help in regard to abuse of process. Thankyou, Jayne
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.