Wrongfully Accused

donboon

Sirdan wrote: »

PS Can you tell us where is this human rights legislation you refer to ?"

I can think of this one: The right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters (page 3);something my mother hasn't been given.
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/BB10719C-D747-4862-AE44-8A54D9B316D5/0/ENG_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Sirdan

donboon wrote: »

I can think of this one: The right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters (page 3);something my mother hasn't been given.
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/BB10719C-D747-4862-AE44-8A54D9B316D5/0/ENG_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Not so every owner of a vehicle has the legal right to appeal to an independent hearing.
In this case however the opportunity to exercise that right was removed by the actions of a third party and as such they are responsible for any breach of Human Rights not the "system" per se.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that your step-father was not able to see this for what it was i.e. a fixed financial penalty with NO other consequences.
There is no criminal record,no impact on insurance or driving licence or anything else . You appeal, you lose, you pay and who's name is on it really matters not one jot. With hindsight he could have just paid it and never told anyone and no one would ever have known.

donboon

Sirdan wrote: »

Not so every owner of a vehicle has the legal right to appeal to an independent hearing.
In this case however the opportunity to exercise that right was removed by the actions of a third party and as such they are responsible for any breach of Human Rights not the "system" per se.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that your step-father was not able to see this for what it was i.e. a fixed financial penalty with NO other consequences.
There is no criminal record,no impact on insurance or driving licence or anything else . You appeal, you lose, you pay and who's name is on it really matters not one jot. With hindsight he could have just paid it and never told anyone and no one would ever have known.

I understand the point you’re making but disagree on the fundamental principles you use.
First, my step-father doesn’t have the right to remove my mother’s individual right to a fair hearing. She is compos mentis and has not assigned power of attorney to anyone.

Second, the Council being a legal authority comes within the law and has to respect my mother’s right to a fair hearing. They may have written to her but they permitted an unauthorised person to represent her and made their decision without her knowledge.

And lastly, your frivolous use of: “There is no criminal record,no impact on insurance or driving licence or anything else. You appeal, you lose, you pay and who's name is on it really matters not one jot” is hardly helpful or a mature response to a serious situation.

These people are elderly, on low income and suffer from disability which caused one person to become so overcome they attempted suicide. The costs to society for the hospitalisation and those who have to pick up the pieces far outweighs the value of the fine or the justification for imposing it in the first place.

I think it matters a lot to those who have to deal with the consequences and especially to the person who didn’t do any wrong.

Sirdan

donboon wrote: »

I understand the point you’re making but disagree on the fundamental principles you use.
First, my step-father doesn’t have the right to remove my mother’s individual right to a fair hearing. She is compos mentis and has not assigned power of attorney to anyone.

Second, the Council being a legal authority comes within the law and has to respect my mother’s right to a fair hearing. They may have written to her but they permitted an unauthorised person to represent her and made their decision without her knowledge.

And lastly, your frivolous use of: “There is no criminal record,no impact on insurance or driving licence or anything else. You appeal, you lose, you pay and who's name is on it really matters not one jot” is hardly helpful or a mature response to a serious situation.

These people are elderly, on low income and suffer from disability which caused one person to become so overcome they attempted suicide. The costs to society for the hospitalisation and those who have to pick up the pieces far outweighs the value of the fine or the justification for imposing it in the first place.

I think it matters a lot to those who have to deal with the consequences and especially to the person who didn’t do any wrong.

Let's be clear I have not said that your step father had the right ...I was stating a fact not judging the right or wrong.

Re the council I agree they should have refused to accept correspondence from anyone except the owner ,perhaps however they misunderstood your sf's role/ position in the matter.

I wasn't being in the least frivolous nor judgemental I was stating facts.
The impact of the financial penalty obviously has a differing impact on different people. Howwever it is ONLY a financial penalty there is no blight on anyone's record /character or any other consequence.
Which is why the best advice remains appeal all the way but if you lose pay ...plead hardship if you need to but def pay at this stage.

That said I sense the reason that little progress has been made thus far is due to the unwillingness or inability of both your sf and yourself to accept that however much you disagree with it the owner of the vehicle is ultimately liable for this penalty and the penalty although harshly applied in your view was actually correctly issued on the face of it.

If you can't accept those facts then I fear there is little more to be done although I would have thought your MP might be worth contacting.

For what it's worth a bailiff certainly won't give a flying f*** about your or anyone else's "fundamental principals" ...you won't stop them based on being morally and on principal right ..so you'd better get used to that fact too.
As a wise man once said "life ain't fair ..get used to it."

I have no further comment to make as I find your attitude more than a little boorish...TBH

Alexis27

donboon wrote: »

I understand the point you’re making but disagree on the fundamental principles you use.
First, my step-father doesn’t have the right to remove my mother’s individual right to a fair hearing. She is compos mentis and has not assigned power of attorney to anyone.

Second, the Council being a legal authority comes within the law and has to respect my mother’s right to a fair hearing. They may have written to her but they permitted an unauthorised person to represent her and made their decision without her knowledge.

She could have made (or can still make) a Statutory Declaration after receiving the Order of Recovery, stating she never received any Notice to Owner because it had been intercepted by a third party.

This would only be worthwhile if there a reason why the original ticket was incorrect, or the contravention did not occur.

Second, the Council being a legal authority comes within the law and has to respect my mother’s right to a fair hearing. They may have written to her but they permitted an unauthorised person to represent her and made their decision without her knowledge.

If the council did not allow any representation from the driver, it would surely be more unfair as it would be a lot harder to appeal something where they weren't present?

Something I don't understand in all this is that your step father has tried his best to appeal and acted in the best interests of your mother. He has failed and so morally should pay the money. He can legally walk away into the sunset if he wants.

esmerobbo

As regards the statutory declaration would it be allowed as the NTO was proven delivered?

It's a relatively small matter which has ballooned out of all proportion to the initial penalty. It's unfortunate that this has had such a detrimental effect on your step fathers health, as Alexis said the only way is to try the SD and hope they except it.