There is no such thing as a PARKING FINE - please read

HO87

Quite.

We are all entitled to our opinions but I'm sure that we would all agree that our aim here, collectively, is to support and defend our rights.

However, in order to defend our rights in a meaningful way we need to know them and, as important, know how the "system" works. Basing views on, with respect, conflation and misunderstanding does not enable anyone to defend anything. It is rather like knowing that steel rusts and eventually crumbles and on that basis attempting to use fire hoses to defend oneself against tanks.

As a final example please research how "informations" are "laid" and transformed into summonses before you attempt to conclude that what a local council did in issuing a summons in the name of the court was in some way contrary to the law. It might seem odd but it is a perfectly normal and legal process and doesn't undermine our rights.

You have asked on several occasions to have examples of where you have drawn unwarranted conclusions. A number of these have been pointed out but you have chosen to pass these over or, seemingly, simply ignored them.

Is there any point in further debate?

Rover_Driver

screwbiedooo wrote: »

I am glad you are able to reply in some substance.

1) There exists a hierarchy of statutes in our body of law. At the top are constitutional statutes which may not be nullified via implied repeal by any newer statute lower down that hierarchy. i.e. (be glad) the guarantees of due process of law are still extant and overrule any statute that attempts to say otherwise (eg TMA 2004). There is hence no way anyone can fine you without a prosecution. Penalties are by definition contractual obligations defined in penalty clauses and agreed by contracting parties in advance.

2) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff must find the owner. Starting with the keeper is sensible but since no records are kept by government on car ownership they cannot prove they are one and the same - unless you voluntarily own up. You do not have to.

3) Bailiffs still do not have right to force entry to a property. At least, I have yet to hear of such a situation in a PCN case.

1/ PCN penalties are nothing to do with contracts.

2/ Nothing to do with burden of proof, if the registered keeper is not the owner, they can say who is. If they don't, they could be considered to be 'the person appearing to be the owner', and dealt with as such.

3/ That is why bailiffs clamp vehicles that are outside prperties.

screwbiedooo

!

HO87 wrote: »

However, in order to defend our rights in a meaningful way we need to know them and, as important, know how the "system" works. Basing views on, with respect, conflation and misunderstanding does not enable anyone to defend anything. I

Well, I'm simply not basing my views on conflation or misunderstanding, but personal experience, certain principles of law and common sense. I am trying as best I can to lay out the system for anyone present to understand.

It is rather like knowing that steel rusts and eventually crumbles and on that basis attempting to use fire hoses to defend oneself against tanks.

There is a lot to be said for that premise. In fact it is the core conviction of Fabianism and akin to the gradualist approach by which the ‘banksters’ are now taking over absolutely everything.

As a final example please research how "informations" are "laid" and transformed into summonses before you attempt to conclude that what a local council did in issuing a summons in the name of the court was in some way contrary to the law. It might seem odd but it is a perfectly normal and legal process and doesn't undermine our rights.

I have the procedure in writing from a justice in front of me. Does the Justices' Clerks Society's calling it legal make it right or lawful? If a court is impartial and equitable how can it confer privileges upon particular claimants and not all; or confer privileges upon claimants that it would never allow defendants (such as using letterheads, trademarks, or signatures of court officials)?

My further objection is the privatisation of justice and government, which is creeping along nicely, without any particular precedent or requirement in the public interest, debate or legislation, and in my view all utterly vile. It is one thing for a council to pose as a court, quite another for a private corporation to do so - a corporation whose services you never signed up for and whose name and address you are not even aware of...

You have asked on several occasions to have examples of where you have drawn unwarranted conclusions. A number of these have been pointed out but you have chosen to pass these over or, seemingly, simply ignored them.

Much of what I have said is either self-evident, such as ‘a wall will keep a bailiff out’. Other things are easily corroborated by yourself over internet. But if I must spoon feed you I will try!

I have no way to prove to you that the Chief parking officer of NSL/Westminster Council referred to parking enforcement as an industry. I am trying to get in touch with him again. It is however, self-evident if you search the following:

For Westminster (back office, issuing Notices, payment processing, orders for recovery, all correspondence etc.): Vertex Data Science,
Tel 01375 366695
Mobile 077711354077, email [EMAIL="pamela.lunn@vertex.co.uk"]pamela.lunn@vertex.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Ring them up and ask them!

You can even visit their lovely building at 9 Fodderty Way, Dingwall on Google streets, and tell me how much it looks like a court.

For Westminster and 59 other councils (civil enforcement officers): NSL Ltd www.nsl.co.uk

Read about their incentive schemes here:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/westminster-parking-storm-reward-points-for-wardens-to-trap-motorists-6365941.html

At the risk of 'conflation':-

you can also visit

Mouchel (Wandsworth and dozens of others) www.mouchel.com
Capita, who work under the tradename of DVLA, http://www.capita.co.uk/investors/Pages/rns-investor-news.aspx?id=1820
www.capita.co.uk
IBM (UK) Ltd who do Congestion Charge under the tradename of TfL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/26/environment.congestioncharging

You may see the Constitutional Acts that guarantee, in perpetuity your rights to due process here:

Magna Carta

Much of MC has been repealed. The part we care about has not. It says:

XXIX
"No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or Liberties or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor Condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

[author's note. If you are not a Freeman these rights are invalid.]
Bill of Rights Act 1689, and the pertinent section is :

"All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

As to whether these "perpetual" statutes are repealed by TMA 2004, please see

http://slr.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/iii.extract
Thoburn v Sunderland city Council

The implication of this has not been raised before, to my knowledge, simply because uder our uncodified constitution it has been entirely taken for granted until now, when it comes to privatising justice - of course repugnant to those principles.

As to whether you are "obliged" to register your vehicle with DVLA. Firstly, registration is a voluntary act of will. Who, can make you register something lest it be under duress. Is ours a government by duress or consent?

There are thousands of foreign-plated cars in the UK. They are not in breach of law. They are not impounded. They are immune from road taxes and other DVLA/Capita interference since they are not registered (part-owned by) the DVLA*. This is why you are encouraged by strong iimplication that you must, to register with them, but no-one can force you.

* This is not to say if you leave a car abandoned in the middle of the road the DVLA/Capita might not cart it off. Far more likely though that the police would.

NB This situation will not last long. I speculate EU legislation will soon be in place to integrate road traffic enforcement across the EU. That will make the same rules and regulations applicable to any car in any member state. They are currently only sharing keeper details under (for our part) Local Transport Act 2008, with no international enforcement treaties.

The power of bailiffs is described here, where you can read all about their terrifying power to walk through a doorway that you have opened to them or a window you have left open for them. Their ability to clamp and whisk away your vehicle has been dealt with previously. (although there are many resources online for dealing with clamps!)

Here are some definitions for you, (taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/, legal section)

penalty n.
charge n.
notice n.
fine n.
conviction n.
criminal n.
civil n.

IF ANYONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A PARKING FINE I DEFY THEM TO SCAN IT AND POST IT UP ON THIS BOARD!

Is there any point in further debate?

^^^ your strapline says it best.

Coupon-mad

Bored now.

I am sure a newbie will never read that!

Easiest advice is to tell newbies who have a fake PCN that they should just ignore it, unless they get real sealed Court papers (and unless it's a lease/hire/company car).

Stephen_Leak

I miss Perky.

trisontana

It's like sitting next to one of those nutters at a bus-stop who ramble on about nothing.

screwbiedooo

Rover_Driver wrote: »

1/ PCN penalties are nothing to do with contracts.

2/ Nothing to do with burden of proof, if the registered keeper is not the owner, they can say who is. If they don't, they could be considered to be 'the person appearing to be the owner', and dealt with as such.

3/ That is why bailiffs clamp vehicles that are outside prperties.

Starting to sound like a hypnotic mantra with you folks, eeks. Since parking enforcement was privatised, sorry decriminalised, enforcement passed from the realm of state indictment to civil justice.

Civil justice is about redress between two independent parties. Nothing to do with the state/crown. Civil 'due process' goes like this:

1. Complaint (by plaintiff)
2. Answer (from defendant)
3. Trial (at court)

(this can be verified online, try jurisdictionary.com)

Let me give you an example of a civil suit.

1. You promise to mow the village green to the President of the WI, for her games day. She passes you £50 for doing it. You don't do it. She files a complaint at court. What happens?

2. The President of the WI asks you to mow the village green for her games day. You are busy and you tell her no. She files a complaint at court. What happens?

In the first case you have an obligation to perform, based upon a promise, oath, covenant or contract that you entered into of your own volition. The judge is going to hold you accountable for that promise, oath, covenant or contract and apply a penalty to you of the losses you are seen to have caused and award it to the plaintiff: her £50, plus the petrol costs of all the good ladies who wasted their afternoon and the costs of the sandwiches and coffee that went cold.

In the second case you did nothing different, except you HAD NOT entered into a promise, oath, covenant or contract with her. What will the judge say? He won't even let it come to trial, because she cannot show him a shred of evidence you had any obligation to have performed. Because no-one can force you to.

So where is the proof of the promise you made to Bromley council that you would only park your car at certain times in certain places? There are only: street signs and the Traffic Management Act 2004. Do the street signs stipulate penalties applicable to you and do you have to agree to them? (NB. if you are a free human being you never HAVE to agree with anything). In keeping with the example above hose penalties must be in keeping with the degree of provable loss that you incur upon a plaintiff. This does not preclude you from parking since a) parking is a lawful and necessary activity, a necessity upon the operator of a motor vehicle since not to do so would involve exhaustion of fuel supplies or collision with other motor vehicles, street furniture or human beings causing damage to property and possibly loss of life. b) the roadside you are parking upon is a public right of way and belongs to you, since you paid the road tax that paid for it and not to the council or private corporation who are demanding redress for non-performance, as if it were their own private property.

You will note that due process is not allowed in the PCN game. For a good reason - none of it could stand at law or pass trial - because you cannot be shown to have entered into any promise, oath, covenant or contract of your own volition, and then failed to perform it, incurring losses upon the other party. It only works by duress and the zombie-like response of the public of "I must obey,'.

In what other area of law is proof disregarded? If you are found speeding by the police they cannot successfully prosecute you without evidence you were driving. How is it then that without any evidence he/she was responsible or any evidence of any agreement to hold such a liability, the 'person appearing to be the owner'' was the one who parked the car?

If a man is found dead strangled to death by a Paul Smith scarf, is Paul Smith carted off to prison without a trial?

If you wish to slavishly obey other people's rules under duress, and make another billionaire, go ahead, but some of us don't.

notts_phil

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

I miss Perky.

Perky tries so hard.

He is one of those people who get convinced by their own lies

Oopsadaisy

I'm still trying to think of a better description than 'fruit loop'.


How about total ****ing fruit loop???

Stephen_Leak

notts_phil wrote: »

Perky tries so hard.

He is one of those people who get convinced by their own lies

At least his posts were shorter.