PCN - Received reply - WHAT NEXT??

[stemcg1983]

I received this reply from the council this week, as per my email I sent containing the template letter from TPUC
I was wondering if anyone had an idea where I should go from here.

As far as i can see, he has not acknowledged any of my concerns, he has just stated what i already knew
Can i just say to him, i need an answer before i can proceed.

Info below;

From: [Personal Information Removed by Forum Advisor]
Sent: 06 May 2009 12:42
To: Parking Services
Subject: FIXED PENALTY NOTICE AB12345678 - Issued 24/04/09


Re: FIXED PENALTY NOTICE AB12345678 - Issued 24/04/09

Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Penalty Notice and Request for Clarification.

PCN NUMBER: TMO129377


You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of God given Natural Rights.
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am stephen McGuinness and that I owe £75.00 upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that I am STEPHEN MCGUINNESS and not stephen mcguinness
5. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
6. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.
8 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within this alleged transgression state that they apply to me within that named society



Sincerely,
Stephen McGuinness

THERE RESPONSE:

Ashton-under-Lyne, Tameside, OL6 6DL

http://www.tameside.gov.uk
Ask for Parking Services
Call Centre 0161 342 8355
Direct Line 0161 342 2005
Automated payment line 0161 342 4297
Fax 0161 342 3911
email: parking.services@tameside.gov.uk

12/05/2009
Dear Steven McGuinness
Re : Notice of rejection of “challenge” – Traffic Management Act 2004

PCN No : TM01293777

Date Issued : 24/04/2009 08:03:18

Location of Contravention : QUEEN STREET, HYDE

I have received your challenge dated 06/05/2009 to the above Penalty Charge Notice and after careful considerations of the circumstances have found no grounds for the cancellation of the charge.

The PCN was correctly issued. Your vehicle was parked in contravention of the no waiting at any time restriction and also a loading restriction where the sign clearly states no loading Mon-Fri 7.30am-9.30am 4pm-6.30pm, marked by the double yellow lines and the single kerb tab. As per the Department for Transport Explanatory notes you must not park during the time a ban on loading or unloading is in force (normally indicated by one or two yellow marks on the kerb at the time shown on post mounted plates). Your reasons are therefore not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the PCN.

The enforcement of parking control in Tameside is in accordance with the detailed of comprehensive legislative scheme enacted by Parliament in the Road Traffic Act 1991as amended including Traffic Management Act 2004 and applied by the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Metropolitan Borough of Tameside) Order 2007. Accordingly the scheme applies to all persons parking in the Borough without requiring any relationship with the Council or membership of any particular society.

You can still take advantage of the discounted charge of £35.00 if you pay within 14 days from 12/05/2009.

If a payment is not received by 26/05/2009 a “Notice to Owner” will be sent to the owner / keeper of the vehicle as registered with the DVLA. At this stage the discounted fee will no longer apply and the Penalty Charge Notice escalate to full charge of £70. The Notice to Owner will not be sent to the driver. If you are the driver but not the owner, and you still wish to make formal representations, you are advised to contact the owner who can respond to the Notice accordingly.


If this Council rejects the representations to the “Notice to Owner”, a notice of rejection will be sent with details of the appeal procedure. You cannot appeal to the Independent Parking Adjudicator until the “Notice to Owner” has been issued and formal representations rejected.
Please note that the discounted charge will no longer be available after 14 days and the charge will return to the original £70 if payment is not received within the period.

Yours sincerely
S.Marlborough
Parking Services

[yozhik]

You're right; your first Notice has been completely ignored.
Why not remind them kindly that you are still awaiting a response to your first Notice, as is your lawful right.

I think it is also important to rebut his statement;
I have received your challenge dated 06/05/2009

... I'm not sure of the implications of the word "challenge", but my bullshit meter went into the red and the I-smell-bullshit sniffer alarm bells were set off.

Challenge infers dispute.
Dispute is dishonour.
Repeat your initial statement that you "conditionally accept" the offer.
You have not challenged it. You have conditionally accepted it.
All you require is proof of claim.
HUGE difference between "challenging" and "conditonally accepting".
Emphasise this very important point.

Maybe it would be relevant to remind him in your second Notice that, as in the First Notice, you have not challenged their Notice; you have, as is your lawful right, asked for proof of claim, which to date, you have not received a response to as is lawfully required.

Do not be diverted by their deceptions.
Focus on the tasks and your lawful rights; regardless of how many tactics they try to throw you off the lawful path.

Keep calm and keep control.
Work to your time line.
Work your Notice process.
Do not hand control over to them and change to their time line and process.

Final point :)
Do your own due diligence.
Anything I post is my opinion; it is opinion only.
Not advice and certainly not "legal advice".

[pleasuredome]

this is a re-offer with some bait, they're hoping you bite for some controversy. i had this little game with the county council. i eventually just declined their re-offer after the third time with no response to my conditions. not heard back from them since.

[stemcg1983]

this is a re-offer with some bait, they're hoping you bite for some controversy. i had this little game with the county council. i eventually just declined their re-offer after the third time with no response to my conditions. not heard back from them since.

yozhik, pleasuredome, thanks a lot for your input, i really appreciate it.

[disorder2k8]

fuck them, and their law :D

[stemcg1983]

fuck them, and their law :D

damn straight mate,........fuking hell i can rap, might put out a single, to challenge all the wank out there, lol

[bones]

notice how he said it notice to owner will be sent out to the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle????

why not just say keeper as usual?

he knows more than hes letting on and is hopeing you take up the offer of 50% discount.

ide not fuck around and just demand the bill and contract which binds you to the bill....

thats all i did and he went into dishonour by not even responding at all.....


DONT GIVE IN NO MATTER WHAT THEY THROW AT YOU...:eek:

[merlincove]

Yes, i think that you should re - notice your initial letter saying that they have not noticed your points or replied to them.

Also he speaks about the traffic act, with your response, you could include something along the lines of: traffic act is only applicable to persons under the juristiction of the law society, as it is an act, a statute passed through parliament to govern those who concent to be goverened, under common law of the land as is my inailiable rights, such statute / acts do not affect me or my business as i do not give them my concent of governance. ie i have not contracted with you in this respect, my only contract is with Common Law and under common law the traffic act is not aparent.

You could word it better than that, i perhaps could word it better than that if you want to go with it and you want me to hehe

At the end of the day if they refuse to notice your claim and the final notice comes to your door, and it says there to owner / registered keeper (if dvla is the owner, and you are the registerd keeper) then just cross out 'registered keeper' - if you are given the choice then you can - and send it back as is. If they give you that choice, and they will by the sounds of their reply, then you are simply exersizing the ability to make a choise - let the owner pay the fine.

[yozhik]

Yes, i think that you should re - notice your initial letter saying that they have not noticed your points or replied to them.
Exactly!

Also he speaks about the traffic act, with your response, you could include something along the lines of: traffic act is only applicable to persons under the juristiction of the law society, as it is an act, a statute passed through parliament to govern those who concent to be goverened, under common law of the land as is my inailiable rights, such statute / acts do not affect me or my business as i do not give them my concent of governance. ie i have not contracted with you in this respect, my only contract is with Common Law and under common law the traffic act is not aparent.

IMHO ... another battle at another time.
Keep it simple ... pick one fight, win it, move to the next one.
Look to history to show great wartime leaders who have lost once opening up the battle on too many fronts.

At the end of the day if they refuse to notice your claim and the final notice comes to your door, and it says there to owner / registered keeper (if dvla is the owner, and you are the registerd keeper) then just cross out 'registered keeper' - if you are given the choice then you can - and send it back as is. If they give you that choice, and they will by the sounds of their reply, then you are simply exersizing the ability to make a choise - let the owner pay the fine.

While you're at it; why not also cross out the word "registered"?
Are you not the owner? Does being the "registered" owner mean more or less to your standing? If you claim to be the owner; can they rebut it? if not rebutted in reasonable time it is affirmed.

[merlincove]

IMHO ... another battle at another time.
Keep it simple ... pick one fight, win it, move to the next one.
Look to history to show great wartime leaders who have lost once opening up the battle on too many fronts.

Good point - i tend to be a gung ho one with these things, play it safe, one issue after another, softly softly, is the best policy, you are right :D

[stemcg1983]

cheers again guys/gals much appreciated

[stemcg1983]

And were back.........

I sent a reply to my first email i received from the council (below) after somegood advice from the people on here, and received another response from the council friday;
It is blatant again that he has just flatly ignored my requests. I am going to over emphesise this in my next reply in big bold letters. To say my replys have been ''informal'' is ludicrous
Any more tips from anyone. as you might notice i didn't d othe best jobin converting the origional into my own words, lol

This tme though they have included some pictures, will that have any negative affects on my part?:

From: [Personal Information Removed]
Sent: 18 May 2009 11:34
To: Parking Services
Subject: RE: PCN NO: TM01293777
Importance: High

Hi,
Thank you for you reply to my email concerning the PCN I received on 24/04/09
TMO1293777
Registration: R259MVO

I still have a few issues regarding your reply.
You stated ‘’ I have received your challenge dated 06/05/2009’’, I am not challenging your notice, I conditionally accept this.
All I am enquiring is proof of claim.

Let me please emphasise this point, there is a big difference between "challenging" and "conditionally accepting".
Please can I remind you, as in the First Notice, I have not challenged their Notice; I have, as is your lawful right, asked for proof of claim, which to date, you have not received a response to as is lawfully required.

So I enclose my first initial notice below, please be aware that you have not noticed my points or replied to them as of yet.

You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them.
I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of God given Natural Rights.
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.
I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am Stephen McGuinness and that I owe £75.00 upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that I am STEPHEN MCGUINNESS and not stephen mcguinness
5. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
6. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.
8 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within this alleged transgression state that they apply to me within that named society
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

Sincerely,
Stephen McGuinness



THERE RESPONSE:

22/05/2009
Dear Steven McGuinness
Re: Notice of rejection of “challenge” – Traffic Management Act 2004
PCN No: TM01293777
Date Issued: 24/04/2009 08:03:18
Location of Contravention : QUEEN STREET, HYDE
I refer to your recent correspondence in conjunction with the above Penalty Charge Notice. I note this is the second correspondence you have made prior to the Notice to Owner being sent out to yourself.

Please see below for all pictures taken at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued showing the Penalty Charge Notice fixed to the windscreen of the vehicle.

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/88980259ea_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzM4ODQ=)

As previously stated in our letter dated 12/05/2009 the enforcement of parking control in Tameside is in accordance with the detailed of comprehensive legislative scheme enacted by Parliament in the Road Traffic Act 1991as amended including Traffic Management Act 2004 and applied by the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Metropolitan Borough of Tameside) Order 2007. Accordingly the scheme applies to all persons parking in the Borough without requiring any relationship with the Council or membership of any particular society.

After careful consideration of the facts that you presented on your original letter, we were unable to waive the Penalty Charge Notice that had been issued. The challenge you have made up to this point has been “informal” and only becomes “formal” when a Notice to Owner is sent to the owner of the vehicle with details of how to make a “formal” challenge.

The Notice to Owner is issued after 28days from the Issue date of the Penalty Charge Notice.

Once a decision is made prior to the Notice to Owner we are unable to change the outcome. This would technically mean the first decision was incorrect which would be unfair. All our decisions are audited and must be consistent in lines with the legislation.

Your case is due to progress to the full charge of £70 as the discounted period will expire on 27/05/2009. However if you make payment within 14 days of the date of this letter I can confirm I will allow the discounted fee of £35 to be paid.
I trust you find this information useful
Yours sincerely
S.Marlborough
Parking Services

[merlincove]

Hey steve

you are right, they are not noticing your notice points, bar the one re society.

You didn't include: upon proof of claim that a contract exists between us, signed in person by both parties.

i think that point is important, i'm sorry if you did include that point and i have missread it?

ps, also sent you an email to the email in your post :-)

all the best mate

lee

[bones]

just keep sending them the same replys ,,

you must state on every notice i will pay upon proof of claim
i.e conditional acceptance!!

if you state this they cannot increase the ammount cos you have agreed to pay..

ALLWAYS AGREE TO PAY!!!

[yozhik]

I'm a little intrigued by this;

After careful consideration of the facts that you presented on your original letter, we were unable to waive the Penalty Charge Notice that had been issued. The challenge you have made up to this point has been “informal” and only becomes “formal” when a Notice to Owner is sent to the owner of the vehicle with details of how to make a “formal” challenge.

The Notice to Owner is issued after 28days from the Issue date of the Penalty Charge Notice.

I would like to fully comprehend the distinction they are making between "informal" and "formal".

I am also interested in whether the Notice to Owner is sent to the owner or the keeper. :)

[merlincove]

I'm a little intrigued by this;



I would like to fully comprehend the distinction they are making between "informal" and "formal".

I am also interested in whether the Notice to Owner is sent to the owner or the keeper. :)

Yeah, that was very interestin

[yozhik]

INFORMAL. Lacking in form; not according to formal rules or requirements.

FORMALITY. The conditions which must be observed in making contracts, and the words which the law gives to be used in order to render them valid; it also signifies the conditions which the law requires to make regular proceedings.

Seems that the "crime" you are guilty of is sending them a letter that challenged their PCN, that did not adhere to their rules and requirements. So they could not recognise it because it did not follow their policy.

Their response would appear to be an explanation that they can not respond to your letter because it does not "fit" within the policy guidelines.

No shit!

Theirs is policy; yours is law. :)

Not sure why they keep insisting on your letter being a challenge.
Keep pushing that you are not "challenging"; you are conditionally accepting. :)

Challenging is an attempt to create dispute.
A nice little trap they are hoping to ensnare you in. ;)

Some more interesting legalese;

INFORMALITY. The want of those forms required by law. Informality is a good ground for a plea in abatement.

ABATEMENT. pleading, is the overthrow of an action in consequence of some
error committed in bringing or conducting it when the plaintiff is not
forever barred from bringing another action. 1 Chit. Pl. 434. Abatement is
by plea. There can be no demurrer in abatement. Willes' Rep. 479; Salk.
220.
2. Pleas in abatement will be considered as relating, 1, to the
jurisdiction of the court; 2, to the person of the plaintiff; 3, to that of
the defendant; 4, to the writ; 5, to the qualities of such pleas ; 6, to the
form of such pleas; 7, to the affidavit of the truth of pleas in abatement.

[stemcg1983]

some good points again guys/gals.

i am gonna work on draft tomorrow, cheers again much appreciated

[yozhik]

Remember, I am NOT a lawyer, so this can not be deemed advice or taken as accurate.

After spending minimal time on this, my "gut" feeling is the reason the terms "informal" and "formal" were introduced is to lay foundation for "plea in abatement".

Plea In Abatement

It is a pleading by the defendant, as a response to the plaintiff's claim, where the defendant does not object to the claims but objects to its form or time or place thereby having an excuse for which a judge should consider before proclaiming a sentence as that may affect the decision. This is also known as dilatory plea where the judge considers the merits of each party. However, its not a defeat for the plaintiff because, once the judge finds the defendant guilty, the plaintiff can file the lawsuit again in proper form, time and place.

[alternative_answer]

Have a read of this from TPUC http://www.tpuc.org/node/569

[stemcg1983]

Have a read of this from TPUC http://www.tpuc.org/node/569

yea i have cheers, i posted this same thread on TPUC and didn't even get any replies.

[stemcg1983]

And were back.........

Yet another stupid reply from this plonker at the council.
Am i right in thinking they have yet again just ignored my requests, and just passed this on to a later stage ie: notice to owner.

A notice to owner is normaly sent to people who dont contact the council in any form, as so to get the ''owners'' attention and to get them to notice.
He says i need to wait to appeal, am i appealing, i am conditionally accepting there offer am i not.

So if i am right, they are basicly dismissing anything i have requesated and just sent me this NTO.
But yet he still insits i can pay.

First my reply back to the previous response i received on page 2 of this thread. BIG THANX TO MERLINCOVE FOR THE HELP ONM THIS

From: [Personal Information Removed]
Sent: 26 May 2009 11:17
To: Parking Services
Subject: RE: PCN NO: TM01293777



To, S Marlborough and to whom it may concern.

Please find this email in response to your notice ref: PCN NO: TM01293777

Reiteration of Notice of clarification.

Your previous letter dated 22/05/09 did not address my previous mail in any respect.

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says. It asks for clarification of your document, without which I can not fulfil the duties you request of me under clear lawful remit.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of Inalienable Natural Rights as a sovereign under God alone.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am Stephen McGuinness and that I owe £75.00 upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that a contract exists between us signed in person by both parties establishing a debt in the first instance.
2. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
5. Upon proof of claim that I am MR. STEPHEN MCGUINNESS as addressed in your letter and not Stephen of the family mcguinness
6. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
7. Upon proof of claim that you can supply a bill for the alleged debt.
8. Upon proof of claim that the bill has been signed by you in this effect under full liability of perjury.
9. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
10. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.

I reiterate my point again in this matter: I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am the legal fiction MR STEPHEN MCGUINNESS and that I owe the sum stated in your notice. I am offering conditional agreement. This removes all controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate.

I have now asked repeatedly that you set down clear clarification of your notice and its applicable account with my Self, namely stephen of the mcguinness family and to the date of this letter you have failed to do so.

My request has been simple; I made it simple in order that there could be no confusion in my request. I would not wish to be in dishonour of my inalienable rights under Common Law, and nor would I assume that you would wish to dishonour your selves in such a respect.

It is in my understanding that no contract exists between us. It is furthermore in my understanding that no contract can exist between us unless I consent to such; I would like it to be put on record that my consent to contract with you is not given.

You have stated in your reply that you are acting under the Parliament Road Traffic Act 1991 as amended including Traffic Management Act 2004 which applies to all persons of a nameable society. Within my request for clarification above I have asked you to supply under proof of claim that I, Stephen of the mcguinness family, a flesh and blood human man serving God alone, exist as a corporate entity within that nameable society in order for you to apply such an act of parliament and statute (corporate) law upon me.

Unless you are able to further the proof of claim to your offer in this referral as outlined above within 14 (fourteen) days of this letter, then I will consider this matter void and closed. I would expect therefore all correspondence to cease forthwith. Please note that any further correspondence from you, your company or its representatives, agents or officers will be dealt with as a matter of harassment under Sec 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, or Sec 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and I hereby give formal notice that should such occur I will not hesitate to inform the relevant legal bodies to this matter.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.


Sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Stephen McGuinness

I reserve all my rights under Common Law and wave none



THERE RESPONSE
From: Parking Services [mailto:parking.services@tameside.gov.uk]
Sent: 01 Jun 2009 13:32
To: MCGUINNESS STEVEN (STEVE)
Subject: RE: PCN NO: TM01293777



Dear Stephen McGuinness
As previously advised in our letter dated 27/05/2009 you will have to wait for the Notice to Owner to be sent to you before you can appeal further.

I can confirm that should you wish to make payment the discounted fee will be available until 10/06/2009 after that time the discounted fee will no longer be available and the charge will increase to the original full charge of £70

Kind Regards
S.Marlborough
Parking Services

YOU KNOW WHAT I JUST SPOTED = ''As previously advised in our letter dated 27/05/2009'' I have never received a response on the 27/05/09, as you can see above my origional email i sent was on the 26/05/08, and he responded on 01/07/09. so where is this mystery reponse on the 27th

[number_6]

You are at the "informal representations" stage, where any representation made by yourself need not be considered by the Council. Once you receive the NTO you will be at the "formal representations" stage, and any representations you make to the Council, MUST be considered. (Although as we are told here: MUST can also mean MAY)

[tmharks]

So what happened with this?? Any new updates???

[rydeon]

We'll have to wait until the 10th of June for the next episode of Freeman vs the Council :)

[spoonogsback]

You are at the "informal representations" stage, where any representation made by yourself need not be considered by the Council. Once you receive the NTO you will be at the "formal representations" stage, and any representations you make to the Council, MUST be considered. (Although as we are told here: MUST can also mean MAY)

Excuse me No6. But what type of shit-talk is this??????
I don't believe you are offering any assistance to this poster!
I have noticed you do this type of thing before.
Haven't you ever heard the saying if you have nothing good to say say nothing ?
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but for Fs sake what the hell does your comment mean???????

[number_6]

Excuse me No6. But what type of shit-talk is this??????
I don't believe you are offering any assistance to this poster!
I have noticed you do this type of thing before.
Haven't you ever heard the saying if you have nothing good to say say nothing ?
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but for Fs sake what the hell does your comment mean???????

I am merely pointing out the procedure the Council follow. If you contact the Council about a PCN before the NTO is issued, they consider this an informal representation and (as they see it)they are not obliged to consider your comments. However, once an NTO is issued, they are obliged by law to consider any representations you make, as it is known as the "formal representations" period. They are also obliged to reply to such (formal) representations, and if they reject, give reasons why they reject such representations.
I don't think I can be much clearer than that. Perhaps if you took time to learn the procedure the Council follow in order to bully people into parting with their money, you wouldn't need to ask what I am talking about.

[stemcg1983]

We'll have to wait until the 10th of June for the next episode of Freeman vs the Council :)

lol nice,

I AM FREE, I AM HE-MAN..............wait thats something else

[whitenight639]

interesting thread, keep it up cos even if you fail this time we can all try and understand why.

I did try once with a parking ticket, I also sent a conditional acceptance and asked for proof of contract and proof that the council had the documents / authority to uphold the RTA which actually applies to parking in london.

anyway the mistake i made was forgetting that by having a drivers licence and registered car I have already accepted contract with the RTA and by accepting the parking ticket you are in contract, if its in your hands it has been served, i did however end up with a copy of the document the council get from central government authorising them to enforce parking draconionly.

looking at the correspondence, they will not set foot out of there commercial statue framework, they want u to go into there form and make a 'challenge' or 'appeal'. i wonder if you'll scare em off if you ask them to swear under full commercial liability that your PCN was issued correctly. And that there talking to the right person with respect to your car, as you are the registered keeper / owner the DVLA actually have title to it (surely they should pay the fine!).

[oghene]

interesting thread, keep it up cos even if you fail this time we can all try and understand why.

I did try once with a parking ticket, I also sent a conditional acceptance and asked for proof of contract and proof that the council had the documents / authority to uphold the RTA which actually applies to parking in london.

anyway the mistake i made was forgetting that by having a drivers licence and registered car I have already accepted contract with the RTA and by accepting the parking ticket you are in contract, if its in your hands it has been served, i did however end up with a copy of the document the council get from central government authorising them to enforce parking draconionly.

looking at the correspondence, they will not set foot out of there commercial statue framework, they want u to go into there form and make a 'challenge' or 'appeal'. i wonder if you'll scare em off if you ask them to swear under full commercial liability that your PCN was issued correctly. And that there talking to the right person with respect to your car, as you are the registered keeper / owner the DVLA actually have title to it (surely they should pay the fine!).

So what actually happened in your case?
Did they respond to your conditional acceptance?
Did they infact mention that the contract is based on the Driving license and car registration?

[stemcg1983]

So what actually happened in your case?
Did they respond to your conditional acceptance?
Did they infact mention that the contract is based on the Driving license and car registration?

+1

[whitenight639]

So what actually happened in your case?
Did they respond to your conditional acceptance?
Did they infact mention that the contract is based on the Driving license and car registration?


they provided me with proof of there authority to enforce the parking rules but ignored the rest of the things to satisfy in the conditional acceptance, after some correspondence i didnt have time to be playing games so just paid it, i know im a dirty sell out but its time consuming writing letters.

and yeh they implied that my contract is because i am the registered keeper, i registered the car so therefore im complying with the statues, i would post all the corespondence but its on the freeman orums if u go to thinkfree.ca and follow the link to the forums i cnt be arsed to repost it here.

[oghene]

they provided me with proof of there authority to enforce the parking rules but ignored the rest of the things to satisfy in the conditional acceptance, after some correspondence i didnt have time to be playing games so just paid it, i know im a dirty sell out but its time consuming writing letters.

and yeh they implied that my contract is because i am the registered keeper, i registered the car so therefore im complying with the statues, i would post all the corespondence but its on the freeman orums if u go to thinkfree.ca and follow the link to the forums i cnt be arsed to repost it here.

Thanks for that. That was their response to me as well. My response back was to request what the contract actually is, and if they specify the actual contract, can they please inform me if it was fully disclosed. If they can satisfy all that, can they then send me a copy of the contract between myself and them. If they cannot, do all those things, then whose behalf are they acting.

What Parliament does is criminalise an offense, they then get decent members of society to adhere to it. When they have compliance and nice healthy revenue stream, they de-criminalise the offence. It then becomes civil, which implies contract, then the sell the collection of fines of charges to a 3rd party. But gullible citizens still think they are being criminal, when in infact it is a civil offence between 2 persons. It seems to me, that it gets relegated from criminal law to tort law.

I bet you 20p, that what has happened with parking being decriminalised is exactly what will happen to speeding offences. They will become decriminalised and the collection will go to a company like 'Capita'.(Who runs the congestion charging).



Isn't Parliament grand.

[stemcg1983]

So,

This is my new bit of paper from the boys at the council a brand new NTO

I would like peoples inputs on where I can go from here. I justfeel as though i am getting no where.

Any ideas……??

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/15f72015b6_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MTg=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/6d66110018_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MTk=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/9ffca36fb0_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjA=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/8ea3010ce6_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjE=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/e91d49cb42_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjI=)

[oghene]

So,

This is my new bit of paper from the boys at the council a brand new NTO

I would like peoples inputs on where I can go from here. I justfeel as though i am getting no where.

Any ideas……??

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/15f72015b6_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MTg=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/6d66110018_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MTk=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/9ffca36fb0_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjA=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/8ea3010ce6_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjE=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/e91d49cb42_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzU1MjI=)

In my opinion you need to set the stage for a counter claim.

Ask for proof of contract
Request a bill

Attached to that should be a notice of estoppel. If they cannot provide what you've requested then they will be deemed to have lost all legal rights to assert anything contrary to the fact that you attemped to fulfil a legal obligation.

Attached to that should be counter offer of a contract, which will form the basis of your counterclaim.

If they cannot provide the proofs you requested, and they continue to attempt to collect payment, then they assent to the following terms and there is now a legally binding contract between you and themselves as agent for their principle. After estoppel if they continue to request payment, then the price of your response is £120.00.
Which is payable on demand.

So in effect this may go to court, and they will submit a claim form to the court. What you will now have here is proof of a contract which will form the basis of your counter claim.

The reason I take this approach, is because IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, it is civil between 2 persons, whethere it is Natural v Artificial, it makes no difference. If it's not criminal, it implies contract, as they are a company, they must provide you with a bill or an invoice.

[stemcg1983]

So i just received this lovely rejection letter from my local council (Tameside),

I just wanted to garner some peoples thoughts on what my next move should be,
below is the letter in full, aslo the page in the appeal brocure showing in which the ''adjudicator may allow an appeal''

my main concern are the grounds for appeal!

Thoughts please,

cheers
steve

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/c2d48ce312_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzczNzc=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/b2d2cc632f_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzczNzg=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/fe04cdad06_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzczNzk=)

http://media.shooshshare.com/f78f49c3/e3838609dc_thumb.jpg (http://www.shooshshare.com/viewimg.php?img=MzczODA=)

[yozhik]

Multiple uses of the words "must" and "may" ... but no mention of "or" and the consequences.

Interesting. :rolleyes:

[stemcg1983]

come on peoples, help me out here!!

[number_6]

come on peoples, help me out here!!

Now you have received a NoR it is time to apply for an adjudication hearing. As you are going down the freeman route, appeal using those points. It is always best to go in person to an adjudication.

[voynich]

How did you come on.

[dolores1]

You want a RAP:

I got a parking ticket last night
These guys only out for a fight
I accept and I admit
They can shove it in the shit.

Prove to me, "where was the Harm"
This will get THEM really Warm
Wheres' the woman or the man
Show me this, if you can

Wheres' the hurt wheres' the loss
Show me now, else take a toss
Your Corporation charges dear
Broken LAW? Not made clear.

Your Invitation is not taken
In this, I am not mistaken
Legalise I do not speak
I'm not going before a Beak.

Show me the law, where its' broken
and English only will be spoken.
My question you haven't answered true
and I'm not answerable to you.

I'm not alone and I am right
We the people have the fight.
Too long you've hidden in the dark
now we're using the brilliant spark.

We'll lighten all the hidden ways
you use to keep us all the days
in the past but never more.
Now we all realise the score.

[wez004]

lol nice,

I AM FREE, I AM HE-MAN..............wait thats something else

Personally I wouldn't invest the energy of communicating with these people. How many hours have you spent on research and letter writing? Even if you value your time at £ 10 per hour the effort far exceeds the value of the pcn.

These PCN's are generated by computer and the paper has never been touched by a human hand. Out of the printer and folded into the envelope by a machine. Soulless pieces of toilet paper designed to confiscate your cash. I never acknowledge the intention behind them and just stick them straight in the bin.

And I've had loads of parking tickets all over the country over the last 20 years. In fact I've had 4 in the last year. I've never paid one of them. I stick their letters in the bin. Never has anybody in the flesh confronted me about them. They've done bugger fuck all to me.

Ignore, don't acknowledge the energy and don't pay.

[number_6]

Never has anybody in the flesh confronted me about them.


Then you are in the minority. The normal consequence of ignoring a PCN is an Order for Recovery and a bailiff clamping your vehicle. Many I help elsewhere have been in such a situation. Bailiff action is more likely than no bailiff action.
May I ask, in which boroughs the last four tickets you mention have been issued?

[rydeon]

Then you are in the minority. The normal consequence of ignoring a PCN is an Order for Recovery and a bailiff clamping your vehicle. Many I help elsewhere have been in such a situation. Bailiff action is more likely than no bailiff action.
May I ask, in which boroughs the last four tickets you mention have been issued?

I agree completely.

Even folk who live in vehicles (full-timers) with no fixed abode have to use a trusted location for V5 registration and insurance etc.
A residence location will be the place where you'll attract 'the heat'.
Unless you have incredibly generous benefactors who are happy with being on first name terms with the balliffs then I call walter mitty on this one.

[wez004]

Then you are in the minority. The normal consequence of ignoring a PCN is an Order for Recovery and a bailiff clamping your vehicle. Many I help elsewhere have been in such a situation. Bailiff action is more likely than no bailiff action.
May I ask, in which boroughs the last four tickets you mention have been issued?

Yes my last 4 parking tickets were in Glastonbury Somerset. 3 of them on the same car park by parking attendants and 1 for a double yellow line by the police. To be honest I've had loads of letters and probably and order for recovery. Like I say I just bin them and don't think about it to much. Also my car is parked away from my flat as theres no parking spaces so it's a bit of a walk away. I don't really care about that shit the way i figure it they can't do anything to me that i really care about. Also I'm careful who I open the door to. I've had the odd occasion where I've been caught out and once I opened the door to a warrant officer he addressed me as Mr. XXXXXXXXX and I said I can't help you sorry. I don't contract with official people and never admit my identity. Well they haven’t got a photo of me have they.

[wez004]

I agree completely.

Even folk who live in vehicles (full-timers) with no fixed abode have to use a trusted location for V5 registration and insurance etc.
A residence location will be the place where you'll attract 'the heat'.
Unless you have incredibly generous benefactors who are happy with being on first name terms with the balliffs then I call walter mitty on this one.

Well thanks! I’m certainly no Walter Mitty day dreamer.

The money I earn is hard to come by. I don’t pay fines full stop. I haven’t got it in me to hand money over just because I’ve received a official letter. I’d rather spend the money down the pub. How do they enforce these parking tickets? Because all I’ve ever had to my knowledge is letters and as I say I just bin them. Like I say I don’t acknowledge the intention behind their letters neither do I worry about them. In the bin and forget about them.

They can’t do anything to me that I care about. They’ve done their worst and locked me up in their prisons so I don’t give a shit. And let’s just think about 30 or 60 pound parking tickets where do they draw the line in recovery? Sending a human being to confront you about a 30 pound parking ticket will cost more than 30 pounds turning the thing into a loss.

I don’t even know what an order for recovery is nor do I care.

Also I’ve never paid a magistrates fine and I’ve had a few over the years my last ones is for £ 1050 from 2007 when I binned their paperwork and didn’t disclose the driver name for speeding and do you know what they’ll get from me? Fuck all. All I’ll get is threats and warrant for my arrest. They warrant officer will call, leave a note saying please contact me and he’ll move on to the next fine dodger on his list. And it will drag on and on and they’ll get nowhere.

[merlincove]

They don't consider it a loss, because they front the balif charges onto the original 'debt' thus accruing a £30 pcn to a £60 notice plus costs, my guess is that it will eventually run into £150 + mark.

But were you to address the pcn £ (which i can assume that as it is in the bin, you will have no attend :rolleyes:) then the arguement stands in respect to contract, whether such is addressed at point of ref, ie within the alloted 14 days of notice, or after where there raises arguement that you are not under contract with the collection agent and therefore their costs are not relevant / uncontracted and unenforcable - provided you are able to produce a paper chain where you have addressed their costs and the pcn through mediation (letter writting).

No paper chain = aqciessence = liability = pay or prison or removal of vehicle.

Totally agreee with what you say wez, if you have the balls to sit it out :D

others will paper chase. Pain in the A but afects a result that does not mean attending a custodial institute at the beshest of her majesty :cool:

[merlincove]

I agree completely.

Even folk who live in vehicles (full-timers) with no fixed abode have to use a trusted location for V5 registration and insurance etc.
A residence location will be the place where you'll attract 'the heat'.
Unless you have incredibly generous benefactors who are happy with being on first name terms with the balliffs then I call walter mitty on this one.

There is just cause to have no licence or insurance for a 'transport conveyance' that is used as: A) a home or B) a mode of transport for the purpose of moving between locations.

A 'mode of transport' is not necersarily a vehicle, as DVLA own vehicles, vehicles exist on their database and as such if it is a vehicle it needs to exist on their database. A bycycle for example is not a vehicle, it is a conveyance. It is in my understanding, and i'd recoment that you research this yourself ijn order to be clear in your own mind: a vehicle stops becoming a vehicle when the 'owner' or registered keeper takes full and sole ownership of that vehicle, returns the registration plate and the V5 to the DVLA and Notices them of the 'vehicles' new status, namely a motorised conveyance (or other such) under the sole ownership of a human being, ie named of the named family. If the 'conveyance' exists as an asset of a corporate entity, a coprotaion may still act upon it. If it exists as a tacit entity belonging to a human being then it remains outside comerse and is untouchable.

But any way back on track.....

If, for example you are living in a bus or a van or a car, and it is your place of residence and is used as a means to transport you and you familly between points then you do not lawfuly need a licence, insurance, tax disc, mot and therefore do not need a 'hard address' or fixed abode for such paperwork to affect joinder.

As human beings we have a God given right to free and unhindered travel. Point. Unhindered means that we are entitled under natural law to move freely between points without let, hinderance or licence. No one has the power to conduct you in any way or manner or attend their will against you. Under law of Equality, no other human being has power over you and therefore no other human being can demand that you have insurance, tax, mot V5. As a human being with a divine soul you are equal to every other human being and exist under God alone. No one can argue this. There is no human being with higher equality than you. You exist under God alone, and therfore you exist above and beyond all corporations and corporate law.

End of.

Under natural law no corporate body has the power of juristiction over you unless you allow them that power and juristiction.

PCN = Corporate notice.

Insurance = Corporate Statute (road traffic acts etc) affected by corporate bodies.

MOT = same ^

V5 = Corporate registration / membership of a corporate institute.

Baliff = corporate officer acting under his corporations best interest.

Judge = Corporate officer acting to affect revenue.

Courts = kangeroo.

You = Divine soul existing under Divine Rule.

Who can rule over a divine soul existing under divine rule?

Only that which is Divine.

Queen = human being with corporate tittle. Lesser than you.

Elizabeth of the Windsor family = human being. Same as you. Except with a bit more gold. And a fancy house.

Judge = Corporate tittle 'acting' under juristiction to the Crown Corporation. Lesser than you.

Parliament = Corporation. Lesser than you.

statute law = laws of a corporation.

Police = Corporation. Lesser than you.

Courts = Corporation. Lesser than you.

You = Divine Soul existing under God alone.

:D

[redhead]

So how did this pan out, im intrigued as im in the same boat myself now?