Show Posts - chueewowee

Quote from: cp8759 on 15 May, 2024 22:19@ManxTom see reply 15:Like the FMOTL brigade, he is labouring under the misapprehension that:1) It's up to him to "accept" or "not accept" the PCN,2) It's somehow up to him whether the routes of redress are satisfactory,3) It's up to him to decide which venue has jurisdiction,4) He can unilaterally ignore Parliament's decision to remove such matters from the jurisdiction of the county court and give exclusive jurisdiction to the adjudicator.I wonder if he'll come back after he's lost and tell us that the courts are all "corrupt"?Ha ing fun. I amy angry Yo all borke myt trust. I feel like swwearing at you. Then ytoiu ban me, eh?shame on you.He's back he won his case.Maybe I shgoul dtake over YOUR boards? Maybe you should retire now?To omuch bad advice here. You hate the law. Yoiu love the pcns.

Quote from: Neil B on 13 May, 2024 19:58Quote from: chueewowee on 12 May, 2024 11:47But it doesn't have to end badly; that's up to the judge and the legal argument they are presented with; first htey decide if you have a case that is worth hearing.I wonder how many , if any , have actually take such a case of sign authorisation to court. I know of none.No surprise at the zero figure because the court you describe has no jurisdiction for such matters.That means they cannot hear your case simply because the Tribunal avenue is/was available.Reminds me of a case where some fool took Newham to Small Claims for stress of receiving pcns.Newham didn't turn up and he won 4 X £5,000.No doubt big celebrations ensued.BUT the case was re-heard with Newham citing 'no jurisdiction' and all £20,000 had to be paid back, together with whatever costs Newham incurred for writing those two words.You Sir are a fool trying to garner some credibility for your indignation over a pathetic first world problem.This forum prides itself on assisting against some often quite appalling council behaviour.NO ONE READING YOUR POSTS SHOULD BE MISLED INTO THINKING YOUR ACTIONS ARE THE WAY TO BEHAVE OR PROCEED.This thread should be moved to the Flame Pit. Wrong. Your post should be reomcved. A complaint of lawfulness of contract, by road soign or noit, is a case for the CIvil Court of LAw; of course it is nbot a case for snal lclaims court. Only filk demanding paymenbt can use that particular avenue.

Quote from: ManxTom on 15 May, 2024 21:30I don't think he (or should it be "they"?) is a FMOTL though.He's not once mentioned Magna Carta, common law or Admiralty courts, and he hasn't said "I (or "we") didn't contract to pay CAZ and ULEZ fees!"Maybe it's a Welsh thing...Yes the magna carta is common sense, nothing more, and still in full force, will be so long as common sense rules; whichuis always reasonable, as a matter of coursse.Yes WE (my son and I - that is a we, and in fact thousands of innnocent public) were threatened through coercion at the hands of Enfoecrcement agents  through the TEC, which is course unlawful when th counbtennace to a charge questions its lawfulnees. That is, our reply  like all appeals as to 'not knowing or understanding the CAZ signs' which are quecting its laawfilness, which was stidiously ignmored. But this time they met me. I am a father, My son and I make we. nothibng lessnothing more. Myt son was th eonbe who had intact feeling of unfairness andinjustice, unliek you popor advisors. Who mock the law, or the natural lw, which my son, like so many other good people, feels. I.E in common sense, which some aqbandon,for some sort of self  gain.

He is back. The he has a name. I'm here to teah you a lesson. But I will not spend long; Mainly here for good folk, to  encourage htem in the face of miserable unreasaonable snide comments that abound everywhere onb these islands now.Forst I'd like to teach some of you, quite a few of you, some mannes.. You're too far away. But let me tell you  You wouldn'tt dare in my precense to denonstrate  your poverty of spiirit with the same trite, bad manners.  Quite usual amongst the 'PCN experts'.I see therer eare various snide remarks, including reference to FMOTL and 'we'. That's after complaininbg about priciples, and thelaw. The common law you thinbk does not exist, when in fact it is the just about the  WHOLE of the law, GOVERNINGprincliples. Ok Let's begin the show down. I wil get personal, like you have, for the sake of the good folk who drop by, becausre yo uar enmisleadingf them, in your stuppidity.The 'we' is we. Thtaq is not 'I' alone.Th ei is not alone, Thats all yo need tonow. We coul dbe the whol epublicfor all you know. And ther is a we. I t is Father and son. My son is an apprectice asked to pay £235.00, with threats to his livlihood upon enforcement after ignoring his ountnence to an initial fine of £90 or so, as I already mentioned.That should be enough to get you impovershed ones going. You know, the ones who are the same as the inmpoverished WEF minions obn our councils, government and in fact, all intistutions, polluting our whole public life.You see, what you have usually won do date, is avoiding paying when the LA made a simple mistake in the letters on a page... OK fair enough, but really you were still liable otherwise. Its apetty matter. OUrs was a great matter like so many other poor folk hit with penalties for CAZ as first time, unknowing entrants. .

The topic is closed as far as I am concerned. Some genuine and thoughtful replies have  prompted me to say a little  more about the matter than I otherwise wished to on a public board.Unfortunately that has been taken as an invitation to offer  disrespectful comments, which are themselves, though perhaps expected,  ccompletely erronous in their notions, having failed to read what I wrote, or else being incapable of critical thought and reflection.People in a rush.

[quote author=ManxTom Because the OP is acting from a misguided sense of injustice and "the principle of it"(Particularly if Bristol have included the original unpaid £9 toll in the charge which many people seem to think is sufficient to invalidate the ticket from the outset.)[/quote]You dont guide my sense of justice. You habve't  informed  me of my principles and you haven't been able to see them when written either.Get your hands off the keyboard; Try relecting on what I  wrote before you say anuything. And Watch your manners. The 'OP' is myself, party to this discussion, not someone who happened to be here who you can talk about in the third person with snide remarks like that. As if you are what - a superior? Wrong on both counts.On the second count, they changed the wording on the second count.It doen't matte rwhat 'many people think'. Principles do matter. That is what the law rests upon and how cases are determined.Go somewhere else and try to be annoying, but dont try to annoy me again.This is my topic, don't litter it with snide comments, WHEN;In kindness I bothered to say a little more than I perhaps should have, given that I've seen the likes of yourself stepping into treads like this with your haughty self-projection with nonsense.

Quote from: slapdash on 12 May, 2024 20:05An ongoing county court claim doesn't affect the authority's right (but not obligation) to proceed in accordance with the regulations.Thanks, yes.Naturally  We'll be seeking an injunction on that, based upon pedning claim, if accepted.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 12 May, 2024 14:14Your cause of action being what? And why have you chosen to not engage with the council's formal complaints procedure which could then lead to the Ombudsman, a process which has been put in place to deal with, inter alia, claims of maladministration without the need to resort to courts. Proportionality and least expense. And by the way, CAZ signs are now part of the HC family: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs#:~:text=It%20is%20an%20accompaniment%20to,gates%2C%20share%20space%2C%20parallel%20crossingscause is given above; not as stated in claim, but given as explanation to you.thanks for the heads up wrt to HC - I had checked earlier last year, and was about to check again. it wasnot there when the pcn was issued.I think the WHY We have chosen not to is  given in part above; Listen to what I said; if the judge thinks we have a case it will proceed.Our case has got nothing to do with maladministration.I dont wish to be drawn into further questions, without respectful questions. Read what I said above, first If you wan to make it you busines to know more, ask respectiully.I merely wanted to know if you received a letter of notification, Thank you.

just posted up another relevant attachment in post above. You can see the pcn bill does include an initial CAZ toll fee.

Quote from: slapdash on 12 May, 2024 11:24I am not sure which "court" you mean. That's out of process and generally will end badly.The "proper" process is documented on the PCN. It seems you have not engaged with that.The 'proper process' is the process whre one accepts the pcn is legal as per the sign as contract to be obeyed, but disputes it on certain grounds. As you probably know, 'I didn't see the sign, it wasnt in te HCighway Code/ you didn;t send a letter to me, is not accepted.Yes court of law, is not the usual avenue, tese tings are well sirted normally. A court of law present no grounds that haven't been envisaged.But it doesn't have to end badly; that's up to the judge and the legal argument they are presented with; first htey decide if you have a case that is worth hearing.I wonder how many , if any , have actually take such a case of sign authorisation to court. I know of none.I can send you our 'particulars of claim' by pm after it reaches court decisoin if you like, but probably best not beforehand; if successful at that stage, I imagine you may be interested. If it does pass scrutiny, I'm not particularly worried about court charges if we dont get a verdict in our favour upon full hearing, becaase they are unlikely to be awared against us I should think, if it is accepted. Why? Because,-  the LA has so far deviated from our request for a fair amicable solution, where we did offer to pay the charge itsef.- we raised amatter of driver saftey with the LA and askewd them to take it up on our behalf; driver's duty of care depends on skill and cognition -  attention to the road, sign recognition vs. interpretation, and pre-attentional cognitive filters; Technically well researched, but also commonsense.- Autrity by sec of state under leglislation to authorise LA's to put up signs, does not mean that the signs are legal;  to be so they must - do the job (clear in meaning and vision - they aren't clear but imply and require pre-evident meaning) and, - must  not conflict with law (i.e assumed drivers duty of care, and what that takes), and - be fair (i.e all people have been notified and are offered the same). It seems that the legislation for sec of state to authrise signs apples to local signs, i.e to be read at a crawl, or upon entry to a parking place etc. or for specialised purposes - e.g  road and land works drivers (e.g. road works, which also imply they are notified and on the look out). So they can get away with it if the signs are clear.With CAZ, I understand, in their desire to avoid discussion in parliament althoug that is what it is set up for, as representatives, the sec for state thought that clear and bold is all a sign need sot be. Not so. Perhap she has a chauffeur and no experience of drive=ing.Signs to notify and inform driving at speed, are a dfifferent matter altogether.Finally, if does not pass judge's scrutiny, we can appeal that if we wish. Migt not wish to.Otherwise, we are stuck with Traffic enforcement. But LA/collection agency wont persit for long; I doubt they will take it to court  for enforcement. We could, in that case,  appeal again against any previous decsion, according to reason.    Main thing is, we are perfectly serious, and they know that now. A might quietly let it drop. It as happened before.We do mean what we say, according to our reasons. They should be heard.Especially bevcause this behavuior sets a very bad precedent for drivcing on the road wrt safety; more will pop up by decree, if left unchallenged; And drivers will then be anxious looking out everywhere for novel charge signs.It must be stopped. CAZ signs have to be in the HC, or write to everyone.  One simple, cheap temporary solution suggested to LA by us (and others before_no doubt) is that they contact every new entrant to te CAZ zone to make an initial demand; or better to simply inform  them with a warning for 'next time'. Its easy enough for them to flag such drivers on their db. They chose not to, so far, and if they dont do so now, that will look bad in court too.

Quote from: John U.K. on 10 May, 2024 08:20If you have a PCN, please to post here all sides of it, redacting only name and address.Seehttps://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/As requested/promised: please find attached.On the second attacment, I cant see why the bill I see £189, but adding up the earlier demand and its warnings comes to £129. Hmmm [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: Neil B on 10 May, 2024 15:44Quote from: chueewowee on 10 May, 2024 14:36We have a strong case,Uh?'Strong case' refers to my opening post.

In order to save pointless replies, informing about  procedure of pcn appeals: As I stated in my opening post, the case is about to reach court.That means:-  we have not accepted a demand and,- offers for solution have not been satisfactory frpom our point of view.- 'Court' means a court of law - a civil court at the county court, not an  adjudicator or a TEC.- Time for representations to the LA are over.Moreover, we did not accept the pcn, on th ebasis of claim of unlawful.We did not appeal to an adjudicator because that implies forgoing redress at a court of law; a civil court.

Quote from: John U.K. on 10 May, 2024 08:20If you have a PCN, please to post here all sides of it, redacting only name and address.Seehttps://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/Thanks fellows,The case is now out of time to appeal to the adjudicator.However it does appear they have summed up th echarges and arrived at an incorrect fugure. Perhaps that would help.I shall post the pcn up here shortly.I am happy to take out a civil case to correct the authority and government in issuing permision for these signs. We have a strong case, and shall see what the judge says upon application; We have given the LA until next tuesday to come to agreement and drop te charges, and sent copy to the Ceif Executive. Of course the lA is happy to take up the cabinets permission, as if it can't be questioned 1. for fairness; 2) for conflict in law with primary driving duty of care; a diriver who doesnt see the signs is to be commended.

Quote from: Incandescent on 09 May, 2024 11:59I've now attached the relevant TPT caseGrateful.