Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hippocrates,

I’m not defending our council but I can’t ignore some irony here which is laughable to be honest.

It is clear and can easily be brought to the attention of formal parties that a post published on your platform contains the full name of an employee of the council.

Alongside damaging accusations without results of a full investigation conducted by the party in question. With you also including suggestions that the person should lose their employment.

The main issue is yes a mistake may of been made unintentionally by the council, however you have purposely chosen to post personal information without authorisation on a public forum.

This publication is both harmful and unlawful under UK law for the following reasons:

1. Defamation (Defamation Act 2013): The statements made are false and have the potential to cause serious harm to the named person’s reputation, particularly in relation to the employment. This constitutes defamatory material.

2. Data Protection and UK GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018): The publication of the persons’s full name without consent amounts to unlawful processing of personal data. There is no lawful basis for the disclosure of such data in this context. - irony at its finest that one

3. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997): Publicly targeting an individual in this manner way could amount to a harassment investigation which is recognised as both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.

In light of these concerns, the following actions are normally formally requested:

• The immediate removal of all posts containing the individuals full name and defamatory statements.

•Written confirmation that such personal data will not be republished in the future.

• Details of any action your platform intends to take against the individual responsible for posting this content.

Failure to act promptly may result in escalation, Due to your protection breaches. As well as you may end up on the end of potential legal proceedings for defamation and harassment.

I have all your details from your YouTube channel and other online sources - so what do you think an actual professional can find out unlike us idiots on this website.

Unlike your self I won’t be posting your details in public a forum.

I understand you may have spotted an error however, I suggest you advise the people effected by the error to request a data leak investigation to the council or company.

Your actions however in this forum aren’t exactly productive and you are yourself running the same risks your accusing the council of.

Not particularly the best behaviour to demonstrate for someone claiming to help with legal matters.

Take it offline 🙄

@Rogersmith1977 I'll be in Covid Corner back of the pub on the left around 18.00 hrs tonight wearing the T shirt. Bring a tape recorder.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917back of the pub

@Rogersmith1977
if you wish to air your point further why not start a thread in "the flame pit" on your quest to defend local authorities who act un lawfully. ?

I am going to do another one very soon and mention all of the superior officers right up to the councillor supposedly in charge of this outfit.  Serendipity.  If they showed any magnanimity and any capacity to say sorry, this would not be necessary.  They will all rally around said person - to protect themselves and cover up their own embarrassment.  When, some years ago, they used the signature of a Barnet officer, Robin Moorwood, they batted that one away with: "This is a generic signature, all of our officers are trained."

For years they even denied that bus lane cameras needed certificates. And one David Fellows was a senior legal officer at the time, now moved to Merton as a solicitor. They don't get sacked - just moved.

I no longer play my violin in the Market Square unless I wear a bulletproof vest, just in case The Jackal is lurking on top of the Town Hall. 

And I will obtain the APCOA contract.

@cp8759 Well said, Maestro.

From the other thread:

https://t.co/Xx9WebQYix



I now name the people I have given 7 days to apologise from the top down:

Councillor Nicola Nardelli; Matthew Hill; Gareth Campbell; Macy Briggs.

After all, this is how they treat motorists. Now the boot is on the other foot.  I expect they will all blame APCOA. Let's pass the buck.

Roger the Dodger

I am somewhat dumbfounded by you starting this post

According to your stance on public servants having any validity, I am surprised your Civil Rights Lawyer PM is not himself pursuing endless cases against all the media and endless public posts for Defamation, data protection and harassment as he is in total denial to all the claims against him.
1. Defamation (Defamation Act 2013): The statements made are false and have the potential to cause serious harm to the named person’s reputation, particularly in relation to the employment. This constitutes defamatory material.

2. Data Protection and UK GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018): The publication of the persons’s full name without consent amounts to unlawful processing of personal data. There is no lawful basis for the disclosure of such data in this context. - irony at its finest that one

3. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997): Publicly targeting an individual in this manner way could amount to a harassment investigation which is recognised as both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.

Pity you don't put your energy to shake up your PCN Micky Mouse cowboy council employees and get them to act in a honest and professional manner as this Kingston bus lane is still ongoing years later. Your Council were fully aware of the missing signage due to road works but still issued PCN and have never had the common decency to make a refund which is obtaining money under misspresentaion which is a criminal offence and action should have been taken against them.
From: **** <hotmail.com>
Sent: 09 November 2023 19:21
To: parkingservicesteam@kingston.gov.uk <parkingservicesteam@kingston.gov.uk>;  foi@kingston.gov.uk <foi@kingston.gov.uk>
Cc:
Subject: Fw: Failure to respond on my 16 Sept 2023 Complaint and FOI request where the later has been acknowledged but still outstanding

REMINDER
Dear Sarah Ireland

Your Council is not fit for purpose  and a total disgrace with  your  inaction  to my 16 Sept 2023  e mail below  so now  add this Council zero  response to the list of complaints  where you need to be taken to task. I have included all Councillor's so they are fully aware of  the Councils inability to perform so copy them in with your reply.

1). FOI as outlined in in my 16 Sept 2023 e mail  still not forthcoming  where it was stated on 20 Oct 2023 it would be available by 27 October 2023
2). Provide answers to Kingston Councils staff incompetence, harassment and deception by extorting public money under false presences . The full outcome with clear  explanation of your  Council's investigation is required and what disciplinary action is being taken by these councils  perpetrators.
3).  Please add to my FOI list how many  non compliant PCN you have issued since 16 September 2023 during this Council inaction period to date and what corrective action you will be taking  with these extorted  illegal proceeds.

Regards 
From: P
Sent: 16 September 2023 11:24
To: cmt@kingston.gov.uk <cmt@kingston.gov.uk>
Subject: PCN reference ***** date of notice 15/06/ 2023 Complaint

Dear Kingston Council



PCN reference ****** date of notice 15/06/ 2023 Complaint SE07XKX



Can a single one of you Councillors, identify the "Authorised " person who on 7 July 2028 signed off in reply to my initial Challenge with a lengthy generic rejection letter clearly demonstrating they had not read the challenge content resulting it unnecessarily being taken to the next Enforcement Notice stage wasting my time and ratepayers' money. I then receive this Enforcement Notice dated 14 August 2028 and replied on the same day with a single line simple challenge telling them to actually read my initial representation which included the attached photograph clearly showing there was NO WARNING or RESTRICTION on turning left from Union St into Eden St. 



Accordingly, please investigate this matter and submit clear substantiation of what further evidence this same author established that had not already been provided to now waive the PCN as stated on the Council 11 September 2023 response. I, along with many others are intrigued as to what changed that authors mind and if there are no valid grounds, this author needs to be taken to task and removed from this post and downgraded to something requiring limited skills for the benefit of all ratepayers funding your Council.



Moreover,  I do not believe this to be an isolated case which demonstrates that your staff are unskilled, not fit for purpose sending out generic rejections not reading the challenge or incapable of comprehending that your Eden St Bus lane PCN is non-compliant .  Had that authorised member of staff bothered to read my initial representation months back which basically informed your Council they were issuing non-valid PCN.



On the other side of the coin, if Kingston Council is knowingly issuing PCN that are non-compliant this is considered an abuse of power, fraud and blatant entrapment purely for financial gain by extorting money from the public knowing the vast majority simply pay the reduced PCN amount to move on. Those that Challenge the PCN and get that Councils Generic response is considered further harassment and this practice must cease.



I trust I will receive a proactive response to these issues raised to avoid escalating this to a higher authority.



Accordingly, under the Freedom of Information act, please advise re the attached Google Earth map clearly showing there is NO sign on Union St informing drivers they are not permitted to turn left and enter Eden Street bus lane.

a).. The date the Council

i). Became aware there was no sign in place not to turn left.

ii). Were made aware themselves or by third parties there was no sign not to turn left

iii). Installed the conforming sign not to turn left as it was a bus lane.



Please Quantify for each of the 3 periods in a). above the following. 

b). how many members of public challenged the Eden st Bus lane PCN during this period and

Quantity of PCN  issued
Quantity that were challenged
Quantity rejected
Quantity that were sent enforcement Notices
Quantity that were further challenged and subsequently waived like mine
Quantity that were rejected and went to Tribunal.
Quantity won at Tribunal


Once these figures are established, please clearly explain the means of reimbursement for all those who paid any non-compliant PCNs.



On a more serious issue, as I suspect from my case this is not isolated and Kingston Council intentionally reject all initial challenges to a PCN. Accordingly, under the FOI, please also submit the following.




c). Total quantity of "ALL" PCN's Issued by Kingston Council over the last year to this date.

 

Quantity of PCN  issued
Quantity  that were challenged
Quantity rejected
Quantity that were sent enforcement  Notices
Quantity  that were  further challenged and subsequently waived like mine
Quantity that were  rejected and went to Tribunal.
Quantity won at Tribunal
Regards

@cp8759 All councillors have their e mail addresses openly published on the council's website.  And their phone numbers, too.

I will publish another video shot yesterday - if I can hobble upstairs!