Address Withheld
Your ref.NA/PGK00239
Your previous ref. PHEP/PBM/HXB/
And PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
7th March 2005
Dear Nasreen Akhtar,
Please accept my apologies for not formally addressing you but it is not clear from the correspondence as to whether you are Mr., Mrs, Ms or Miss.
Previous correspondence had been dealt with by Miss Buchan and Ms K Valentine. As a courtesy I have included copies of previous correspondence to assist you.
In order to assist you, and from your letter of 15th February 2005, you like to ‘put matters quite simply’ I wish you to ‘quite simply’specifically respond to each of the points raised in bold type.
On Tuesday 15th February 2005 I contacted the Public Health and Environmental Protection Regeneration Directorate by telephone (perhaps reducing your Department’s title may, over time, reduce the amount of paper used by the Council) as I had received no response to my communication posted 24th January 2005 (1).
I was advised by Mr. Don Bartlett that I should have received acknowledgement within three working days unless it was a complaint. If the complaint could not be dealt within 15 working days then an acknowledgement has to be sent out.
I received neither.
But I did then receive a response from yourself, the following day, dated 15th February which was received 16th February 2005 (2). Assuming Royal Mail works effectively (and you make the same assumption by sending all communications by ordinary post) this appears to be outside the 15 working day period.
However, the telephone call to Mr. Bartlett was to enquire as to why a response had not been forthcoming and also to request a copy of the Council’s Code of Conduct.
I have yet to receive a copy of the Code of Conduct.
Can you please advise as to why this request was not carried out and could you please supply a copy of the Council’s Code of Conduct?
Can you please confirm that you fell short of the requirements within the Code of Conduct (as described by Mr. Bartlett) by not responding within 15 working days?
Can you please confirm that you fell short of the requirements within the Code of Conduct (as described by Mr. Bartlett) by not responding within 15 working days?
I will now attempt to deal with matters in as simple a way as possible, and this will assist matters when the case is referred to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Magistrates Court.
Mr. Moran, the registered keeper of the vehicle R24 PJR, received an Excess Ticket ( No. 96256134) (3) when we attended a speaking engagement at St. James’ Park. We were advised by the event organisers to park in the club’s numbered bays. I parked the vehicle for Mr. Moran. Upon return to the vehicle Mr. Moran found that he had been issued with the above ticket.
I do believe he then made representations to Ms.Valentine with regard to the ‘pay and display’ request and the fact that bays we had parked in did not appear to be part of the ‘pay and display’ area. I do not have copies of his correspondence but Mr. Moran is quite prepared to disclose these to the courts and attend as a witness.
I was then asked by Mr. Moran to complete the ‘Statement of Facts’ pursuant to Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act following the letter he received from Ms. Valentine (4) who stated that, “…unfortunately I am unable to waive this charge.”
I duly completed and posted this on the 7th December 2004 along with representations that Newcastle City Council were attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner (5). Nowhere in the communication from yourselves does it state the fact that you are operating a ‘criminalised’ parking regime and I could have the opportunity to have the matter relating to the ‘alleged offence’ dealt with by a Magistrates Court.
You simply re-iterate the request to pay the £60 Excess Charge.
Can you please advise as to how you are communicating with me at my home address if my details had not been supplied on the ‘Statement of Facts’ in the communication (Enclosure 4 page 2) of 7th December 2004? I have highlighted the copy of the ‘Statement of Facts’ in yellow to assist you.
Can you please tell me why the Excess Charge Notice (3) and the communication of 30/11/04 (4) does not advise me of my rights and ability to challenge the alleged offence through the relevant court process?
It appears as though Newcastle City Council are attempting to bypass the court process and simply go straight to collection without advising of the correct statutory procedure. This non-conformity with the correct procedure appears to be a case of ‘maladministration’ and will form part of the case, along with your later communications, to the Local Government Ombudsman.
I have enclosed a copy of a similar case involving Scarborough Council (Ref 02/C/13683) for your information (6). I had brought to the attention of Newcastle City Council the relevant sections of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Metric Martyrs Judgment (Enclosure 4 pages 3 and 4) and that by attempting to bypass the court procedure that you were acting unlawfully.
Can you confirm that the relevant section of the Bill of Rights 1689 has been breached. It clearly states:
“ that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
This, as mentioned in previous correspondence, is referred to by Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs Judgment as a ‘constitutional’ statute and can only be expressly repealed.
For clarification, therefore, is the ‘Excess Charge’ for an ‘alleged offence’ or is it for failure to meet a contractual obligation?
Therefore, if it is the latter, is it not a civil matter and not a criminal one and you are attempting to bypass the fundamental provisions contained in the Bill of Rights 1689?
Or, is the ‘Excess Charge’ a penalty for the offence you cite under the Road Traffic Act 1984. If so, can you clarify where the Road Traffic Act 1984 expressly repealed the Bill of Rights 1689?
I received a response from Miss H Buchan dated 13th January 2005 (7). In it she detailed the fact that it was a criminal offence under Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act but unfortunately did not enclose a copy, nor did she detail which sub-section I was being charged with. I had already completed the Section 108 Statutory Declaration. (I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of Section 108 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 (8))
If I had not, as I previously mentioned, filled in the Statutory Declaration, then it would have been rather difficult to then begin communications with me at my home address.
I had made it clear in my communication that I wished to dispute the ‘Excess Charge.’ Miss Buchan surely should then have advised that I could have a Magistrates Court adjudicate. However, the final paragraph of the communication again demands £60, although the matter would be referred to the Magistrates Court…”should the ticket not be paid.”
Therefore, I will keep things simple.
You are alleging that I have committed an offence. I am disputing this and disputing the powers which you are attempting to claim. Please refer the matter to a Magistrates Court in a proper and orderly manner and can you please provide:
- Copies of all communications, from the raising of the Excess Charge Notice to your most recent communication, where you advised me that this option (a court hearing) was available and made it abundantly clear that this was an alleged offence and that the penalty or ‘excess charge’ was only able to be pursued once there had been a conviction for the offence by the Magistrates Court?
- Reasons why you mistakenly believe I have not completed the Notice under Section 108 when it is obvious that communications with me from Newcastle City Council could not have commenced until I had done so?
- Copies of all internal communications between departments about this matter, including telephone conversations (Data Protection Act 1998)?
- You make reference to serving a summons where I would have, ‘an adequate opportunity to defend myself.’ Can you clarify whether this was to a Magistrates Court over the ‘alleged criminal offence’ or to the County Court for civil proceedings for the recovery of the ‘ Excess Charge’ of £60? If it is the latter, can you please detail the authority on which you rely, as it appears you are bypassing the criminal court procedure
I look forward to your response and look forward to taking this matter further and having it placed before a Court of Law.
I would be grateful if you could also provide me with the necessary forms to initiate the complaint about maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman.
However, this will not be necessary should Newcastle City Council accept the fact that their Parking Regime practices are flawed and the current scheme be reviewed in order to allow any alleged offences to be challenged in the correct and proper manner, including details of the legal rights of the ‘alleged offender’on every excess charge ticket issued and every communication be conducted in an open and correct manner instead of the current threatening and intimidatory tone.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Neil Herron
ENCLOSURES
3. Excess Charge Notice
8. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
No comments:
Post a Comment