Challenge Traffic Fine Legality

Incorporate this text into the letter: HISTORY NEW CHAT I am FreeLawChat and I provide legal assistance to help you with your legal issue. What is your name? Traffic fine, rewrite including all relvant points a very powerful legal lawful letter:Neil: Had this from this after I sent back previous requests to create jaunder with them. I opened this as it was part opened. Any ideas as to response? My initial response is to leave it as it is not registerd delivery nor am I the all caps name?? Eve x: Without a conviction in a properly convened court, any fine or forfeiture issued prior to conviction is illegal and void Q1. Does this apply to ALL fines within the UK where there has been no conviction of particular persons? On * July *, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts." There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act * which states: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void." This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (* February *) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections * and *). *. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights * . . ." *. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ." This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday * July *. Memorandum submitted by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund CURRENT EFFECTIVENESS OF PARKING PROVISION AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY I wish to make the following submission to the Committee but I also wish to make a formal request that further, more substantive evidence, either written or oral, may be submitted after the date * October *. The reason it will be necessary to do so as there are allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and possibly more serious offences involving decriminalised parking enforcement in a number of local authority areas currently in the process of being uncovered. There are also serious concerns and possible legal action involving the National Parking Adjudication Service. The outcome of both of these will have fundamental and serious implications for the future of decriminalised parking enforcement across the country. There is currently a serious internal and external investigation being conducted into the legitimacy of Sunderland City Council's D.P.E. There has already been an admission by the City Council that over £*,* has been collected unlawfully from motorists with more to follow: *. Accrington Council have also been forced to repay monies to motorists who have received unlawful PCN's. *. More evidence is being uncovered in other local authorities arising from incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders or misinterpreting or misunderstanding the legislative requirements with regard to DPE. The implications of legal action being taken in areas across the country must be fundamental to the Transport Committee's understanding of the serious concerns that are being raised with regard to DPE and the perception by the motorist of DPE's legitimacy. ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT * V ROAD TRAFFIC ACT * The first series of problems arises because of the inequitous situation across the country whereby parking restrictions are enforced under two different pieces of legislation. The motorist does not generally become aware of this inequity until he has received a ticket . . . ie after having committed an "offence" (under the * RTRA ) or a "contravention" (under the * RTA). Surely this is fundamental principle. The consequences of this do not appear to have been addressed. For laws to be accepted and understood by society at large, they need to be seen as clear, fair and just. However, with the case of parking offences, it is the case that access to justice for an alleged offender is potentially totally different in two neighbouring local authority areas. This is purely dependent on which parking enforcement regime a Local Authority is operating. One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA *, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates' court. The other, operating under the RTA *, does not allow access to a court of law but to an "independent" tribunal. Under the * Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence. Under the * Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket. We have actual cases ready to cite as examples of injustice. Therefore, surely the best legislative provision would be to have one national parking law to ensure fairness, transparency and acceptance rather than the situation at present, where under the RTA * the system has the necessary common law checks and balances yet the system operating under the * RTA simply perceived by the public as a "revenue raiser" with Local Authority's simply incentivised by profit and no access to justice for the motorist. A simple question to ask is . . . "As the number of PCN's has exponentially increased have the towns and cities become clearer of traffic?" If the DPE enforcement system works then the number of contraventions should decrease as funded alternatives increase. This is not the case and there appears to be no evidence to support this, but the revenue raised from a more draconian enforcement regime seems to be the main driver, not the necessity to create a fairer parking enforcement regime for local businesses, customers and residents. LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS * For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (*/*-*, * August *) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine. Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following. As no doubt members will be aware, on * July *, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts." There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act * which states: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void." This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (* February *) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections * and *). *. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights * . . ." *. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ." This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday * July *. I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act * makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act * therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court. It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights. THE SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL INVESTIGATION A specific case, which has "implications" for all other DPE's, across the country. The submission or application to the Department for Transport for approval by the Secretary of State to create the Special Parking Area to allow Sunderland City Council to create a DPE simply gave "reassurances" that all necessary signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be in place when the DPE was to commence. If it is proved not to be the case and that the Secretary of State was misled into granting an SPA creating a DPE then there are very serious implications indeed as over *,* PCNs will have been issued unlawfully. The investigation is ongoing but there has already been an admission to unlawfully receiving over £*,* from PCN's issued under non-existant TRO's and the allegation is that none of the TRO's are "in force" thereby meaning every PCN issued has been done so unlawfully. There appears to have been no checks by either the DfT or the Secretary of State regarding the substance of claims made by any applicant to have valid and accurate signage and TROs. Evidence is coming to light of many other similar situations by other Local Authorities. It is in light of this that I stress the need for further, more detailed submissions to the Committee involving citing specific cases in detail. NPAS (NATIONAL PARKING ADJUDICATION SERVICE) Again, there is an ongoing investigation in relation to this body. It involves complaints to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Law Society. NPAS is representing itself as a "Court of Law" on its website yet when questioned in writing it confirms it is not a court of law, but a tribunal. However, the main concern is that NPAS is not "independent" as it is scrutinised by a Joint Committee (comprising appointed members from participating LA's ) and is funded solely by 60p per PCN issued. There is no right of appeal except on a point of law. If NPAS is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article * EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article * of The European Convention on Human Rights In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article * EC, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-*/* Dorsch Consult [*] ECR I-*, paragraph *, and the case-law there cited, and Case C-*/* Schmid [*] ECR I-*, paragraph *). Under the Court's case-law, an arbitration tribunal is not a "court or tribunal of a Member State" within the meaning of Article * EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (Case */* "Nordsee" Deutsche Hochseefischerei [*] ECR *, paragraphs * to *, and Case C-*/* Eco Swiss [*] ECR I-*, paragraph *). Therefore because of the rights of the individual are being removed in the name of parking "efficiency" then the resistance to DPE will grow and as more and more motorists realise the illegitimacy of the whole operation and begin to challenge and clog the system then it will collapse under its own bureaucratic burden. Josie Holland: I'm not saying this is going to work buy try this short sharp reply...... Your implementation of Lex Mercatoria does not apply to me unless otherwise proven that I was operating in commerce, I've been looking at this and it seems they treat us a merchants, unlawful conversion, I sent a letter to the court mentioning lex mercatoria in it and I got a reply where as my other letters didn't, Hmmmmm ???? let us know if it's any good This will help me provide the most relevant information and guidance. Thank you for sharing comprehensive details. To assist you better, could you please specify the exact nature of the traffic fine and your location within the UK Uk Thank you for sharing all the details, Neil. To address your situation, here's a concise response based on the information provided: - The Bill of Rights * states that fines or forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void. - For parking fines, the enforcement depends on whether it falls under the Road Traffic Regulation Act * or the Road Traffic Act *. - Under the * Act, you can appeal in a magistrates' court. - Under the * Act, the appeal is to an independent tribunal. Since you mentioned the letter was not registered and you are not the "all caps name," you might consider the following points in your response: *. **Challenge the Validity**: Indicate that the fine was not issued through a proper court process. *. **Registered Keeper Issue**: Mention that you are not the registered keeper or the "all caps name." *. **Demand Proof**: Request specific legal basis for the fine and proof of their right to impose it without a court conviction. For more detailed guidance, please consider consulting with a legal professional. If you need specific court contacts, please provide your exact location within the UK. Is there enough points in above letter can you add any further relevant caselaw to support my letter Thank you for providing detailed information. Based on your situation, here are additional points and caselaw to support your letter: - **Bill of Rights ***: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void." - **Thoburn v City of Sunderland (*)**: Emphasized that constitutional statutes, like the Bill of Rights *, cannot be impliedly repealed. Additional Caselaw: *. **R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [*] UKSC ***: - Reinforced the principle that constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed. *. **Jackson v Attorney General [*] UKHL ***: - Confirmed the status of the Bill of Rights as a constitutional statute. Points to Include: *. **Challenge the Validity**: - Cite the Bill of Rights * and the Thoburn case to argue that fines without court conviction are void. *. **Registered Keeper Issue**: - Mention you are not the registered keeper or the "all caps name." *. **Demand Proof**: - Request

More

Continue