This case was taken to a court, 'caught' and has begun its public exposure here.

Mr. A. Winter

........................

.........................

email to: @btinternet.com

PCN Processing Unit,

PO Box 20217,

NW1 9GH

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:31:22

Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU02132933

____________

Dear Sir./Madam,

I refer to the above PCN, where the issue is under circumstances that I find to be egregiously invidious.

This representation takes three parts;

2. The circumstances of my alleged offence, which probably will be met with a 'strictly by the book declination' as follows;

   1. I had a serious problem with the vehicle on this day, with an ignition lead that had caused me to break down 4 times, needing a replacement as a matter of urgency. I stopped briefly in an offside street displaying two disabled badges, an expired and a new one, on each side of the vehicle so there is no chance of missing them. the copies of the badges are enclosed. I stooped in good faith, believing I was parked in a normal bay for parking, and the disabled badge entitle me to do so without payment of a meter.

   2. As I entered the shop, one of the staff unbeknown to me was already talking with the warden to alert him as to the fact that I was known to them, displaying disabled badges. And the circumstances did not warrant the issue of a PCN since he would ask me to remove the vehicle. Among other things, I have an extremely serious gout inflammation, making distance walking painful as well as running the risk of initiating new attacks that can cause me to be bedridden for weeks even months at a time. I did not stop to study the confusing signage, seeing I was in an empty white lined bay, that looked seriously less offensive to congestion than on a yellow line, or red enclosure in the main street, where I had a right of parking.

   3. The staff member ran back to the shop, and informed me of the situation whereupon. I left immediately and spoke to the warden. He pointed out that I was parked in an unoccupied trader's bay, (there being no traders in sight) and I said that surely I was entitled to stop as it was less inconvenient to other road users. I pointed out that there were two badges on display, and the warden said he had noted one of them, not interested in the other. I do not know which he noted. He advised that he was entitled to issue a ticket even after a one second infraction. This was recorded on a Dictaphone I showed him, and in this respect I understand that I was NOT in circumstances where there is NO stopping at any time, rather I was in a vacant or allowed bay or yellow line with a warden standing nearby, unobserved that should have made the offence known to me as a duty of care within his conduct for legal enforcements on behalf of the council, rather than pursuit of schadenfreude and revenue at the expense of similar members of society. I anticipate this part of the representation to be declined or dealt with strictly and as such it shall support the contention that revenue driven PCN's invariably are petty and victimising in character, as shown by the Sunday Times article enclosed, where I and the author have been in exchanges this past few weeks, since I am writing, for publication, about these invidious practices and some similar incidences of appalling codes of conduct amounting to almost criminal behaviour.

3. The circumstances under which in my view the warden's alleged offences, and consequently what shall flow from his errors, the council's anticipated errors may be as follows;

   1. Please just look at the duration of this alleged offence. ONE MINUTE, in fact it was less, because it was already being represented by a staff member of the shop, and then immediately myself at the conclusion. I allege the warden had to be and was observing me park, the duration of the entire sequence does not permit otherwise, and he most certainly made no attempt to make his presence known, or visible, preferring to follow a course of conduct that was wilfully and deplorably opportunistic,

   2. ) To do so, wilfully, negligently and knowingly while at the same time OMITTING his duty of care, and any code of conduct that the council would or should uphold shall make him, and whomever supporter it and flows with it, guilty of misprision, towards the taxpayer, members of the public, and in particular the weaker members of society, in pursuit of conduct that is in contravention of the following statutory instruments.

   3. Disability Discrimination Act 2005, Chapter 13, sections 21B, (2),a), 21D,(1) a), and possibly b),. plus 21E, Duties for purposes of section 21D (2), 1) a) and b). Among other sections of this act that need not be detailed at this juncture.

   4. This and the following section 3. would lead to a situation likely to breach the first of the required two offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 viz;

   5. Chapter 40,1.- (1), (a),(b). and liable consequentially upon judgement, within 2.-(1) (2). with the civil remedy of 3. being opened up as a consequence of the second breach, following this first notice of scrutiny for the breach.

4. Several relevant statutory factors that should cause this PCN to be cancelled on grounds as follows:

   1. The most obvious being that upon examination of the evidence you will have from the warden, the PCN, its details and the photograph; the warden showed me he had taken, you will find that a particular detail DOES NOT correspond with the facts, unequivocally, and consequentially should invalidate this PCN forthwith under the relevant aspects of the RTA 1991 act section 66.

   2. Should the obvious and res ipsa loquitur escape the council's attention it would support the view that the primary inclination is to gain the revenue, without attending to its being obtained equally and strictly within the aforesaid statute that governs its issuance as well as the alleged offence. Also under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for negligence; and yet to be revealed, maladministration that may cause me to receive the detriment of avoidable time , trouble and distress in the event found to be unlawful, and enforceably remedial.

• Contrary to 66.—(1).(b) since the PCN was completed before I had seen the warden, (not being given to me). 66.---(1) (a) was fulfilled negligently, meaning it could very easily have escaped from its position had I driven off, and not seen it. It was not properly affixed or fixed to the vehicle in a manner that was responsible in ensuring it was difficult to escape, being the OED meaning of FIX in the relevant part of the aforesaid statute..

• The warden exercised functions, alleged to be contrary to the strict interpretation of 63A. (4).

• The warden and the council's conduct would in all this be contrary to the spirit of enclosed article from the Sunday Times, as the present thinking by the Secretary of State for Transport, and this PCN shall (if not cancelled) be placed before him, the BBC, the Sunday Times, and the Consumers Association, all of whom, excepting the Secretary of State, have had exchanges with myself on this precise problem that undermines respect, tolerance, and humane treatment of fellow members of society and also underpins the rising level of crime in local communities.

• I would be seeking to have this before an adjudicator, and if necessary go forward to an judicial hearing on infringements of rights I aver entitlement under the three of the EU conventions of human rights and five protocols. In the absence of success in these areas I would seek a personal remedy at the Inner London C C for the so eager and zealous conduct of this warden, and those supporting him, that do not mind committing offences under the RTA1991 for the sake if petty and illegal enforcements for revenue.

Finally, I have hitherto had excellent relations with all sections of Camden Council this past 30 years. While I do not wish to mar this history, I would ask you to respectfully consider my representation with due thoroughness, in relevance to decent practices and codes of conduct, as apart from the strict allegations I shall rely on,, should the council wish to seek enforcement for which I shall hold myself accountable, and expect reciprocation in like responsibility.

I hope this representation will be taken with some consideration for parts 1. and 2. rather than as to what shall flow from its pursuit in enforcement under part 3. above, since while I shall accept liability for the alleged offence in its strictest enforcement, I shall seek a remedy through the Adjudicator's option and a judicial review, as well as consider the civil remedies available to me under the three statutory enactments aforementioned. I should mention that I have this past ten years conducted all of my civil remedy actions, personally and not lost any of the dozen or more cases.

Additional comment:

Considering the nature of the latest equipment combined with the warden's comment that he was entitled to issue a PCN for a one second infraction; it may be contextually inferred without equivocation that wardens are equipped with policy, codes of practice and equipment to ruthlessly deploy the issuance of PCN's under circumstances that breach the boundaries of accepted, tolerant and reasonable human behaviour to such an extent to warrant the conclusion that this practice is revenue driven and unconscionable inhumane and invidious.

In pursuing this course of conduct, knowingly, wilfully with the strictest observance to the letter of the law (not its spirit) re-enforced by increasing penalties. clamping, removal, and bailiff treatment for non co-operation on immediate payment. I aver and allege that the wardens and the chain of directing minds do jointly and severally render themselves liable to remedial treatment that should be pursued with equal if not greater strictness (having in mind the nature of the alleged offence being carried out in good faith, whereas the policy of enforcement is to the contrary) under several statutes concerning strict interpretations of breaches in the 4 statutes aforementioned; and re-itemised for the avoidance of doubt in laying out the broad particulars of an enforceable claim that should follow from anticipated rendering of liability should this notice of derogation in treatment be ignored..

Brief draft of recitals, on wardens severally and jointly with directing minds pursuing a course of conduct:

1. Contrary to the norms and customs of tolerance, and humane treatment of fellow members of a democratic society in pursuit of revenue contrary to the spirit of the RTA 1991 and breaching several relevant parts and subsections.

2. Contrary to the offences under the protection of harassment act 1997, knowingly, and willfully pursuing a course of conduct that is of the nature of vexation and harassment, where a perfectly acceptable alternative course of conduct is at hand, namely the warden should, in his duty of care, request the driver of a vehicle to move off, or alert him to the contravention.

3. Contrary to relevant sections of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, in wilful and deliberate failure to compensate for the particular disabilities of a driver, where circumstances freely permit an intervention and caution from a warden that the victim of such discrimination might either be allowed just 5 minutes, or else cautioned as to the consequence of remaining for a duration exceeding one second.

4. Contrary to relevant sections of The European Convention on Human Rights and its five protocols, viz articles 3, (inhuman or degrading treatment ) article 8, section 2, and other minor terms in article 13 for remedial treatment along with article 14, failing to take into account the exceptional needs of disabled persons.

5. Contrary to contravention code 16, applying a code of practice and close deliberate conduct that is inherent in contravention code 46 (stopped where prohibited) and invoking a prohibition that for a trader's bay is trivial, petty and and avoidable infraction where there is no specific mention for disabled badge owners of contrariety in terms of may and may not park in in a vacant traders bay, in emergency or extreme discomfort and risk.

Yours Most respectfully,

E & OI

A.Winter

This draft representation may alter in its actual posting or handing in by the latest 27^th Inst. The attachments shall be included in the originals by mail or hand.