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

Mr. & Mrs. A. H. Winter

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

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

email to:@btinternet.com

PCN Processing Unit,

PO Box 20217,

NW1 9GH

Director P Bishop, / J Woods.

Sent by email and fax 02079744610

Thu, 18 May 2006 12:28:59

Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU02132933

____________

Dear Sir./Madam,

I refer to your letter dated 17^th May, for which I thank you.

You say you have taken all the contents of my letter into account, ignoring my clause 3 (a) among others and consequently YOU have decided to enforce the ticket VERY STICTLY despite its being prejudicial.

Please note: I shall make a payment by cheque on the due date by hand, accepting liability for the offence.

I return I shall be seeking you accept liability for any consequences arising from my representation and claim for damages pursuant to avoidable time and trouble you are on course to cause me.

Had you clarified point 3 (a), and why you are intending to ignore it, you will see that the picture is of a gold car, and not as stated on the PCN colour BROWN. I do not own or keep a brown car.

There were other points made in the representation that I shall bring up at a hearing. I shall send the cheque accompanied by a draft county court claim, that proceeding to enforce this is the first of the necessary two offences of harassment, the second of which will be deemed to occur should you take the step of sending a NTO or knowingly enforce the PCN while at least the details of the PCN are not accurate and do not represent the car in question. This contrast is described so as to be clear that my momentary impulsive infraction is to be compared with your now seen as, wilfully, and knowingly determined enforcement of the law, while simultaneously breaching other aspect of the RTA 1997, and on course to breach the offence of harassment, et al.

The strict ruthless nature of enforcing such a trivial offence for sixty seconds is remarkably prejudicial, making this a case of clear and unequivocal revenue driven penalty. In LIKE strictness I, require that the details of the PCN are lawfully accurate to the same strict degree you have resolved is to be your course of conduct. As they are not accurate and I do not own a brown car, I consider this conduct to be egregious, wilful, with relevant 'mens mentis' that argues serious and profound pre-mediation by contrast to my mistake. You may prefer this go to an adjudicator first.

Yours Most respectfully,

E & OI

A.H. Winter

There is a PS,

Some years ago, I had a similar incident, and the LGO found the council guilty of maladministration. I should say however I do not rely on them for just and clear discernibility.

The article sent you from the Sunday times, has been a matter of exchanges between their author and myself. And similarly the BBC and particularly the Consumers association who did a recent expose on this behaviour, and are doing another one at some time in the future.

These representations along with your declination shall be forwarded to all these parties, in addition to the New Minister that took over Darling's office. within the next 13 days, in order that this issue becomes one of public focus. It shall be placed alongside others on a web site also.

Mr. A. Winter

email to: @btinternet.com

PCN Processing Unit,

PO Box 20217,

NW1 9GH

Director P Bishop, / J woods.

Sent by email and fax 02079744610

Thu, 18 May 2006 12:28:59

Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU02132933

____________

Dear Sir./Madam,

I refer to your letter dated 17^th May, for which I thank you.

I have just noticed the last line of third paragraph in the aforementioned letter.

I draw you attention that I mentioned in the representation and pointed out to the warden there were two badges on display. If he took the details of the expired one, it supports my view that his action was of wilful intent to serve a detriment where his alternatives were to take details of the valid pair and warn me to remove the vehicle.

This is all part of the general policy to abrogate tortious liability and choose by 'suppresio veri' and 'suggestio falsi' only that evidence that serves the interest of a determination to the benefit of the council's revenue and detriment to justice and tolerance. The badge is in any case irrelevant to the issue, since I do not possess a traders badge.

I showed your warden I was recording the exchange so he can deny it should you instruct him so to do. Should he wish to defend the issue he can do so under the rules of perjury, but I fail to see why you make this point, at the same time also ignoring my referring to it in the 1^st letter.it seems to be point scoring to no material purpose without realising it throws light on the nature of the prejudicial issue of the PCN to gain revenue at all costs, no matter how achieved.

Thank you. E. & O. I.

Yours Most Respectfully,

A. Winter