Reclaiming charges from newlyn

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Unlike the letter of 26 October, this is meaningless diatribe encased in pure diatribe.

Mr Adamji's depth of knowledge wouldn't pierce the surface of a child's bubble.

I'll answer the letter in more detail tomorrow

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Unlike the letter of 26 October, this is meaningless diatribe encased in pure diatribe.

Mr Adamji's depth of knowledge wouldn't pierce the surface of a child's bubble.

I'll answer the letter in more detail tomorrow

Having looked at it, F-P, the author of the letter clearly does not appear to be familiar or conversant with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, i.e. the Pre-Action Protocols and Over-Riding Principle. My immediate impression is that the author is either quoting from a pre-prepared template, or being badly-advised by LB of Harrow's Legal Department, or, more likely, resorting to intimidation in the belief that it will deter the OP from pursuing the authority for what is, essentially, malpractice by the authority's contracted enforcement agent for which the authority is vicariously-liable and which could have serious repercussions for the authority and its officers. My view is that the author of the letter is, certainly, putting the authority at risk of formal investigation, at the very least, and may well be putting themselves and others within the employment of the authority at risk of formal investigation also.

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

"Unless we receive formal notification of court proceeding, no further correspondence will be entered into. Please be advised that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, elected members are not permitted to be involved in any disputes relating to penalty charge notices as matters relating to PCNs and bailiffs should only be assessed by suitably trained staff. An elected member can ask what the hell the traffic department are playing at and make acidic comments if they wish, without falling foul of any Regulations, that is what they are there for to kick incompetent and supercilious officials up the arse The onus is on you to prove that the Council has not complied with part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as we are satisfied that part 75 of CPR has been fulfilled. "

This is more threat and bluster, and the hole is growing deeper

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

This latest letter is a prime example of why it is pointless to contact local authorities with a view to allowing them to perform on the platform that has been prepared for them via a letter of complaint. As Mr Adamji shows they are quite happy to filibuster until they decide that you have become a nuisance to them. Never mind that there may be more important revelations - and why stick to facts and legislation they must follow when they think they make up their own unsustainable rules as they go along?

When Fair Parking is asked to assist a person, it now simply sends local authorities a Notice of Intended Proceedings. Some local authorities tend to misread this as an invitation to a discussion and another opportunity to filibuster - Mr Adamji is one such person who failed with that tactic but still doesn't understand why. Fair Parking's NIPs can be compared with Notice to Owners ie if the local authority does not produce what is asked for in this notice then further action will be taken against that local authority, thus it cuts down on wasteful and meaningless correspondence. In this case over two months have passed and the OP is no further forward - indeed as Adamji has now made it plain that the game is over, the OP may have gone backwards.

So whilst it is against my instincts to answer such tripe, it may help others in this instance.

Unless we receive formal notification of court proceeding, no further correspondence will be entered into. Why?Why invite probable legal proceedings that can only be defended by taxpayer's money merely because the possibly of further evidence has escaped the council's imagination - fertile though it may be in other areas?

Please be advised that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, elected members are not permitted to be involved in any disputes relating to penalty charge notices as matters relating to PCNs. Is this English? - The TMA certainly doesn't say any of this - if it did then Adamji would be able to quote precisely which section is he referring to. Elected Members? Of what? There are no elected members in the TMA. The only members that exist are the member local authorities which make up the Traffic Enforcement Centre and they do not have to be elected. They merely pay for its upkeep. The TEC is only responsible to Civil Procedure Rule 75. It is only local authorities which must obey the TMA. As there are no elected members - and as usual when imaginations are substituted for reality - the rest is nonsense and forgets that there are two appeals procedures in place.

as matters relating to PCNs and bailiffs should only be assessed by suitably trained staff. What 'suitably trained staff?' Who is being trained for what and by whom? The TEC staff are always stating that they are not legally trained. Staff in Harrow's back office outsourced company are not legally trained and indeed have little if any training in traffic management. Adamji clearly doesn't consider that he is suitably trained in this area. Who else is left? The danger of making it up as you go along is fully exposed here.

The onus is on you to prove that the Council has not complied with part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as we are satisfied that part 75 of CPR has been fulfilled. That's easy enough as LB Harrow never prepared a warrant as required under the strict terms of CPR 75 (7) (3) No warrant - no enforcement.

Please note that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 is applicable for challenging whether or not a bailiff has carried out certain work and for challenging work for which a motorist believes a bailiff is not entitled to make a charge or where the law does not permit a charge to be made. This has been confirmed by our legal team and I can only therefore re-iterate that you do seek suitable, independent legal advice prior to any court proceedings against the London Borough of Harrow. Similarly, a form 4 complaint against a certificated bailiff allows minor alleged misconduct by the bailiff to be assessed by the County Court as well as more serious allegations of conduct. Please be advised that our legal team also agrees with this view. Whither the legal team and given Adamji's reference to them as a separate entity, it appears that he doesn't consider himself to part of the legal team. It also appears that the legal team doesn't know that a form 4 complaint is there purely for a judge (not a court) to assess whether a bailiff is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate.Charging incorrect fees is not usually considered to be a serious enough reason for debarring a bailiff from earning a living.

Upon receiving formal notification of court proceedings, our legal team will rigorously oppose your application and recover costs from yourself. Over to Groucho Marx...


I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

This is because taking legal proceedings against the Council is the incorrect route to take for challenging bailiff fees. That presumes that the enforcement was legal. It wasn't and that is what should be challenged - the bailiffs fees are thus irrelevant. This is an LGO complaint.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

And another reply to the last letter articulated by bluebottle below

Dear Mr Paul Floorlayer,

Unless we receive formal notification of court proceeding, no further correspondence will be entered into. Please be advised that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, elected members are not permitted to be involved in any disputes relating to penalty charge notices as matters relating to PCNs and bailiffs should only be assessed by suitably trained staff. The onus is on you to prove that the Council has not complied with part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as we are satisfied that part 75 of CPR has been fulfilled.

Please note that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 is applicable for challenging whether or not a bailiff has carried out certain work and for challenging work for which a motorist believes a bailiff is not entitled to make a charge or where the law does not permit a charge to be made. This has been confirmed by our legal team and I can only therefore re-iterate that you do seek suitable, independent legal advice prior to any court proceedings against the London Borough of Harrow. Similarly, a form 4 complaint against a certificated bailiff allows minor alleged misconduct by the bailiff to be assessed by the County Court as well as more serious allegations of conduct. Please be advised that our legal team also agrees with this view.

Upon receiving formal notification of court proceedings, our legal team will rigorously oppose your application and recover costs from yourself. This is because taking legal proceedings against the Council is the incorrect route to take for challenging bailiff fees. Making an application under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 at a county court is the only correct route to take to challenge the bailiff fees.

Yours Sincerely,
Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer

Hi Paul,

Do not send any further correspondence to LB of Harrow until Fair-Parking has looked in again and advised. As F-P has said, the CPR Part 75 provision the council employee keeps quoting is a red herring. The issue in question is the action undertaken by the two Newlyn "pseudo cops" and the fees they extracted.

The emails the LB of Harrow employee has sent you gives the impression of a local authority that has gotten used to getting away with pulling the wool over people's eyes. However, eventually, the day dawns when someone comes along who is enlightened and the local authority cannot pull the wool over their eyes, no matter how much diatribe, misinformation and threats they employ.

You asked in your last email for LB of Harrow to indicate that they did not intend to comply with the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 and that they have done by saying they will not enter into any further correspondence unless notified of formal legal proceedings, albeit that you have told them that they are obliged, under CPR, to resolve any dispute without resorting to the courts.

Has the LB of Harrow in-house legal team confirmed any of the matters the LB of Harrow employee claims they have? I very much doubt it.

A number of Form 4 complaints have been dismissed by the courts and costs awarded against the complainants. Quite simply, Form 4 is not appropriate where only fees are the issue or for minor transgressions. Form 4 is for instances where a bailiff has done something so serious that the whole question of their fitness to act as a bailiff is at issue. Notwithstanding, a court can, on receipt of a letter accompanied by evidence of misconduct by a certificated bailiff, revoke a bailiff's certificate without requiring a Form 4 to be submitted or convening a hearing, by use of its powers under CPR to make a decision of its own initiative and to dispose with a case without a hearing. That happened to a certificated bailiff during 2012 and there is nothing to say that it won't happen again.

The statements made by the LB of Harrow employee in respect of Form 4 are ill-informed, at the very least.

And what of the threats to "rigorously oppose your application and recover costs from yourself"?

LB of Harrow is going to look pretty silly if a court threw out their arguments or, even. struck out any defence they submitted, simply, because they decided they could pick and choose which parts of the law to obey and, clearly, don't appear to have a clue that the way their contracted enforcement agent acted in your case was ultra vires.

The LGO is, probably, going to be your best bet as it will be without cost to yourself, apart from postage. One of the conditions of referring a case to the LGO is that a complainant must have exhausted a local authority's complaints procedures before the LGO can become involved.

As for the Newlyn "pseudo cops", I would speak to your local police force about this and make them aware there are individuals operating on their manor who are dressing and behaving in a manner that gives the distinct impression they are police officers or have police powers. If you gained the impression they were police officers and your belief was genuinely-held, then it should be reported and a formal record made.

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Hi Fair Parking,

Always good to welcome you onto LB, and, as you know, we value your input immensely. Someone who does this commercially is always bound to pick up on things we amateurs don't. Bizarrely I nearly suggested the LGO in my response, but believed the complaints procedure had to have been followed first.

Do we not now have two potential ways back at Harrow though. Firstly, as you have suggested via the LGO on behalf of the OP, Paul. Secondly, via the CEO of the council to point out all these errors, put into question the competence of Mr Adamji and just pose the question of what, having laid the council open via a series of lies, or misrepresentations, he intends to do?

I'm just thinking that this could be turned to our advantage interms of not only addressing the immediate issue Paul has, but tackling Harrow on a slightly bigger picture too. What do you think?

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

F-P,

Many thanks for your input and comment. I agree with a lot of what you say. The LB of Harrow employee has demonstrated, in a few emails, the contempt they and local authorities have for the man and woman in the street and the lengths they will go to in order to beat anyone who dares to challenge their behaviour into submission. From what I have seen so far, this LB of Harrow employee has, in all probability, succeeded in hanging LB of Harrow by their scrawny necks. It will be interesting to see what the LGO makes of it and says in any adjudication.

Paul,

In hindsight, perhaps it might have been better if you had started that email "Dear Muppet..."

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Kermit is more intelligent than LB of Harrow imho

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

LGO the way to go now then, can I assume that via my emails to the head of traffic enforcement and to the council ceo that would count towards me exhausting the complaints procedure and should move directly to the LGO.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Deleted

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Kermit's left flipper is more intelligent than LB of Harrow imho

IFYPFY :grin:

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

IFYPFY :grin:

Come to think of it a dead amoeba would be more intelligent than LB of Harrow. this council seem more spiv than Arthur Daley.

Mr chisolm I know how Arthur Daley will die! Hows that? He'll fall off the back of a Lorry! (Arthur Daley he's alright.. The Firm)

All together now the new Harrow song: We can be so bad for you Newlyn fleece you when we want 'em to......

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

LGO the way to go now then, can I assume that via my emails to the head of traffic enforcement and to the council ceo that would count towards me exhausting the complaints procedure and should move directly to the LGO.

Hi Paul,

The emails to the LB of Harrow employees mentioned and their responses would count as evidence against LB of Harrow. Go onto the LB of Harrow website and check their formal complaints procedure. In order for the LGO to accept complaints for investigation and adjudication, you must first exhaust a local authority's formal complaints procedure.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Members might be interested in reading a letter I sent to Hozefa Adamji. I am unable to show what I was replying to but I can confirm that this letter referred to the transfer of data files and not a warrant to Newlyn. In short no warrant existed and will not in Paul's case.

From: Hozefa.Adamji@harrow.gov.uk [mailto:Hozefa.Adamji@harrow.gov.uk]
Sent: 06 September 2013 16:40
To: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: Mr

Dear Ron Clark,

Please find attached our full response to your email dated 12/08/2013 on behalf your client Mr. This is our final response and other than receiving formal notification from the courts of proceedings against the Council, no further correspondence will be entered into in respect of PCNs HR and HR.

Yours Sincerely,
Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer.

---

From: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk [mailtorotectme@fair-parking.co.uk]
Sent: 09 September 2013 11:00
To: Hozefa.Adamji@harrow.gov.uk
Cc: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: RE: Mr

Mr Adamji –

I can see from your email that you are not familiar with the history of TEC procedure - and that being so - you may consider that in being curt and dismissive of somebody who knows far more about the subject of traffic enforcement that you do, it would be wiser in future to not act so arrogantly with so little experience. I am well aware of what the TEC Guide says as I have copies of the July 2007 and March 2011 versions. It appears that you are not aware of the former in which the Annex 17 template and paragraphs 9.21 and 9.22 appear.

The March 2011 version of just 11 pages did not supersede the July 2007 version of 91 pages - it merely updated it where necessary. Thus paras 9.21 and 9.22 are still active, as indeed is para 10.68 of the DoT statutory guide which echoes 9.22. It would be a brave and some may say foolish Enforcement Officer, who would assume that he needed only to refer to the abridged TEC update as that does not contain any Annexes or detailed instructions on how local authorities should deal with the TEC before warrants are authorised. It does however contain a reference to an Annex 9 in para 10.3 although somebody appears to have deleted the words ‘Annex 9’ in later editions. Who gave that authority remains a mystery.

However due to unlawful wording of the Annex 17, the March 2011 update replaced it with a new Annex 9 template. That became effective on April 12 2011. That means that every ‘warrant’ that Harrow would claim it produced prior to April 12 2011 is therefore unenforceable and you should refund every single person concerned.

As far as advising that Mr should seek ‘competent legal advice’. I really should not have to remind a Senior Enforcement Officer that the traffic management rules his authority freely signed up for, do not fall within the legal rules. Traffic management and legal qualifications are chalk and cheese and as such I am not aware of any solicitor or barrister with qualifications in traffic management. Further unless you can categorically state that people who enforce these traffic management rules ie your unadmitted outsourced company, your bailiffs and other associated parties are all legally qualified then your foolish attempt to be scathing about my knowledge falls flat at the first hurdle.

Finally – may I ask you to read my letter again, only a little more carefully? It was not an invitation to a discussion, it was a Notice of Intended Legal Proceedings which can only be averted by conforming to the request to show proof of a genuine warrant, prepared by Harrow, the template of which should have been embedded in an electronic transmission sent to the bailiffs.

You have not produced that and without it, proceedings will be commenced against Harrow.

R.J. Clark pp
Fair Parking

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Yes F P I feel that has a significant impact on Harrow's contibued intransigence in OP'a case.