Traffic Management Act 2004 Part 6 Notification, adjudication and enforcement - Section 79 (5)The regulations shall provide— (a)that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle;

The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893: Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [bold emphasis added] Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [bold emphasis added] Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as: Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

"Legally Right". How about "lawfully right"? You are aware that because something is 'legal', it doesn't make it 'lawful'. There is NOTHING lawful about a PCN issue! The ONLY thing that gives the process legitimacy is their powers of enforcement! For example, did you know that a PCN must be issued by a local authority employee for the PCN issue to be 'legal'? If I were to go through the PCN case with Fossn, I'm sure I would be able to find illegalities in the enforcement process. However that time has passed. What we are NOW dealing with is their enforcement machine which has F-all to do with the legalities of their process and EVERYTHING to do with their postion of authority. Furthermore, the bailiffs DO NOT have 'legal' entitlement as the very document that 'legitimises' their enforcement - namely the Warrant of Execution from Northampton County Court - is not worth the paper it is written on AND the document that is supposed to enact the WoE does not exist! So much for your belief in 'legal'. Like I said before, if you bother to look behind the screen you will realise the Emperor has no clothes - in other words, what you believe is legal, more often than not does not have any legislation supporting it and many times completely contradicts foundational laws that supercede them. I'll put it to both of you again: Other than his car which the law does not allow them to take, how is the bailiff going to get money from Fossn???

Fossn, the bailiff has right of enforcement for 6 years. If you can put up with letters that have no more power than junk mail coming through your door, then you'll be fine. If you are prepared to read the riot act to any bailiff that attends - making sure you know your legal rights as a disabled driver - you'll be fine. If you are willing to take legal action against them in the event of your car being clamped or towed - you'll be fine. I put penny to a pound that when you make the bailiff aware of your rights under the aforementioned acts - in particular the DDA 2005 - you will only get threatening letters and no physical action will be taken by them - just remember not to give them your phone number! Green&Mean, I have to say I have been following this forum for some years and whilst I have witnessed you giving useful information and I understand the "face the real situation" approach you have to advice, you consistently - unintentionally or otherwise - tell people seeking help how wrong and useless it is for them to be fighting a given issue. It is important to know the implications of ones actions and we know what the authorities say can't be done, but the users of this site are interesred in what CAN be done WITHOUT complying with the system. You should re-consider the negative tone many of your replies have.

Fossn, the reason why is that many people don't realise the programming theyre under - and I mean that seriously, not in any facetious way because it was when I woke up I realised this simple mind trick that is played on ordinary members of the public - the 99% if you will, and that is: We're all taught to believe that when an authoritative body or someone with authority and the powers of enforcement imposes a penalty/fine/administration charge on us that is morally bankcrupt if not 'illegal', we should pay up. But if WE are able to find a loophole in the system that allows us to avoid paying for something, we make ourselves feel guilty i.e. "it doesn't feel right", "I don't want the hassle I'll just pay", "you can't fight them". So what happens next is the system imposes itself so aggressively we stop to look outside of what they are telling us and work with what they give us instead of looking around it. When you do open your eyes and look where you want to not where you're told to, more often than not you'll find the Emperor really has no clothes! Fear & Anxiety robs you of Rational Thought. (Tha'ts the state a bailiff puts you in). Anger makes you think instinctively and decisively. Anger is good! Try making yourself angry an hour before you have to face something you find daunting if you don't believe me!

The very nature of all public policy enforcement is THEM making US believe they can take something valuable away from us. Once you lose that fear then what they do doesn't matter as justice will be yours! So if they're willing to take my vehicle for a parking fine, then why wouldn't I be willng to take them to court for the same?! And as to which court, Civil or Criminal depending on which law you'd want to use. Bailiffs work with fear and doubt all day. They know how to spot it and manipulate it. So don't you think they know when a person has no fear of them or their processes? Do you really believe a bailiff believes he/she is above the law? If you do then you've fallen for "the almighty bailiff" propoganda that most of the public has and if so you shouldn't be giving advice as this site is for fighters!!! And yes, personal and 2nd hand experience has shown that a bailiff knows when they are in above their heads! The only time they initiate aggressive enforcement is if they believe there will be no comebacks. If you don't personally know of anyone who has put a bailiff in their place then you are moving in the wrong circles!

Jamberson, they can ramp up their fees to a million pounds - how can they get that money if he doesn't pay? If they clamp/tow/sell his vehicle as a disabled driver - how can Fossn lose in court when there is consumer/traffic/parking legislation that directly forbids this behaviour? I know from personal and 2nd hand experience that the belief and knowledge with which you talk to a bailiff makes a massive difference in their behaviour. Also, threatening and filing a Form 4 against a bailiff - in light of the upsurge of complaints against them - makes them wary. The bullish behaviour displayed by bailiffs is pure bravado - when they KNOW you know what you're talking about and KNOW you will not and cannot be intimidated you will notice an immediate change in their attitude and behaviour! Bailiffs are not fools - I do not know of one who wants to stand up in court to explain why they clamped/towed a disabled driver.

Jamberson is right. Upto the point of filing a Witness Statement the TEC are not interested in other aspects of the PCN - only if you had the right of representation which Fossn did and whether any procedural improprieties occurred. However, that doesn't mean the judge that has to make a ruling on the success of a Witness Statement can't be influenced by a local authority to find in their favour. I have an actual case at the moment where exactly that has happened - the WS was refused despite me quoting the actual act of parliament that proved the councils acts were illegal and unlawful! Fossn, as long as you don't mind letters coming through your door I would ignore the bailiff because if he clamped and/or towed your vehicle, make him aware of what laws he's breaking - The Disabilities Discrimination Act 2005, the Traffic Managment Act 2004, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, The Administration of Justice Act 1970, The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, The Theft Act 1968 & the Fraud Act 2005 (plus more) - and if still doesn't listen, actually file a criminal charge against him knowing you wil be successful!

The issue is a Witness Statement was filed and a direct reference to the act of parliament that proved the council acted illegally and committed a number of procedural improprieties was ignored and the WS refused. I prefer to complain direct to a person so I was hoping to find a list of people responsible for this body but as I wasn't able to I wrote the letter anyway and sent it by R.Delivery.

Does anyone know or have a list of the TEC hierarchy? I ask this because it appears that no-one but 'parliament' is answerable for this body and they must have a management structure but trying to find if one exists is like a needle in a haystack! Typical of public policy enforcement bodies - all enforcement and no accountability! Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Something isn't right about your case. Did you know about the PCN b4 it reached the OFR stage? If so, did you appeal? On what grounds? Did they reply back to you? what was the reasons for rejection? These questions may seem late but a disabled driver does not have to pay a PCN in most instances. Also, a bailiff cannot clamp or remove the vehicle of a disabled driver in ANY circumstances, so I'm not sure what there is for you to worry about as they can't come into your home unless you invite them in or if you're out one day and you leave a window or door open and they are allowed to enter under the law of 'peaceful entry'. And in answer to your query regarding the TEC, the warrants for PCNs issued by Northampton County Court are not worth the paper they are written on! I can prove it categorically in law but I need a solicitor who's willing to take on their own kind before I can do anything about this fraudulent practice. I await your reply.

Alright Guys, I'll let this one go and as always all replies were welcome - each one, teach one! I think it would be good idea for anyone who has gone through the process - the motorist - or anyone who has taken someone through the process - the solicitor, to use this post to detail exactly what the PCN/High Court Review process entails for future members. If admin thinks this is a good idea, of course! Peace!

I would really appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction as to exactly how I can enact a High Court Review against a decision made in a Judical Review. Whilst a step-by-step guide would be invaluable, I'm not a lazy man so point me in the right direction and I will do the leg work. As I understand it, High Court Reviews against PCN/Judicial Reviews do not cost that much at all and the process is apparently straight forward but I'd like to know for sure. For example, anyone know how the guy in the "R.Makda vs the Parking Adjudicator" got his case to a high court review?

I have already applied under the "in the interests of justice" and was knocked back with the most collusive response that beggars belief. I cannot let it stand. I will check out the links provided by the Site Team and see if that helps. For the record, I got the term Judicial Review from PATAS. Its the term they used when I was applying for a review of their decision under Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007. As always I will feed back to you guys & gals when I have some direction.

Hello CAG, Can anyone provide, or point me to where I can find, detailed information on EXACTLY how to take a PCN issue to the High Court after disagreeing with a PATAS Judicial Review? Now, I have a number of useful websites already that I'm sure some of you may post and send me i.e. http://www.justice.gov.uk/index.htm, http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/how-to-enforce-your-rights/civil-action-and-judicial-review/civil-action.html, http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/ etc., I've even got Judge Patricia's book. However, whilst I admit I have serious time constraints at present, it seems almost impossible to find a Definitive Guide on How to Take PCN/Civil cases to the High Court for a review. I'm not afraid to put in the research, so anyone that can point me in the right direction - or anyone that is willing to draw a guide up - your help would be most appreciated.

Benn133, ALL of the corporatocracy (Central & Local Government, the Judiciary, the Police, the large corporations) impose their financial penalties on us by using the tool of FEAR twice: the fear we have that they have the power to do what they want and the fear that they can take something valuable from us which is money. Lose the fear, gain some anger and you will be surprised at how differently you approach the corporatocracy both mentally and practically.

Still no word. I think we can count that as a success! Therefore any council that has a payment system that allows you to determine the amount to be paid is fair game. In fact, I see no reason why someone couldn't just pay £10. The law and the result will still be the same; and let's face it: £60 fine for a 10-second/3-minute infringement of a rule that did not and does not have a financial penalty attached to it in law? And because they say "it's the law" it's considered fair and just???! I don't think so.

Hello Mightymouse, Thanks for the link and posters: calm down, calm down! Each one, teach one.

Still no word....

Thank you Lamma. I already have that link but haven't you noticed that it is an amendment of the act and not the actual statutory instrument, the full act?

Can anyone or does anyone know where an actual copy of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007 can be found? I have looked on ops.gov.uk, legislation.gov.uk, statutelaw.gov.uk to no avail. I can find amendments coming out of my ears but not the actual statute referenced above and I find this quite disconcerting considering this is the law that local authorities and other legislation constantly refers to when motorist's vehicles are removed/towed. If anyone can help, it would be appreciated.

To Bernie and Zamara: Yes, I'm well aware of the estoppel factor and both the cases you refer to. (For those that don't know what we are talking about here's an informative link: Estoppel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) However, Bernie it is exactly your point about civil penalties are not allowed in contracts that gives me power because ALL local authorities are registered as limited companies. (So much for public accountability!). Therefore I have to give my consent to contract with them and in as much as by supplying joinder - my Mr. name and address - I have done so, I can also withdraw my contractual consent if I believe they are acting unlawful - that's unlawful not illegal! For them to push this knowing that I intend to be tenacious, they will be messing with the very foundation of contract law.

The latest update. The council has obviously not had much joy with the TEC as they have now put the case back to PATAS. I believe the reason why they could get no joy out of the TEC is because of contract law I mentioned previously - Their system OFFERED a payment amount, I CONSIDERED and paid and their system ACCEPTED. I've no doubt PATAS and the council are trying to find a way around this but seeing that contract law is a maxim, I'm interested to see what they come up with. I'll update you on further events.

I said I would keep you updated, so here is the latest update: The council have sent a TE3 Order for Recovery. I have filed a TE9 with the Traffic Enforcement Centre filling in the section where it states that I paid, to whom and on what date. I've also sent the TEC a copy of the online receipt. Watch this space.....

Sorry for not replying sooner. Philip Bailiffs sent a request for monies but are unable to supply the PCN number that corresponds to their claim. I don't see why a payment should be made that cannot be justified. So my beef is with the bailiffs at the moment. I did hear about case law that suggests a council is responsible for it's bailiffs, but at present I haven't been able to find the actual case.