Congestion Charge PCN - A fraudulent document

[Fair-Parking]

Adamna. The TE3 may well be a Crown document, but this one isn't as you quite rightly hint. No order has been made by Northampton County Court, as that would require a Northampton County Court stamp for authenticity which this document does not possess. This is more than just a 'technical point' as the wording should not read 'TEC AT Northampton County Court' for this is also deliberately misleading with the wording designed to give the appearance that Northampton County Court is involved when it is not.

 

Further a real Order for Recovery is a document issued by the TEC to local authorities and not to the public. The TEC Order For Recovery authorises local councils but not county courts to issue a warrant.

 

What you should have received is a warrant from City Of Westminster and not an 'Order for Recovery' produced by that Authority but fraudulently dressed up to make it look as if it came direct from a county court.

 

Taking this smoke and mirrors scheming to its logical conclusion this document - alleged to be a TE3, doesn't actually exist at all as the City Of Westminster has no authority to issue a TE3 Order For Recovery'. Little wonder it has no date on it, for that would require the addition of the words 'Date Of Order'

 

Of course it all could be another example of a 'mistake' by one of local authorities.

[lamma]

It is well known that Westminster avoid using the TEC to save the 5 pound fee. Instead they go the debt collector route. But I am sure that means they will pay fees to the agency albeit lower ones. perhaps this is a variant that reduces the fees to the debt agency or is designed to further the appearance of legality without paying the TEC anything at all. The agency still has no powers until TEC is invoked properly of course and then its out of the agency's hands (unless 'proper' collection is outsourced to them). the agency route would also appear to have the problem that so much time can pass while the RK ignores their meaningless demands that the PCN could age enough to make it very hard to enforce the proper way, six months or more could easily pass. (If the agency route fails Westminster still has the option of doing it lawfully). This seems to be creative enough to be hovering on Fraud to me. It seems clearly unlawful and I believe it may well be illegal enough to be Fraud (plus other statutes broken).

[johno1066]

Another problem here is that much of the TEC work is outsourced to the Bailiffs themselves as a back office function. Believe it or not, many of these Bailiffs' own staff sign the statements of truth for batch requests and conduct rejections on behalf of the Councils, not only is this practise in clear contravention of CPR it is also in the Bailiffs best interest for they then have control of the whole Court process and the appellant is at the mercy of whether the Bailiff sends out the paperwork etc.

 

TEC knows this practise goes on but won't do anything about it because they are cash hungry at the moment, the Courts system has got to find 1Billion quid to sustain a shortfall in cash; they the TEC also do not follow the complaints procedure of the County Court, instead they deflect complaints that are damaging to them in-house. TEC staff, when they do receive a complaint that requires the opinion of a District Judge, have upon their own 'initiative', passed that opinion off as a Court Order which is a total abuse of process.

 

Whilst I can't go into more detail, a particularly knowledgeable lady has uncovered much more than this about our 'friends' at TEC. The place needs a Judicial enquiry into the way it behaves and operates.

Edited January 6, 2009 by johno1066

[lamma]

agreed.

[green_and_mean]

You're getting yourself worked up boy, frustrating not knowing what you're on about isn't?

 

I would not know maybe you can tell me since you are the one that seems to be lost here.

[johno1066]

I would not know maybe you can tell me since you are the one that seems to be lost here.

 

 

Mein Gott! Our World has been blessed with Socrates, Shakespeare, Plato, and Kipling yet we on here get Green&Mean with yet another one of his paradoxes.

[Fair-Parking]

Haven't you been invited to explain to us the difference between a county court order and a county court order?

[green_and_mean]

Haven't you been invited to explain to us the difference between a county court order and a county court order?

 

Is that a trick question? lol

[adamna]

Adamna. The TE3 may well be a Crown document, but this one isn't as you quite rightly hint. No order has been made by Northampton County Court, as that would require a Northampton County Court stamp for authenticity which this document does not possess. This is more than just a 'technical point' as the wording should not read 'TEC AT Northampton County Court' for this is also deliberately misleading with the wording designed to give the appearance that Northampton County Court is involved when it is not.

But TEC told me it was entered.... what does that mean? I'm really not content with this, and don't see that I should be following their procedure of filling out applications (to be sent to TEC) if it's not valid.

[Fair-Parking]

No, read your posts preaching to us that a county court order and an order for recovery issued by the TEC are one and the same. To the rest of us there is a difference. ie an N24 an N30 and a TE3.

 

There is a difference between an N24 and N30 and a TE3 but to you they are all county court orders.

 

Please explain the difference between a county court order and a county court order.

[green_and_mean]

This is more than just a 'technical point' as the wording should not read 'TEC AT Northampton County Court' for this is also deliberately misleading with the wording designed to give the appearance that Northampton County Court is involved when it is not.

 

 

In YOUR opinion which is not the same as the Ministry of Justice who I think would be slightly better informed than you.

[Fair-Parking]

Adamna. It has probably been 'entered', that is in the TEC register but not as a debt or a county court order.

 

Such registration would therefore be valid. It is the enforcement via City Of Westminster's 'Order for Recovery' that is suspect. The TEC could only deal with the matter on the basis that there is a valid reason for not allowing the registration.

 

The enforcement via Westminster might best be dealt by writing to them and pointing out that their so called 'Order for Recovery' is fraudulent. You could go to the police but the chances are that they will simply not understand the problem.

[Fair-Parking]

No G & M - YOU explain. We are all waiting.

[johno1066]

In YOUR opinion which is not the same as the Ministry of Justice who I think would be slightly better informed than you.

 

 

Hmm DofT were better informed with regards to PCN wording weren't they?

[green_and_mean]

I cannot be bothered explaing anything. You obviously do not understand the legislation involved or how the TEC works. Trying to compare traffic debts with County Court orders which are governed by different legislation is pointless.

[johno1066]

There you go Fairparking, he's answered your question, Courts Orders and TECs 'traffic debts' are not one of the same. LOL

[Fair-Parking]

Thank you.

 

If there had been a simple explanation we would have heard it by now from one of the most vexatious posters on the forum. If there is no explanation then we won't hear one.

 

Now please go outside and keep quiet.

[adamna]

Trying to compare traffic debts with County Court orders which are governed by different legislation is pointless.

So, why are 'county court' orders for traffic 'debts' being issued? If you can be bothered that is.

 

I still want to know if an order has to be dated to be valid, under any legislation. I can't see how it can be if not.

[green_and_mean]

There you go Fairparking, he's answered your question, Courts Orders and TECs 'traffic debts' are not one of the same. LOL

 

The question he asked was what is the difference between a court order and a court order, so I have not answered his question which was as stupid as asking what is the difference between an apple and an apple.

[adamna]

There are green apples and red apples.... sour and sweet, rotten and fresh.

[green_and_mean]

So, why are 'county court' orders for traffic 'debts' being issued? If you can be bothered that is.

 

I still want to know if an order has to be dated to be valid, under any legislation. I can't see how it can be if not.

 

Enforcement of charge certificate

 

22. Where a charge certificate has been served on any person and the increased penalty charge provided for in the certificate is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served, the enforcement authority may, if a county court so orders, recover the increased charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

 

There are all kinds of County Court orders such as small claims and orders for recovery of child maintenance, this one is an order for recovery of a Traffic Debt not to be confused with a CCJ for a claim that goes before the Court. The reason it does not show up on your credit is that it is one of the exempt judgements under the The Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines Regulations 2005 that does not have to be registered.

[green_and_mean]

There are green apples and red apples.... sour and sweet, rotten and fresh.

 

Proves my point it was a stupid question.

[adamna]

I still want to know if an order has to be dated to be valid, under any legislation. I can't see how it can be if not.

So, what about dating a 'legal' document?

[johno1066]

Jesus, too many ******s on this thread. G&M, you're a plank, as if is not the same as IS, even if you wanted it to be. A County Court hasn't ordered anything, CPR 75.2(2) (a) the Centre is deemed [artificial] to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued

 

 

The TEC documentation should state under the authority of Northamption County Court, instead they state under the authority of TEC at [opposed to of] Northampton County Court, they cannot be deemed as being part of themselves therefore they have no authority and they do not issue Court Orders.

Edited January 6, 2009 by johno1066

[lamma]

"as if it is A" means "It is NOT A (but pretend it is A)" in my book.