On Mar 27, 1:01*am, "Richard J." wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:
Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands
[snip]

I think you've got them bang to rights, your logic is completely
clear, absolutely impeccable and totally and utterly faultless.

I totally disagree. *I see no evidence that PATAS is actually biased,
nor have I ever heard that allegation. *The fact that PATAS is funded by
London Councils is not evidence that the adjudicators are biased. *You
might as well argue that the Court of Appeal is biased because the
judges' salaries are paid by the government. *If you look at the work of
PATAS you will find that they often agree with appellants and roundly
criticise the councils.

Setting aside the obscure legal arguments, what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? *Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? *Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago? *You go on about natural justice, but I'm
having difficulty understanding what the original injustice was that led
you down this path.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

‘I totally disagree. I see no evidence that PATAS is actually biased,
nor have I ever heard that allegation. The fact that PATAS is funded
by
London Councils is not evidence that the adjudicators are biased.’

True, but it is evidence that they are likely to be. As I wrote ‘it is
operating
unlawfully. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision is, in fact,
biased, because ‘Justice should not only be done, but should be
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’ ‘

'You might as well argue that the Court of Appeal is biased because
the
judges' salaries are paid by the government.'

I agree that is a reasonable consideration but in that case the payer
of judges salaries are more remote. Although suing certain parts of
the government makes it arguably less remote. If I was suing you, it
wouldn’t be an issue because you, or someone closely connected with
you, are not paying the judges.

'If you look at the work of PATAS you will find that they often agree
with appellants and roundly
criticise the councils.'

Well, they are not stupid. They have to give token decisions to avoid
criticism. But once again ‘It is immaterial whether a judicial
decision is, in fact, biased, because ‘Justice should not only be
done, but should be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’ ‘
Also, my claim is only aimed at the Road User Charging Adjudicators.
There are other adjudicators in PATAS, such as the Parking
Adjudicators. In fact Martin Wood in the Parking Adjudicators Report
2004/2005 to the ALG Transport and Environment Committee dated 20
October 2005 agrees with me that Adjudicators should be able to
consider the validity of Penalty Charge Notices rather than the
motorist having to take on the high risk to cost and time consuming
judicial review process. Yet PATAS in my case are justifying their
actions in ignoring my claim of illegality on the grounds they have no
discretion (jurisdiction) in this area. Pushing you into judicial
review, PATAS hope you will give up the case because it get all to
much. .



‘Setting aside the obscure legal arguments,’
I do not think they are obscure. I don’t think you would when you
under it better.
‘ what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? ‘
It is unlawful because it is biased. It ignored my claim.

‘ Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? ‘

Well, they have refused to hear my case. Also, for the third time;
‘Justice should not only be done, but should be manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done.’

Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago? You go on about natural justice, but
I'm
having difficulty understanding what the original injustice was that
led
you down this path.

Sorry. Here is a brief explanation from my web site which I hope will
clarify things.

‘Lilley, who is not a user of the congestion charge scheme, got a
congestion charging penalty charge notice for £50, out of the blue,
dated 6th September 2004 and timed 18:13:19, when he accidentally went
into London in the evening, earlier than normal, to see a play. When
he queried TFL, 'wasn’t the congestion charge £5?' he was told he
should have paid it on the day, and if he didn’t pay £50 within 14
days it would go up to £100 and after 28 days £150. So he paid under
duress and undue influence. He then sent a letter of complaint to TFL
dated 10 September 2004 demanding £45 back, claiming that this was
illegal, because they should have notified him that he owed them the
money first, to give him a chance to pay.

NOTE: If you think he should have seen the signs, Lilley wondered
about that as well, because he didn’t notice any signs. Apparently
there were signs there. However, TFL have taken over £502m in
congestion charge penalty charges from London motorists, from the
start of the scheme until 28 February 2008, which is 41% of the £1.2bn
congestion charge income, as a whole, over the same period. and £10m a
month in penalties have been taken thereafter. So it wasn’t just him.
Also, the signs are placed by traffic lights, so you are less likely
to notice them. In addition, it is a psychological fact that attention
follows interest. So, if you have no interest in the congestion charge
you are likely not to notice the signs.

Lilley alleges that TFL did not answer his complaint properly but
suggested Lilley should appeal to PATAS (Parking and Traffic Appeals
Service). He also alleges that PATAS ignored his claim of illegality,
which was, unreasonable and ultra vires (outside their powers), both
on appeal and review.’

Vic

..