Letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS
23rd September, 2005.
Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail only:-
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.
By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Dear Mr Barfoot,
Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –
Thank you for your letter of the 20th September, 2005, received yesterday.
NPAS Circulars.
I am concerned to receive your advice that the offending circular (05/05 of August, 2005) has been widely distributed to selected parties other than the DPE Councils: Your advice has made it even more apparent that NPAS has published suspect material to the prejudice of the general public and in violation of the independence that is claimed by NPAS.
This latest advice to me confirms that NPAS has subjected both Councils and Advisory-Organizations to an unsubstantiated & unwarranted suggestion that the High Court has both considered and upheld the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991 (when measured against the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights). You will understand that I must continue in my efforts to establish the purposes of NPAS in publishing material that is suspect & that remains unconfirmed; not least because of the fact that you are refusing to provide detailed information, in response to a perfectly normal request for such information.
This matter is very serious indeed, because NPAS has provided an official seal of approval to suspect material, by the widespread issue of the offending circular 05/05: Your response to the questions raised has been evasive and you will recognize that I must now ask you to provide an honest explanation for the NPAS bias that has been demonstrated.
To illustrate my own assertion that NPAS has been guilty of demonstrating a bias that is clearly against the public interest, I need do no more than point out to you that the very low index number allocated to the offensive circular now serves to reveal that NPAS has quite obviously failed to issue circulars that would have provided an equal amount of publicity to those tribunal-decisions that were resolved in favour of appellants, by NPAS Adjudicators -
– where it might be considered reasonable and ‘balanced’ for both DPE Councils and Appellant-advisory Services to measure the content of (and reasons for) such favourable decisions against the substance of intended claims; intended appeals &/or appeals-in-process.
Quite frankly, Circular 05/05 and your own letter to me have both served to confirm that NPAS has wandered very far indeed from its intended and oft-proclaimed purpose of providing an impartial service to the public.
That being said, and having now requested a further & honest explanation from you, I must move on to the further content of your letter, which serves to raise yet another point that is relevant to the claimed independence/impartiality of NPAS and its tribunal service.
Decision in Case No. SF 272.
As given previously, the content of this Appeal decision serves to suggest that the High Court has already decided that the present establishment of de-criminalised parking regimes (with NPAS Tribunals) does not breach the provisions of the Constitution.
Your letter provides that you are now refusing to provide me with any/all detailed information that would serve to give substance, if any, to the vague claims (&/or general inferences) of the Adjudicator in the Sefton Appeal -
- and at this point, I must remind you that in spite of the very obvious lack of legal information offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case, you have seen fit to distribute his claims/inferences and final decision on a widespread basis, for whatever reasons of your own.
In view of the defensive attitude of NPAS that is now being demonstrated by your letter, I am forced to the conclusion that NPAS has become entirely aware of the fact that the High Court has rendered no decision of any kind that can be truly related to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991. In addition, I must suggest to you that by the wilful denial of the detailed information that I have formally requested - &/or by a present failure to concede that the remarks of the NPAS Adjudicator were not based on good and recorded law & precedent - you are now taking it upon yourself to act in a manner that is prejudicial to the impartial hearing of my own case.
I am determined that the provisions of our Constitution will not be undermined &/or side-stepped by unworthy politicians &/or by their foolish allies, and it is clear to me that by your refusal to provide me with the requested information (&/or some alternative admission of inaccuracy), you are confirming that NPAS is now aware that the Adjudicator’s decision in the Sefton Case is lacking in legal substance and accuracy, in spite of the fact that NPAS has published this case to the world at large.
In an attempt to clarify this untidy and sordid situation, and in order to prevent all/any reliance upon false statements made/inferred by any party &/or Adjudicator in any previous case, I must now ask you to appear and to give evidence yourself before the tribunal that is to consider my own appeal.
At the tribunal hearing, I will ask you to confirm whether or not you performed any check of any kind on the substance and accuracy of the legal opinion offered by the Sefton Adjudicator BEFORE you instructed/allowed the issue and distribution of Circular No 05/05 of August, 2005, to my prejudice –
AND I will ask you to confirm why it is that you have found yourself unable to provide me with full and detailed information regarding all/any Case-Law that would serve to give substance, if any, to the opinion offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case (which opinion was thereafter distributed by you, or on your instructions, to the prejudice of an impartial hearing in my own case).
In formulating your response to my request that you now appear to give answers to my questions at my own hearing, I must ask you to consider that NPAS has laid claim to the promotion and maintenance of tribunals that have the status of Courts - and to further consider that HM Courts of Law regularly publish the entirety of legal argument presented to them (including full references to Case Law on both sides of any dispute), once decisions have been handed-down by these same Courts.
Under the circumstances, I think it reasonable for me to require that NPAS provide me with nothing less than the service provided by HM Courts of Law, and for you to appear as a witness in person to explain your decision that the services of NPAS will not match the services offered by HM Courts. At the bottom line, NPAS has taken it upon itself to publish and to circularize material that is suspect in its content and prejudicial to my case - and has refused to provide me with access to such material as would serve to reveal &/or to regularize a position that has an important effect upon me.
NPAS conduct has made it essential for me to provide against any adjudicator in my own case being tempted to rely upon the seemingly-unsupported opinion of the Sefton Adjudicator.
The NPAS seal of approval that has been attached to the results of the Sefton Case now renders it necessary for the adjudicator in my own case to hear the evidence that will serve to confirm whether or not the High Court has been allowed to consider the important Constitutional issues that have been raised (by the now-widespread challenge to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991).
The record will show that my own claim to adjudication is based upon my assertion that the RTA 1991 represents nothing more than an unlawful attempt at the enactment of law, and I regret to note that NPAS has elected to take the field against me in spite of the requirement that NPAS be impartial.
Please be kind enough to confirm your willingness to provide the entirety of the Case-Law information that I have previously requested &/or to offer full apology for the fact that the Sefton Adjudicator was mistaken in his claims (with a public retraction of the position taken by NPAS hitherto) &/or to attend as a witness at the tribunal appointed to hear my own case (and for the purpose of providing answer to the specified questions.
I look forward to receipt of the response that is now required from you.
Attendance of Worcester City Council.
I have confirmed with the Worcester City Council that a representative of this Council will attend at the tribunal and will present the Council’s evidence in person. It has been agreed on an informal basis that the Council will be represented by someone who is suitably qualified in both knowledge and law, and I have emphasized to a City representative that it is not my intention to cause difficulties of any kind for any representative of the City of Worcester.
Media Presence & Recording Facilities.
Your Coordinator, Miss Curtin, is fully aware of my requirement that the appointed Adjudicator grants permission for all such facilities prior to any appointment of the date; time and place for the requested tribunal.
Miss Curtin’s advice on these several points is now awaited and I will respond in an appropriate manner when I have received this advice: In the meantime, I have already advised Miss Curtin that all/any attempt to restrict the required facilities in any way will be subjected to appropriate challenge.
I feel sure of your agreement that NPAS &/or its Adjudicators can have no wish to hide anything at all from the general public and/or from the Administrative Court – and for my part, I am happy to provide my assurances that the hearing will be conducted with dignity and that my legal arguments are clear; brief and in the public interest.
I now await your required response.
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail only:-
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.
By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Dear Mr Barfoot,
Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –
Thank you for your letter of the 20th September, 2005, received yesterday.
NPAS Circulars.
I am concerned to receive your advice that the offending circular (05/05 of August, 2005) has been widely distributed to selected parties other than the DPE Councils: Your advice has made it even more apparent that NPAS has published suspect material to the prejudice of the general public and in violation of the independence that is claimed by NPAS.
This latest advice to me confirms that NPAS has subjected both Councils and Advisory-Organizations to an unsubstantiated & unwarranted suggestion that the High Court has both considered and upheld the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991 (when measured against the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights). You will understand that I must continue in my efforts to establish the purposes of NPAS in publishing material that is suspect & that remains unconfirmed; not least because of the fact that you are refusing to provide detailed information, in response to a perfectly normal request for such information.
This matter is very serious indeed, because NPAS has provided an official seal of approval to suspect material, by the widespread issue of the offending circular 05/05: Your response to the questions raised has been evasive and you will recognize that I must now ask you to provide an honest explanation for the NPAS bias that has been demonstrated.
To illustrate my own assertion that NPAS has been guilty of demonstrating a bias that is clearly against the public interest, I need do no more than point out to you that the very low index number allocated to the offensive circular now serves to reveal that NPAS has quite obviously failed to issue circulars that would have provided an equal amount of publicity to those tribunal-decisions that were resolved in favour of appellants, by NPAS Adjudicators -
– where it might be considered reasonable and ‘balanced’ for both DPE Councils and Appellant-advisory Services to measure the content of (and reasons for) such favourable decisions against the substance of intended claims; intended appeals &/or appeals-in-process.
Quite frankly, Circular 05/05 and your own letter to me have both served to confirm that NPAS has wandered very far indeed from its intended and oft-proclaimed purpose of providing an impartial service to the public.
That being said, and having now requested a further & honest explanation from you, I must move on to the further content of your letter, which serves to raise yet another point that is relevant to the claimed independence/impartiality of NPAS and its tribunal service.
Decision in Case No. SF 272.
As given previously, the content of this Appeal decision serves to suggest that the High Court has already decided that the present establishment of de-criminalised parking regimes (with NPAS Tribunals) does not breach the provisions of the Constitution.
Your letter provides that you are now refusing to provide me with any/all detailed information that would serve to give substance, if any, to the vague claims (&/or general inferences) of the Adjudicator in the Sefton Appeal -
- and at this point, I must remind you that in spite of the very obvious lack of legal information offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case, you have seen fit to distribute his claims/inferences and final decision on a widespread basis, for whatever reasons of your own.
In view of the defensive attitude of NPAS that is now being demonstrated by your letter, I am forced to the conclusion that NPAS has become entirely aware of the fact that the High Court has rendered no decision of any kind that can be truly related to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991. In addition, I must suggest to you that by the wilful denial of the detailed information that I have formally requested - &/or by a present failure to concede that the remarks of the NPAS Adjudicator were not based on good and recorded law & precedent - you are now taking it upon yourself to act in a manner that is prejudicial to the impartial hearing of my own case.
I am determined that the provisions of our Constitution will not be undermined &/or side-stepped by unworthy politicians &/or by their foolish allies, and it is clear to me that by your refusal to provide me with the requested information (&/or some alternative admission of inaccuracy), you are confirming that NPAS is now aware that the Adjudicator’s decision in the Sefton Case is lacking in legal substance and accuracy, in spite of the fact that NPAS has published this case to the world at large.
In an attempt to clarify this untidy and sordid situation, and in order to prevent all/any reliance upon false statements made/inferred by any party &/or Adjudicator in any previous case, I must now ask you to appear and to give evidence yourself before the tribunal that is to consider my own appeal.
At the tribunal hearing, I will ask you to confirm whether or not you performed any check of any kind on the substance and accuracy of the legal opinion offered by the Sefton Adjudicator BEFORE you instructed/allowed the issue and distribution of Circular No 05/05 of August, 2005, to my prejudice –
AND I will ask you to confirm why it is that you have found yourself unable to provide me with full and detailed information regarding all/any Case-Law that would serve to give substance, if any, to the opinion offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case (which opinion was thereafter distributed by you, or on your instructions, to the prejudice of an impartial hearing in my own case).
In formulating your response to my request that you now appear to give answers to my questions at my own hearing, I must ask you to consider that NPAS has laid claim to the promotion and maintenance of tribunals that have the status of Courts - and to further consider that HM Courts of Law regularly publish the entirety of legal argument presented to them (including full references to Case Law on both sides of any dispute), once decisions have been handed-down by these same Courts.
Under the circumstances, I think it reasonable for me to require that NPAS provide me with nothing less than the service provided by HM Courts of Law, and for you to appear as a witness in person to explain your decision that the services of NPAS will not match the services offered by HM Courts. At the bottom line, NPAS has taken it upon itself to publish and to circularize material that is suspect in its content and prejudicial to my case - and has refused to provide me with access to such material as would serve to reveal &/or to regularize a position that has an important effect upon me.
NPAS conduct has made it essential for me to provide against any adjudicator in my own case being tempted to rely upon the seemingly-unsupported opinion of the Sefton Adjudicator.
The NPAS seal of approval that has been attached to the results of the Sefton Case now renders it necessary for the adjudicator in my own case to hear the evidence that will serve to confirm whether or not the High Court has been allowed to consider the important Constitutional issues that have been raised (by the now-widespread challenge to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991).
The record will show that my own claim to adjudication is based upon my assertion that the RTA 1991 represents nothing more than an unlawful attempt at the enactment of law, and I regret to note that NPAS has elected to take the field against me in spite of the requirement that NPAS be impartial.
Please be kind enough to confirm your willingness to provide the entirety of the Case-Law information that I have previously requested &/or to offer full apology for the fact that the Sefton Adjudicator was mistaken in his claims (with a public retraction of the position taken by NPAS hitherto) &/or to attend as a witness at the tribunal appointed to hear my own case (and for the purpose of providing answer to the specified questions.
I look forward to receipt of the response that is now required from you.
Attendance of Worcester City Council.
I have confirmed with the Worcester City Council that a representative of this Council will attend at the tribunal and will present the Council’s evidence in person. It has been agreed on an informal basis that the Council will be represented by someone who is suitably qualified in both knowledge and law, and I have emphasized to a City representative that it is not my intention to cause difficulties of any kind for any representative of the City of Worcester.
Media Presence & Recording Facilities.
Your Coordinator, Miss Curtin, is fully aware of my requirement that the appointed Adjudicator grants permission for all such facilities prior to any appointment of the date; time and place for the requested tribunal.
Miss Curtin’s advice on these several points is now awaited and I will respond in an appropriate manner when I have received this advice: In the meantime, I have already advised Miss Curtin that all/any attempt to restrict the required facilities in any way will be subjected to appropriate challenge.
I feel sure of your agreement that NPAS &/or its Adjudicators can have no wish to hide anything at all from the general public and/or from the Administrative Court – and for my part, I am happy to provide my assurances that the hearing will be conducted with dignity and that my legal arguments are clear; brief and in the public interest.
I now await your required response.
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
posted by Neil Herron at 4:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home