Bus lane

[Noisytone]

Hi all ,

I got a bus lane pcn back on Jan 11 .I'm going down the no contract return to sender route at the moment and so far I've had nothing back yet . A question I have is ,

Cameras , I've seen on a couple of forums that in regard to speeding that if you get involved with going down the notice route its quite important to ask for proof of calibration of the camera on the day of the alleged offence as well as all the usual requirements etc ie proof of contract . But as bus lane and traffic monitoring ( spy ) cameras just shows your road position does it make a lot of difference to your defence seeing as they will use any excuse to have to your trousers down and make you pay ???? .

Any input on this would be greatly appreciated should I have to get involved with sending notices requiring proof of contract I just want to make they don't have a loophole to try and stitch me up with .

For now though anything they send is going straight back no contract .

Many thanks

Tone :)

[SCORPIOUK]

how did you get on i have 17 bus lane penalty charges which i have accumulated over the last 4 weeks well since i moved to my new house any advice would be great

[Noisytone]

To this date ive heard nothing since i sent it back no contract . It seems that a lot of advice is along the lines of just ignore the correspondence and keep returning to sender.
A friend of mine has done it with at least 2 pcns and so far again heard nothing . I guess the time to get a bit more concerned is when you get a summons or some sort of direct threat of legal action against you but even that will probably be from a bulk clearing centre in northampton so thats more than dodgy for a start . That would probably be the time to get notices for conditional acceptance and proofs of claims off to the bastards .

My question was about the camera evidence seeing as its not a speeding issue and just about road position . But i guess really all said and done its all about not entering into any type of contract with them and making sure you dont get fooled and frightend into doing so .

Theres some very clued up and helpful folk on here im really just starting my journey and hope this helps you a bit .

Any developments I'll post up :)

All the best

Tone

[Noisytone]

Latest update.

Got another notice in the post on Saturday , This time its was an enforcement notice to let me know i now owe 130 quid instead of 60 . Went back in the post no contract return to sender see what happens .

[nameless]

It's been two months since your latest update, Noisytone, and I wondered of you had heard any more.

[pedawson]

The below quote is about PARKING and at first one would not think that this investigation / paper would have anything to do with your driving in a BUS lane well it HAS, in fact. It states quite clearly and TPTB or their minions in parliament know that the Magna Carta and the bill of rights 1689 state categorically that if you have NOT had your day in court you CANNOT be FINED. Simple as that.
It goes on to state two Road Traffic ACTS - ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 & ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1991 and how many are not aware of what they are acused of until they get a ticket.
Now from wjhat I have read:

Under the 1984 Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence.
Under the 1991 Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket.

One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA 1984, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates' court.
The other, operating under the RTA 1991, does not allow access to a court of law but to an "independent" tribunal.
So the RTA is the one that goes to the Northampton Bulking Centre, may be wrong but if one questions the jurisdiction on their forms it goes to a Majik court (under the RTRA 1984)?
I don't think this is how it really works but my 'spidey sense' has pricked and I smell a rat.

For your case you have a fine and it has been increased without you being taken to court, WELL regardless of the increase under the BILL OF RIGHTS 1689

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

I think it is, without all the other stuff here, CLEAR you are NOT obliged to PAY anything.
What we really need here is the LAWFUL EXCUSE for travelling IN the BUS lane.
Anybody have any ideas.

Namaste, rev;

The Quote here is not copied in full for the full ver got to pitano1's post and check it out from there.
Anything copied here is considered fair use and is public property as it was produced for the parliament and as such us.

One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA 1984, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates' court. The other, operating under the RTA 1991, does not allow access to a court of law but to an "independent" tribunal.

Under the 1984 Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence.

Under the 1991 Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket.

We have actual cases ready to cite as examples of injustice.

... where under the RTA 1984 the system has the necessary common law checks and balances yet the system operating under the 1991 RTA simply perceived by the public as a "revenue raiser" with Local Authority's simply incentivised by profit and no access to justice for the motorist.

A simple question to ask is . . . "As the number of PCN's has exponentially increased have the towns and cities become clearer of traffic?"

If the DPE enforcement system works then the number of contraventions should decrease as funded alternatives increase.


LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.


As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

62. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

[pitano1]

hi.
for the sake of expediance.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=111&start=10

this applies to any offer to contract.

[holy vehm]

The Act of union (still active) the right to travel without let nor hindrance. Did parking in the bus lane cause an obstruction?
If not then no violation of the Act has occurred. To attempt to enforce is a pre-crime - You are charged because you MAY cause an obstruction but didnt actually cause an obstruction.

[Noisytone]

I got another notice its now gone up to 195 quid , this came on the weekend of easter on the Saturday morning . yep it went back in the post return to sender just waiting to see what they are going to do next . I guess it will probably be a summons or something . But to date I haven't herd anything back . Sorry for the late reply its been a bit mad busy this end .

All the best as always

Tone

[Noisytone]

Good post pitano :) theres some real good stuff there to learn from , ceylon has really tried to lay it out nice and simple in the posts .


respect due :)


All the best

Tone