PCN - after you received Notice of Rejection of Representations (letter to Adjudicator)

Please note that only write what you understand. Not all points might apply to you. This is a copy of the letter from the Observation Deck YT video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOvAymtO6M Written in UK English.

Dear Adjudicator, (if you know the name, address it to them and miss the first line)

Please forgive the informality, as we have not been made aware of the name of the Adjudicator to whom I address this letter.

This is in response to [XX] Council’s decision to reject my challenge against the PCN. Clearly, the PCN has been challenged by Mr {your name], however, that challenge has never been rebutted by [XX] Council, as [XX] Council has only repeated the grounds under which the PCN was raised. Also, a PCN is a Penalty Charge Notice and as such a Notice of a Penalty Charge. A recognisable bill has not been raised and presented to Mr [Your name] completed and finalised with a wet ink signature.

As the presentations made by Mr [your name] were not addressed. Then the challenge made by Mr [your name] still stands and the PCN is not valid and enforceable.

[XX] Council has made a demand for payment, but has not presented Mr [your name] with a bill, which is recognised under the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882. Which also must have a signature in wet ink. [XX] Council cannot raise a bill because there is no commercial agreement in place between [XX] Council and Mr [your name] under which a true bill can be raised.

For Mr [your name] to respond by paying without a bill signed in wet ink, then that would be a direct violation of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882. In addition to this, as there is no commercial arrangement and bill presented, then this would also be a contravention of the Fraud Act of 2006. Mr [your name] is not in the habit of knowingly conspiring fraud. This action would also create a liability against Mr [your name].

[XX] Council has also listed in their “rejection of representation” the Traffic Management Act 2004 – s78 (check if they did) in support of their claim. The Acts and Statues of HM Parliament and Government PLC can only be given the force of law by the consent of the governed. What is mandatory in the first instance is the consent of the governed which is also presented as fact. As the consent of the governed is not a presentable fact, the Acts and Statues of HM Parliament and Government PLC cannot be acted upon in any way that would cause loss to the governed. We fail to see how this is in support of the PCN presented to Mr [your name].

We fail to see how listing the Traffic Management Act 2004-s78 supports the claims made by [XX] Council in any way other than to create obfuscation in an attempt to confuse the mind.

There are no agreements in place between the residence [your place/town] of the [XX] Council, which can be presented as fact complete with signature in wet ink, which can be presented to support the claim of [XX] Council in support of a demand for payment.

Without violating the Biil’s of Exchange Act of 1882 and the Fraud Act of 2006 s2 Fraud by false representation see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 and section 4 part 2.

A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4 An omission in the form of an omitted signature would constitute an Act of Fraud under s4, s2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

So let us summarise regarding the grounds for appeal with reference to the form provided for appeal.

1. The alleged contravention did not occur. No contravention has occurred, because there are no agreements between the residence of the [your place/town/borough] and [XX] Council, which can be legally presented as fact in support of the alleged contravention.

2. There has been a procedural impropriety by the Council. The Council did not respond to the challenge made by Mr [Your name] in a manner in which would make any sense or would constitute a rebuttal to the challenge. [xx] Council is advocating to Mr [your name] in their demand for payment without a bill presented, a direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and the Fraud Act 2006.

3. The Traffic Order that is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned is invalid. The Traffic Order (that’s a new approach, unfortunately, it is not possible to find a listing for that) is illegal because there is no agreement between the parties, which is legally presentable as fact and signed in wet ink. All presentable as fact complete with a signature in wet ink, and without the signature in wet ink on a legal document in the form of an agreement, then it is not legal or is illegal and therefore not lawful.

It is obvious at this point that there is no one at [xx] Council that is capable of understanding the challenge made by Mr [your name], or capable of responding, there for an adjudicator become necessary.

There is only one outcome to this tribunal, where the Adjudicator is a recognised Lawyer and is independent of the Council.

Regardless of the legislation or policies of [xx] Council or HM Parliaments and Governments PLC, any commercial activity would constitute an Act of Fraud without the commercial agreements in place beforehand. The continued activities where demands for payments are made without observing the Bill of Exchange Act 1882 and a recognised bill is presented complete with wet ink signature is a continued procedural impropriety by the Council and the residents of [your town/borough] are culpable in law for their actions.

There can be one outcome to this tribunal, which is acceptable under current legislation.

[xx] Council will find in favour of the Appellant Mr [your name]; and not in favour of continued transgressions against current legislation of that outcome.

In the document provided outlining the procedure to make presentations in this tribunal process, there is a section concerning costs in favour of the Appellant, where a party has behaved wholly unreasonably.

We have taken a considerable amount of time and energy responding to [xx] Council when making representation and in preparation for this tribunal. It is not without reason that a consideration could be expected.

This would also serve to enforce the decision made by the Adjudicator in this tribunal. If the Adjudicator is truly an independent and honourable individual then consideration is in order.

Mr [your name] also notes that as this Tribunal is informal then it is also recognised as not legally binding regardless of the findings of the Adjudicator. We would also like a response in writing from the Adjudicator to relay the outcome of this tribunal conveying the reasons for the Adjudicator’s decisions. For and on behalf of Mr [your name]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Unalienable rights Reserved

Mr [your name] reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family, and his family home, which is an unalienable right to do so.

WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT