Hello Traffic Warden ... l want to play a game!

Ha ha ha  ha ... classic!

An Offer to ERYC Legal Dept

Another post from Eric in the Wilderness


Well, l've just spent a long time talking to a retired legal friend. Those of you who know me will know who l'm talking about. We discussed the situation and he came up with a proposal and l must say that he talks sense. l tried to be amicable at the very beginning so l shall try to do so once again :-

Dear ERYC Legal Dept,
                                if you provide me with a full written apology from those  at ERYC that falsely accused me of criminal damage and intimidating & threatening behaviour (contained in the 'evidence' presented to the Traffic Penalties Tribunal on 19th Feb 2013), l shall remove this blog (www.eryc-cpe.blogspot.com) in it's entirety.

You may have 7 days to respond from the date this proposal was posted on this site.

Thank you. 

Eric's cont fight with East Riding Yorks Council

A post from Eric from the wilderness (lol)

When l first started this blog it was because l just wanted to share my experience with ERYC CPE and highlight what they were doing. l'm certain l'm not the only one who has suffered at their hands but l had no great expectations of getting many visitors and indeed that was the case ... l was lucky to get double figures per day. However l carried on because l needed to finish my account and that l believed would be Part 6. From there, l fully expected this blog to remain at that. What further entrenched this expectation was the total lack of response from ERYC bosses, South Holderness Councillors and ALL the councillors at Withernsea Town Council. l'd contacted them all.

When you read their profiles you see such words as integrity, freedom, justice and so forth. They seem not to understand what these words actually mean. In fact, it reminds me of the French Vichy Government of World War 2.

l'm also reminded of this " All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent". Well the silence has been deafening.

So l thought 'Well, that's it',  my only seemingly forlorn hope was if ERYC did something stupid otherwise the blog would gather dust, be covered in cobwebs and disappear into virtual obscurity. Lo and behold! up turn ERYC Legal Dept and threaten me. No longer was l getting vistors in double figures if l was lucky, l now have thousands! :) l still don't have this alleged letter from the ERYC Legal Dept but that's their own fault. They should've talked to Paula Danby, Service Manager of ERYC Streetscene Sevices. She had my contact address before ERYC  Legal Dept allegedly sent this letter. Seeing as Streetscene Services supposedly asked the ERYC Legal Dept to take action against me ... you would think they'd talk to each other! :)

l do hope they continue, l'd love to go to court and defend my position. There's every chance that my story would then go national and my visitor stats will then go through the roof. Now that would be something!

l'm writing this on my phone and will send it to my friend to post as l have no internet here. l'm currently camped up at the side of a forest next to a lake ... it's stunning. Pity l can't send photos but l'll try and post them at a later date. lt is very tranquil and relaxing. l suppose at some point l'll have to visit to the rat race but l'm in no hurry.

One last thing, l think l need a pseudonym as author of this blog. Seeing as my blog is against ERYC, phonetically that comes across as ERIC. I shall be Eric! :)

Bye for now,
                    Eric
Thanks everybody for all the comments. lt's appreciated

Can you trust ERYC lawyers?

The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004 No 3082

Restrictions on indemnities

6.—(1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or failure to act by, any member or officer which—

(a)constitutes a criminal offence; or

(b)is the result of fraud, or other deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness on the part of that member or officer.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a), an indemnity may be provided in relation to—

(a)subject to article 8 below, the defence of any criminal proceedings brought against the officer or member; and

(b)any civil liability arising as a consequence of any action or failure to act which also constitutes a criminal offence.

(3) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer but may be provided in relation to the defence by that member of officer of any allegation of defamation made against him. 

Can you trust ERYC lawyers?

Mick

Can you trust your council?

l'm not the author of this blog but l am now, amongst others, a contributor.

The 1992 Act specified 15 metres of lines on both High Brighton Street and Cheverton Ave. Both cul-de-sacs. 
HB St has a turn-round at the end, Chevy doesn't. But 15 metres for both. More would be a waste of parking space.

Yet the Council put 24 metres on HB St. A whole car length illegally wasted on each side.
The Police trusted the Council, and enforced the extra 9 metres for 19 years.
Anyone who paid a ticket there, (trusting the Police?) was robbed.

The new 2011 Act gave the Council the right to keep the money, and also said the lines were now legal as they are. "No change to lines or parking arrangements."
Still 24 metres for HB with a turn-round, but only 15 metres for Chevy without.

On the plans, the "no change" lines actually show 27.5 metres now, so the Council can quietly stretch them further, later.
More revenue-raising parking space destruction. But "no change", they promised.

I have raised these points at 4 Tribunal appeals for 8 tickets on HB St. The Council do not deny it, but they say it doesn't matter. Not their problem. "The Police's fault, not ours."
The Tribunal allowed all 8 appeals. I won. The Council lost, every one. But they continue to give tickets there.
The Council relies on people trusting their integrity, (or fearing their power?)

Is HB St unique? Or is the Council ripping people off, all over East Yorkshire?

Do you trust your Council? Would they steal from you, with threats of further penalty if you refuse to pay?

Mick

Don't Tell ERYC Civil Parking Dept But .....

lt's taken a month or so to find one l like and tonight (4th March) l finally achieved it. Best of all, l'm not the registered keeper either ( the vehicle that got me involved in this fight with ERYC l was the registered keeper but not the owner) Once upon a time your possessions filled boxes and boxes. Thanks to todays technology that is no longer the case. My music collection is all digital and stored upon my iPod (1500+ albums), books are on my Kindle and all my letter,docs, photos etc etc are on my Macbook. ...  all backed up in the ether cloudy thingy.

Still have no letter from ERYC and l'm beginning to think my mate has been winding me up :) lf it does turn up l'll scan it and post it on the blog.

Never the less, l'm still going to the police in regards to the tribunal. ERYC started this fight despite myself trying to be amicable at the very beginning. l'll go the distance on this one. Anyway come back for updates when l can which shouldn't be too difficult the amount of free wifi out there.:)

Happy Days!

 

  

Some music for the road!

**UPDATED** Threatening Letter from ERYC!

My friend tells me l've got a threatening letter from ERYC. They allegedly threaten to get an injunction against the blog if l don't remove the Civil Enforcement Officers (Traffic Warden) photo and names of council members. l haven't seen it yet because l'm no longer there so l'll wait till l get it. Why they posted it through his letterbox l have no idea because they know that isn't my address and l have that on record that ERYC know my current address!

Looks like l upset ERYC :)

I'm wondering if a reply referring them to the reply re Arkell v Pressdram would be appropiate? :)

UPDATE

Withernsea Police and their Traffic Wardens issued parking tickets for 19 years on double yellow lines that were unenforceable. ERYC put down double yellow lines 9 metres longer than they should have been. ERYC's planning shows quite clearly that the double yellow lines down High Brighton Street, Withernsea should've been only 15 metres long but ERYC made them 24 metres. ERYC planning only granted lines of 15 metres length.

In court it was stated that these double yellow lines were unenforceable and ERYC admitted that this was the case. l know personally of 28 parking tickets that were quashed. Since Nov 2011, the police and their traffic wardens no longer issue parking tickets as ERYC took over that responsibility with their new Civil Parking Enforcement Dept. They still issue parking tickets on these double yellow lines. The total (that l know of) number parking tickets quashed now stands at 36!

One wonders what the total number of parking tickets issued is and how many of these were paid simply because it's cheaper to pay than fight them? One also wonders how many other streets in Withernsea or indeed the whole of East Riding under ERYC have double yellow lines that have fallen foul of the planning regs?

Any ERYC Councillors (South East Holderness) out there willing to find out or will the silence be deafening? I did e-mail them all incl the Withernsea Town Council councillors.

Still don't have any letter from ERYC Legal Dept. One wonders why they sent this letter to an address that they knew l wasn't at ????
............................................................................................

Thanks to everyone who sent me e-mails etc and the support contained in them. lt really is appreciated. Also, part from the Streisand Effect it would seem there's a 'l am Spartacus' happening too.

Well we'll see where this all ends. As for me, it's time for me to get organised with other aspects of my life. Got a new venture that's high on the agenda :)

Part 6 Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive" Sir Walter Scott

I'll do the same as I did with YE07 in Part 5 except l'll cutout all the technical stuff about regs and so forth as all we shall be addressing is Mark Greenley's  'evidence' which comes across to me as personal attacks upon myself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Civil Penalty Enforcement Supervisor, Mark Greenley

Really? Does Mark Greenley provide any evidence for this statement or are we simply to believe whatever Mark Greenley says? :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Greenley simply repeats this totally false allegation from 'Mrs Neighbour from Hell' courtesy of YE07. No mention of ERYC not reporting it to the police. However, l did report this totally false allegation to the police. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll note that Mark Greenley makes no reference to YE07's earlier visit to High Brighton Street at 13.03 that day. No reference to the vehicle was broken down and her conversation with me between 13.03 and 13.08 yet YE07 does, albeit without any times. Mr Greenley is not exactly untruthful as such but he certainly does not give the whole facts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa Mr Greenley! You're going into fantasy mode now! Where does YE07 ever state that she 'attempted to leave the street'? (see Part 5) Where has this come from?  Does she have a disability that you know of that makes it difficult for her to walk perhaps? Mr Greenley then goes further and states 'for her own safety'. Where does this come from? Certainly YE07 makes no mention of it! Such actions would merit calling the police immediately .... but no-one did and there's a reason for that. lt didn't happen Mr Greenley!
       The laughable thing you put in from YE07 is this 'unknown male riding past on a bike'. We already know the aversion to calling the police but YEO7 didn't get his name or address after fearing for her safety??? Yeah right ! :)
     The fact of the matter is l was not there when YE07 left the street. l'd gone to the house to get my iPhone after telling YE07 that l did not want to talk to her. This is verified by a statement presented to the tribunal by an independent witness (I do get witnesses details). Also YE07 doesn't support your allegations in her statements (see Part 5). 
     Why does Mr Greenley find it necessary to present unsubstantiated false allegations against me? Especially ones that are a criminal offence in the eyes of the police!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

l don't seem to have these photos mentioned above. Perhaps the Adjudicator has them.

Mr Greenley is now going into overdrive mode in his fantasyworld. The implications of this statement by him seems very obvious to me. Already we have a false allegation from 'Mrs Neighbour from Hell' that falsely identifies me as causing criminal damage and now we have Mr Greenley saying that the double yellow lines were replenished on 06/08/2012 and damaged again by 07/08/2012. Strangely, YE07 doesn't mention this in her 'evidence'. Why is that, Mr Greenley? .... because your allegation is false! Do you want proof Mr Greenley? Well here it is :-

Oops, it wasn't 06/08/2012 when the lines were finally replenished ... it was 08/08/2012! Lets find out who provided that information.

It was YOU, Mr Greenley! ... Do you notice the date? :) Now then, when did you complete the 'evidence' against me?

Mmmmm, Houston we have a problem. You are not the only one that keeps files Mr Greenley. The date of 08/08/2012 is from a previous tribunal case. Want a bit more evidence to make it conclusive Mr Greenley? How about from the Tribunal of 19th Feb 2013? Note;- Mr ******* is not me.

"It is common ground that the Council had very shortly before the PCNs were issued attempted to repaint the lines but the work could not be completed up to the point where the restriction ended probably because of a parked vehicle. Although Mr ******* appeared to be under the impression that the Council had provided misleading information Mr Greenley readily accepts that the work was not actually completed until 8 August 2012, the day after the last of the PCNs was issued."

                                                                                                            Mr Knapp (Adjudicator) 28th Feb 2013

lt's worth noting that Mr Knapp would not address our allegations the Council had provided false and misleading information to the tribunal. However at the end of the tribunal he gave us 7 days to provide any new information. Needless to say, we took full advantage of this and did indeed present our allegations

l received this back from the Adjudicators :-

l do find the letter a little strange as we are referring to evidence for the tribunal. One would think that the tribunal would like to be assured that the evidence is truthful. However the actual complete Reg 14 of the above says :-

14.—(1) A person who makes any representation under Part 2 or 3 of these Regulations, or 

under the Schedule so far as it relates to an appeal under Part 2 or 3, which is false in a material 

particular, and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false, is guilty of an offence. 

(2) A person convicted of an offence under paragraph (1) shall be liable on summary conviction 

to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 

recklessly or knowing it to be false ? ....   :)

Oh, and today l received this :-

My turn now l believe :)