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 :)