NOCA Process Challenging Lawfulness of ULEZ
In the event you are one of the millions of people, within and outside of London, who passionately object to not just it’s expansion but the very existence of ULEZ itself, you might well seriously consider serving the following Notice of Conditional Acceptance [NOCA] on both Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office, if you are sent one of the fines for driving in the country’s capital city.
FAO: Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office
[Add addresses & delete brackets]
[Add date & delete brackets]
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTDear Sirs,
RE: LAWFULNESS OF ULEZ PCN’S & ENFORCEMENT
With reference to the above referenced matter, in the light of your attempts to charge any law abiding person for simply driving a motor vehicle in London, I hereby conditionally agree to pay any and all charges imposed, provided I receive the following reasonably requested items:
1. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have the jurisdiction to issue fines, whether in the form of a Penalty Charge Notice [PCN] or otherwise.
2. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not breached Article 12 of the Bill of Rights 1688, which prohibits the issue of fines and forfeitures without the accused being convicted of an offence.
3. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide 4,000 observable examples of how ULEZ has saved lives, to substantiate the claim repeatedly made by the Mayor of London that it has done so.
4. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide just one observable example of a human death that was solely attributable to CO2 poisoning London’s air.
5. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not knowingly committed fraud by false representation by relying upon and causing Londoners to rely upon dishonest statements for material gain, to the material loss of everybody who lives and works in London.
6. Material evidence that the Mayor’s Office has not engaged in making false and defamatory statements in public and in the media about the millions of people who oppose the existence and extension of ULEZ.
7. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not committed fraud by non-disclosure in knowingly failing to publicly disclose the overwhelming opposition to the ULEZ extension.
In the event you fail to provide these reasonably requested items within the next 28 days, your failure will give rise to the lawful presumption that the evidence requested does not exist and ULEZ is therefore entirely unlawful; the PCN’s issued are all illegal, as well as void ab initio; and those responsible are liable for multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, without prejudice to any and all civil claims for damages owed by those who have been adversely affected.
In sincerity and honour,
[Add name and delete brackets]
All Rights Reserved
Opportunity To Cure
Whilst it is possible that you may receive a letter from the addressees dismissing your perfectly reasonable request for the evidence that would substantiate the claims made by both Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office, whenever the evidence is not forthcoming, simply issue them both with the following Notice of Opportunity To Cure Dishonour, giving them another chance to provide it.
FAO: Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office
[Add addresses & delete brackets]
[Add date & delete brackets]
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTDear Sirs,
RE: LAWFULNESS OF ULEZ PCN’S & ENFORCEMENT
With reference to the above referenced matter, in the light of your attempts to charge any law abiding person for simply driving a motor vehicle in London; and following your failure to respond appropriately to the Notice of Conditional Acceptance dated [add date & delete brackets]; I hereby conditionally agree to pay any and all charges imposed, provided I receive the following reasonably requested items:
1. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have the jurisdiction to issue fines, whether in the form of a Penalty Charge Notice [PCN] or otherwise.
2. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not breached Article 12 of the Bill of Rights 1688, which prohibits the issue of fines and forfeitures without the accused being convicted of an offence.
3. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide 4,000 observable examples of how ULEZ has saved lives, to substantiate the claim repeatedly made by the Mayor of London that it has done so..
4. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide just one observable example of a human death that was solely attributable to CO2 poisoning London’s air.
5. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not knowingly committed fraud by false representation by relying upon and causing Londoners to rely upon dishonest statements for material gain, to the material loss of everybody who lives and works in London.
6. Material evidence that the Mayor’s Office has not engaged in making false and defamatory statements in public and in the media about the millions of people who oppose the existence and extension of ULEZ.
7. Material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not committed fraud by non-disclosure in knowingly failing to publicly disclose the overwhelming opposition to the ULEZ extension.
In the event you fail to provide these reasonably requested items within the next 28 days, your failure will give rise to the tacit procuration of your acquiescence to my allegation that the evidence requested does not exist and ULEZ is therefore entirely unlawful; the PCN’s are all illegal, as well as void ab initio; and those responsible are liable for multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, without prejudice to any and all civil claims for damages owed by those who have been adversely affected.
In sincerity and honour,
[Add name and delete brackets]
All Rights Reserved
Notice of Default
In the highly likely event that the addressees refuse to comply with your reasonable request for an appropriate response for a second time, serve them Notice of Default.
FAO: Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office
[Add addresses & delete brackets]
[Add date & delete brackets]
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTDear Sirs,
RE: LAWFULNESS OF ULEZ PCN’S & ENFORCEMENT
With reference to the above referenced matter, in the light of your attempts to charge any law abiding person for simply driving a motor vehicle in London; and following your failure to respond appropriately to the Notice of Conditional Acceptance dated [add date & delete brackets] and Notice of Opportunity To Cure Dishonour [add date & delete brackets]; I hereby serve Notice of Default, the consequence of which is that you have acquiesced to the following established facts:
1. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have the jurisdiction to issue fines, whether in the form of a Penalty Charge Notice [PCN] or otherwise.
2. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not breached Article 12 of the Bill of Rights 1688, which prohibits the issue of fines and forfeitures without the accused being convicted of an offence.
3. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide 4,000 observable examples of how ULEZ has saved lives, to substantiate the claim repeatedly made by the Mayor of London that it has done so..
4. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office can provide just one observable example of one death that was solely attributed to CO2 poisoning London’s air.
5. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not knowingly committed fraud by false representation by relying upon dishonest statements for material gain, to the material loss of everybody who lives and works in London.
6. There is no material evidence that the Mayor’s Office has not engaged in making false and defamatory statements in public and in the media about the millions of people who oppose the existence and extension of ULEZ.
7. There is no material evidence that Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office have not committed fraud by non-disclosure in knowingly failing to publicly disclose the overwhelming opposition to the ULEZ extension.
In the event you fail to provide these reasonably requested items within the next 28 days, your failure will give rise to the tacit procuration of your acquiescence to my allegation that the evidence requested does not exist and ULEZ is therefore entirely unlawful; the PCN’s are all illegal, as well as void ab initio; and those responsible are liable for multiple breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, without prejudice to any and all civil claims for damages owed by those who have been adversely affected.
In sincerity and honour,
[Add name and delete brackets]
All Rights Reserved
Class Action To End Fraudulent ULEZ
Whilst five London borough councils have been granted permission to challenge the expansion of ULEZ by the high court this week, a class action to challenge its right to exist must be launched at the earliest opportunity.
In other words, stopping the expansion of ULEZ is not enough because the entire project is criminal in nature and fraudulent in the factum.
When such an action takes shape, the evidence gathered via the process featured above will be sufficient to sustain the claim that ULEZ is founded entirely on dishonest statements, which have already turned a hefty profit for Transport For London and the Mayor’s Office, if the London newspapers are to be believed [even if only in this instance].
