Mr Mustard's client muddled up his paperwork and made a declaration that was wrong. He therefore decided to pay the PCN to see the back of the problem.
Mr Mustard thought the doubtless standard warning letter was a bit passive aggressive and whilst he knows there are people who make repeated false declaration his client isn't such a person.
As ever Mr Mustard likes to deal in facts and so he asked a very simple question about the number of prosecutions.
Mr Mustard had a feeling that he knew what the answer would be and his guess turned out to be correct.
Now either there is a problem with false statements which justifies a warning or there isn't and the dire warning shouldn't be there.
Mr Mustard guesses that there is a problem but the indivduals concerned will be well known to the council and the Newham Council shouldn't be throwing their weight around when motorists who hardly ever submit witness statements make a hash of one but save their warnings for the repeat culprits and then go for them.
Bluffers & bullies - not a good look.
The end.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.