Post by Administrator on Aug 14, 2019 12:05:13 GMT
For the Attention of #######INSURER##########
Dear Michael,
The company I worked for (##########) ###########, has vehicles insured by ######## Insurance Broking Group. (######### Branch) #######################
If anyone has an accident/incident and somebody ELSE is at (fault) The Insurance company has no issues making a claim for liability & awarding costs/compensation.
When anything happens and it can be proved that someone else was at (FAULT) which (CAUSED) a loss (it doesn't have to be damages) then there is a claim.
I want to know.. why Insurance companies & their Solicitors like yourselves are reluctant to want to act, when a Council Authority, or Highways England.. have been (proved) to be at (FAULT) (RESPONSIBLE) for their mistakes & professional negligence which has (CAUSED) and (MISLEAD) drivers.. for example at a road traffic enforcement site.
Because seriously... failing to have in place.. entire miles of road signage.. (which without question is professional negligence) especially if I have already proved it was illegal, non prescribed, misleading signage.. which is also classed as an obstruction in the road...
Not Only have I (PROVED) Highway England had illegal, misleading signage at a very significant site that I was prosecuted t (Haslingden bypass) which resulted in a financial loss of fine & court costs, and a great deal of stress and worry & resulted in my having to do all the travel & investigation work and acting to Civil Mediation to get those signs corrected... It also effects other drivers who were prosecuted at that site as well (Multiple claims) Also various breeches in disclosure rules, Dual proceedings & Jeopardy of law, following failure of action even after it was reported initially.
I went further than simply this...
I found, through competent, professional and widespread investigation, which was needed.. to prove that road Set up, was not mere co-incidence & random Negligence...
I FOUND that OTHER (IMPORTANT) (MAIN) road sites...similarly, had the exact same, or similar signage errors over long distances of 1 mile as well.. where there was or had been active enforcement of the speed limit ..
And the Signage errors HAD mislead drivers into these sites, at the wrong speeds and they were all (VERY SIMILAR IF NOT THE SAME) and (HAD) to have been Planned & Set up.
Haslingden bypass A56/A682 Lancashire
Ossett Bypass, A638 Wakefield West Yorkshire
A1 Elkesley, Nottingham
A1 Beeston Bedfordshire
A49 Church Stretton Shropshire
I have (PROVED) these roads WERE illegally signed. That has been admitted by those authorities. AND action taken to correct signage.
There is no doubt that this evidence shows.
1. There is a pattern.
2. It has to have been planned, it cannot be co-incidence
3. They are significant road traffic sites, strategic, even
4. The signs cannot just have been put wrong through Professional Negligence only. There Must have been (INTENT) which is even more serious as there is INTENT to CAUSE persons to be mislead, even MISREAD & EXCEED a speed limit. By the Strategy used.
With this in consideration & the EXTENSIVE ERRORS (PROVED) why should any person need to pay 1 penny to get back any money lost through any fine, and for recovery of any legal costs... When it was a FAULT and NEGGENCE of the Highway Authority that CAUSED those persons to exceed a speed limit.. by (intent, planned, misguidance)
It HAS to be a LIABILITY.
And those drivers are ALL paying INSURANCE! You have to be insured to driver. It is not lawful to drive a car without insurance.
If ANYTHING CAUSES a LOSS to a driver. any mistake on the COUNCIL or HIGHWAY AUTHORITYS LIABILITY.. It is well documented in the Road Signs Manuals Chapters 1 through to 5 that a council can be open to (LITIGATION)
NO 1 person should ever have to find any MONEY or FUNDING themselves from their own money, when there has been a BLATANT, OBVIOUS and (PROVED) SERIOUS fault of a Highways Authority, which amounts to much more than CAUSATION. Much more than Professional Negligence, and much more than SIMPLE FAULT..
It is evidence of a PLANNED, INTENDED network of Roads, set up to MISLEAD not one but MANY drivers!
I Have Proved this.
I have the evidence of the sites which amount to show this. And Have already had the Authorities ADMIT the signage was unlawful (EXTENSIVE)
It is the entire PURPOSE and POINT to PAY insurance so that if something happens a person is covered...
WHEN THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE AT FAULT.
And CLEARLY THE HIGHWAYS ENGLAND are at FAULT here. It is not only DANGEROUS what they have done with these road signage sites being (EXTENSIVE) and serious.. the LOSS to drivers.. being put through issue of these legal threats & penalty notices, the legal defence costs incurred & some have lost a job, or their driving licences & it has negatively effected their lives, private life, own personal plans..
The LOSS is great.
This is disgustingly ignored by most insurance companies.
And the amount of money that people PAY for insurance.. when It should be USED, but a lot of the time is NOT used...
It is not right or fair... When there is a Blatant liability & error on the Part of the Council. (absolute negligence) in fact it can be more than enough evidence to show criminal activity.. Intent to cause drivers to exceed the speed limit, Perversion of Justice & Misconduct in Public office by the Highways Management. As well as the Police Highways Management who had FAILED to properly evaluate the roads before the enforcement took place.
No other solicitor found those errors & had them corrected. I did it myself. I had to learn, research, survey for 5 whole years & I acted to complaint to get action correcting the signs. The Police refused to act.. When they were supposed to disclose that signage to other defendants.
It was MY work that uncovered & corrected these sites.
And Myself & the company I work for at a loss.
IT HAS TO BE COVERED BY INSURANCE.
Because the vehicle was being led into danger. by Highway Authority negligence. Its a absolute liability.
Also, I was prosecuted & convicted unlawfully while gathering evidence & investigating this and Petitioning the Government over it.
And I have a Strong Human Rights Argument which covers me against prosecution.. Which Should be covered by the Insurance as well. Because It was the FAULT of the Highways Departments which CAUSED me to have to survey, research & investigate this. I have done the work.
Not only myself.. But all other drivers have paid for insurance as well. They all must be refunded fines & have convictions removed.. and It needs to be one case. One CLAIM. Against Highways England.
It has to be covered by insurance.
You claim to be one of the one and only companies that specialise in (RINGS) such as crime rings..
You have experience in correlating & co-ordinating investigations & evidence together from different sites & areas.. And you have a multiple department Traffic section covering all areas of law. If you DONT, then you can STILL use the FUNDING to bring in ANY specialist or QC as needed for Road Signage, Human Rights or any other part of the Claim.
WHO SHOULD HAVE TO FIND £5,000 - £15,000 TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS while investigating roads that are A HIGHWAYS ENGLAND FAULT? Where police Ignore the rights and even ACT to TRY PREVENT it from being proved, in fact fail to disclose, and refuse to ADMIT FAULT & LIABILITY through involvement? failing to follow dual proceeding & jeopardy of law Human Rights requirements as well through running dual prosecutions all revolving around a site where one FACT (the signage being illegal, seriously, extensively) effects all cases.. such as with the Claire Allison case for example: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4737779.stm £250,000 in fines refunds paid out.. not to mention individual claims for loss of employment & driving licences.
Each of the Roads I have PROVED must have at least £500,000 each of fines.
That is over 2 MILLION POUNDS. Then we have the Lost Licences and Jobs to cover as well in the claim. (numbers & details can be obtained through freedom of information & disclosure) In fact in a claim like this disclosure of other persons details would be compulsory. Their INSURANCE COMPANIES should even collaborate together to cover the legal costs.. which them would be VERY SMALL in relation to simply the Claim for all 5 sites.
All 5 sites would be best in order to prove the Haslingden Bypass site was not a co-incidence or random Mistake/Liability and is in fact part of a much wides & extensive issue. Planned even.
I am Really feeling very strongly about this, And I would like you to talk to the Insurance Company, because its not that difficult to make the authorities give over details of other persons.. then contact their insurance companies & work together to manage the claims easier.
This needs to be done. Because its very Important & serious.
Peoples National Insurance may even apply where the Human Rights Breeches are concerned.
And I need all my minor offences quashing in the process not only because roads were a liability by the Highways Authority.. But because I should not & could not have been prosecuted while gathering evidence. And in fact I have a legal Human Rights argument for that which absolutely should be covered by everyone else's claims as well because I acted on behalf of those effected.. Both A1 Sites, Haslingden, Ossett & the A49 Church Stretton.
I have been into speak with the Insurance company myself a couple of years ago.. But they are a Broker.
They speak to the Insurers & there are always (excuses).
I have since then obtained much more evidence. & I have (PROVED) these signage issues were extensive and serious. Also there HAVE been accidents on those roads as well. And those people who have had accidents where there was damage can also claim from Highways England. The Insurance companies in fact should have entered claims against Highways England on behalf of their clients.
Speed signage being (EXTENSIVELY SERIOUS) in fault, DOES CONTRIBUTE TO ACCIDENTS AS WELL AS (causation) OF PEOPLE TO BE AT THE WRONG SPEED. particularly when I have now serious correlated evidence there has been planned intent.
I would appreciate you discussing this matter with the Insurance companies, and In particular our insurers Henderson Insurance Broking Group.
And the other insurers.
Why do we have to pay insurance by LAW? everyone does. Its a legal requirement.
You cannot say that Over 2MILLION POUNDS worth of Fines.. where FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES have been now PROVED to be connected and a FAULT & LIABILITY of Highways England should have to be from 1 penny out of the pocket of any of those people when there is SERIOUS Liability FAULT & CAUSATION by the Highways Authorities & Serious Professional Negligence by the Police.
Unless the Insurance companies are trying to defend the Police / Highways Authorities.
The Insurance Payers are paying all this money, which is supposed to be there when they are at loss and detriment following a mistake & liability of another party on the road.. particularly when there is a CAUSE.
Its classed as an OBSTRUCTION for a reason.. (illegal signage) Its detriment to driving & all those Fines are evidence of a Profit made by the Authorities, where drivers are at a LOSS because of this professional negligence.
There is enough details & evidence to at least make further enquiries .. and there may be a possibility of out of court settlement from the Highways Authorities & police.
I intend to start placing notices in the newspapers, As I have already ran a few in the London Evening Standard. Outlining where (Dual Proceedings & jeopardy of law) have been seriously overlooked & not raised as serious matters by many solicitors where road traffic matters effect a number of people concerning the same (facts & circumstances)
I really think the Problem did get so bad because nobody was challenging the Highways authorities & police over this & it ended up growing & spreading.. until we get these 5 examples which are only the tip of the iceberg.
I would like something done about this A.S.A.P. As It must be within the insurance companies to be able to act. It has to be, when there is something of this scale & extent.
Yours Faithfully
##################
###########################
############
My Employer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
################
###############
###############
###########
###########
############
Dear Michael,
The company I worked for (##########) ###########, has vehicles insured by ######## Insurance Broking Group. (######### Branch) #######################
If anyone has an accident/incident and somebody ELSE is at (fault) The Insurance company has no issues making a claim for liability & awarding costs/compensation.
When anything happens and it can be proved that someone else was at (FAULT) which (CAUSED) a loss (it doesn't have to be damages) then there is a claim.
I want to know.. why Insurance companies & their Solicitors like yourselves are reluctant to want to act, when a Council Authority, or Highways England.. have been (proved) to be at (FAULT) (RESPONSIBLE) for their mistakes & professional negligence which has (CAUSED) and (MISLEAD) drivers.. for example at a road traffic enforcement site.
Because seriously... failing to have in place.. entire miles of road signage.. (which without question is professional negligence) especially if I have already proved it was illegal, non prescribed, misleading signage.. which is also classed as an obstruction in the road...
Not Only have I (PROVED) Highway England had illegal, misleading signage at a very significant site that I was prosecuted t (Haslingden bypass) which resulted in a financial loss of fine & court costs, and a great deal of stress and worry & resulted in my having to do all the travel & investigation work and acting to Civil Mediation to get those signs corrected... It also effects other drivers who were prosecuted at that site as well (Multiple claims) Also various breeches in disclosure rules, Dual proceedings & Jeopardy of law, following failure of action even after it was reported initially.
I went further than simply this...
I found, through competent, professional and widespread investigation, which was needed.. to prove that road Set up, was not mere co-incidence & random Negligence...
I FOUND that OTHER (IMPORTANT) (MAIN) road sites...similarly, had the exact same, or similar signage errors over long distances of 1 mile as well.. where there was or had been active enforcement of the speed limit ..
And the Signage errors HAD mislead drivers into these sites, at the wrong speeds and they were all (VERY SIMILAR IF NOT THE SAME) and (HAD) to have been Planned & Set up.
Haslingden bypass A56/A682 Lancashire
Ossett Bypass, A638 Wakefield West Yorkshire
A1 Elkesley, Nottingham
A1 Beeston Bedfordshire
A49 Church Stretton Shropshire
I have (PROVED) these roads WERE illegally signed. That has been admitted by those authorities. AND action taken to correct signage.
There is no doubt that this evidence shows.
1. There is a pattern.
2. It has to have been planned, it cannot be co-incidence
3. They are significant road traffic sites, strategic, even
4. The signs cannot just have been put wrong through Professional Negligence only. There Must have been (INTENT) which is even more serious as there is INTENT to CAUSE persons to be mislead, even MISREAD & EXCEED a speed limit. By the Strategy used.
With this in consideration & the EXTENSIVE ERRORS (PROVED) why should any person need to pay 1 penny to get back any money lost through any fine, and for recovery of any legal costs... When it was a FAULT and NEGGENCE of the Highway Authority that CAUSED those persons to exceed a speed limit.. by (intent, planned, misguidance)
It HAS to be a LIABILITY.
And those drivers are ALL paying INSURANCE! You have to be insured to driver. It is not lawful to drive a car without insurance.
If ANYTHING CAUSES a LOSS to a driver. any mistake on the COUNCIL or HIGHWAY AUTHORITYS LIABILITY.. It is well documented in the Road Signs Manuals Chapters 1 through to 5 that a council can be open to (LITIGATION)
NO 1 person should ever have to find any MONEY or FUNDING themselves from their own money, when there has been a BLATANT, OBVIOUS and (PROVED) SERIOUS fault of a Highways Authority, which amounts to much more than CAUSATION. Much more than Professional Negligence, and much more than SIMPLE FAULT..
It is evidence of a PLANNED, INTENDED network of Roads, set up to MISLEAD not one but MANY drivers!
I Have Proved this.
I have the evidence of the sites which amount to show this. And Have already had the Authorities ADMIT the signage was unlawful (EXTENSIVE)
It is the entire PURPOSE and POINT to PAY insurance so that if something happens a person is covered...
WHEN THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE AT FAULT.
And CLEARLY THE HIGHWAYS ENGLAND are at FAULT here. It is not only DANGEROUS what they have done with these road signage sites being (EXTENSIVE) and serious.. the LOSS to drivers.. being put through issue of these legal threats & penalty notices, the legal defence costs incurred & some have lost a job, or their driving licences & it has negatively effected their lives, private life, own personal plans..
The LOSS is great.
This is disgustingly ignored by most insurance companies.
And the amount of money that people PAY for insurance.. when It should be USED, but a lot of the time is NOT used...
It is not right or fair... When there is a Blatant liability & error on the Part of the Council. (absolute negligence) in fact it can be more than enough evidence to show criminal activity.. Intent to cause drivers to exceed the speed limit, Perversion of Justice & Misconduct in Public office by the Highways Management. As well as the Police Highways Management who had FAILED to properly evaluate the roads before the enforcement took place.
No other solicitor found those errors & had them corrected. I did it myself. I had to learn, research, survey for 5 whole years & I acted to complaint to get action correcting the signs. The Police refused to act.. When they were supposed to disclose that signage to other defendants.
It was MY work that uncovered & corrected these sites.
And Myself & the company I work for at a loss.
IT HAS TO BE COVERED BY INSURANCE.
Because the vehicle was being led into danger. by Highway Authority negligence. Its a absolute liability.
Also, I was prosecuted & convicted unlawfully while gathering evidence & investigating this and Petitioning the Government over it.
And I have a Strong Human Rights Argument which covers me against prosecution.. Which Should be covered by the Insurance as well. Because It was the FAULT of the Highways Departments which CAUSED me to have to survey, research & investigate this. I have done the work.
Not only myself.. But all other drivers have paid for insurance as well. They all must be refunded fines & have convictions removed.. and It needs to be one case. One CLAIM. Against Highways England.
It has to be covered by insurance.
You claim to be one of the one and only companies that specialise in (RINGS) such as crime rings..
You have experience in correlating & co-ordinating investigations & evidence together from different sites & areas.. And you have a multiple department Traffic section covering all areas of law. If you DONT, then you can STILL use the FUNDING to bring in ANY specialist or QC as needed for Road Signage, Human Rights or any other part of the Claim.
WHO SHOULD HAVE TO FIND £5,000 - £15,000 TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS while investigating roads that are A HIGHWAYS ENGLAND FAULT? Where police Ignore the rights and even ACT to TRY PREVENT it from being proved, in fact fail to disclose, and refuse to ADMIT FAULT & LIABILITY through involvement? failing to follow dual proceeding & jeopardy of law Human Rights requirements as well through running dual prosecutions all revolving around a site where one FACT (the signage being illegal, seriously, extensively) effects all cases.. such as with the Claire Allison case for example: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4737779.stm £250,000 in fines refunds paid out.. not to mention individual claims for loss of employment & driving licences.
Each of the Roads I have PROVED must have at least £500,000 each of fines.
That is over 2 MILLION POUNDS. Then we have the Lost Licences and Jobs to cover as well in the claim. (numbers & details can be obtained through freedom of information & disclosure) In fact in a claim like this disclosure of other persons details would be compulsory. Their INSURANCE COMPANIES should even collaborate together to cover the legal costs.. which them would be VERY SMALL in relation to simply the Claim for all 5 sites.
All 5 sites would be best in order to prove the Haslingden Bypass site was not a co-incidence or random Mistake/Liability and is in fact part of a much wides & extensive issue. Planned even.
I am Really feeling very strongly about this, And I would like you to talk to the Insurance Company, because its not that difficult to make the authorities give over details of other persons.. then contact their insurance companies & work together to manage the claims easier.
This needs to be done. Because its very Important & serious.
Peoples National Insurance may even apply where the Human Rights Breeches are concerned.
And I need all my minor offences quashing in the process not only because roads were a liability by the Highways Authority.. But because I should not & could not have been prosecuted while gathering evidence. And in fact I have a legal Human Rights argument for that which absolutely should be covered by everyone else's claims as well because I acted on behalf of those effected.. Both A1 Sites, Haslingden, Ossett & the A49 Church Stretton.
I have been into speak with the Insurance company myself a couple of years ago.. But they are a Broker.
They speak to the Insurers & there are always (excuses).
I have since then obtained much more evidence. & I have (PROVED) these signage issues were extensive and serious. Also there HAVE been accidents on those roads as well. And those people who have had accidents where there was damage can also claim from Highways England. The Insurance companies in fact should have entered claims against Highways England on behalf of their clients.
Speed signage being (EXTENSIVELY SERIOUS) in fault, DOES CONTRIBUTE TO ACCIDENTS AS WELL AS (causation) OF PEOPLE TO BE AT THE WRONG SPEED. particularly when I have now serious correlated evidence there has been planned intent.
I would appreciate you discussing this matter with the Insurance companies, and In particular our insurers Henderson Insurance Broking Group.
And the other insurers.
Why do we have to pay insurance by LAW? everyone does. Its a legal requirement.
You cannot say that Over 2MILLION POUNDS worth of Fines.. where FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES have been now PROVED to be connected and a FAULT & LIABILITY of Highways England should have to be from 1 penny out of the pocket of any of those people when there is SERIOUS Liability FAULT & CAUSATION by the Highways Authorities & Serious Professional Negligence by the Police.
Unless the Insurance companies are trying to defend the Police / Highways Authorities.
The Insurance Payers are paying all this money, which is supposed to be there when they are at loss and detriment following a mistake & liability of another party on the road.. particularly when there is a CAUSE.
Its classed as an OBSTRUCTION for a reason.. (illegal signage) Its detriment to driving & all those Fines are evidence of a Profit made by the Authorities, where drivers are at a LOSS because of this professional negligence.
There is enough details & evidence to at least make further enquiries .. and there may be a possibility of out of court settlement from the Highways Authorities & police.
I intend to start placing notices in the newspapers, As I have already ran a few in the London Evening Standard. Outlining where (Dual Proceedings & jeopardy of law) have been seriously overlooked & not raised as serious matters by many solicitors where road traffic matters effect a number of people concerning the same (facts & circumstances)
I really think the Problem did get so bad because nobody was challenging the Highways authorities & police over this & it ended up growing & spreading.. until we get these 5 examples which are only the tip of the iceberg.
I would like something done about this A.S.A.P. As It must be within the insurance companies to be able to act. It has to be, when there is something of this scale & extent.
Yours Faithfully
##################
###########################
############
My Employer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
################
###############
###############
###########
###########
############