wheres your evidence?
Well, for starters I have a notice of seizure here with the date and the confirmation that the car seized was displaying the identifying mark "HVY MTL".
Secondly I have a letter from South Wales Police, confirming that they forwarded the first two notices on to North Wales Police.
Thirdly I have a letter from Clarence House, contents marked private and confidential. (a fact I intend to respect)
I'm sure that I have sufficient proof of the facts.
Thinking about it, I'm not going to send this final notice registered either. I mentioned previously I would do this upto 3 times, checking and verifying information as I go. This first round has already proven a lot as far as I am concerned. For a start they have been unable to mount any authority to prosecute me for the lack of TAX MOT or Insurance. That fact alone is a small victory. Further they have offered no rebuttal of my argument, and hence it's presumable at this point that it is correct and therefore cannot be rebutted.
If I send registered then there is an extra layer of proof, however that might be somewhat unfair in this case. It's tricky to explain but it is my feeling that continuing unregistered is more in keeping with the spirit of the law. I.E I'm giving them a chance to resolve this without the record. If they won't resolve it then next time I'm starting notice 1 with intention of prosecution sent registered. It's not my intention to unfairly or maliciously prosecute an unsuspecting chief constable who looks like a good chap from his picture. My feeling is that they are quite surprised about the whole thing and didn't even realise the error because they have not been trained properly.
On the second go around, the gloves come off because by that point they KNOW what they are doing is wrong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish.