PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hopeless appeal - council PCN
CouncilFraud
post Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Hello Everyone,

I got a council PCN last year which I appealed with Bogsy's hopeless appeal letter (long story short theres nothing doing with appealing it on any grounds other than going for the hopeless appeal). So the council came back with a stock response of rejecting it. But they did not provide any of the info requested under the freedom of information act or even acknowledge the FOI request.

So I've emailed the FOI office at the council to dob the council parking department in for not processing the request in time or providing any of the requested info. So I'm wondering what the next action is, wait for NTO? Write back to them to say wheres my photos and other info?

Here is what I asked for, as per standard Bogsy goodness ;-)

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

The council responded with (note there were no photos in the email even though they say they are enclosed):

Thank you for writing to us. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your correspondence.


We have carefully considered your points but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

You were issued a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time when you were not allowed to park there. Single yellow lines mean no parking, except to load or unload. However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.

The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone.

The enclosed photo helps to show why your PCN was issued.

You have these choices:
You can pay the discount charge of £35.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter being served (delivered). (This is taken to be 2 days after the date shown on the letter unless you can show that it was not delivered by that date.)
You can pay £70.00.
You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £70.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives.

How to pay
Online at www under the heading "Do it online" click "Pay" and follow the instructions.
24hr payment line Payments can be made on the automated payment line using a debit or credit card. Please telephone xxx
At a Post Office Payments can be made at a Post Office by cash, cheque or debit card. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.
At a Paypoint outlet Payments can be made at a Paypoint outlet by cash only. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.



Do you think I have enough to let the NTO come, make representation that they mucked up by not supplying any information or photos that I requested? Any thoughts?

TIA

This post has been edited by CouncilFraud: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 22:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



An appeal is an appeal; a request for information is a request for info, and putting the two together doesn't mean they have to respond to the information request at the same time as rejecting your appeal. I can't see anything in your post to make it worth waiting for the NtO except if the discount period has expired in which case there is no point in paying-up now. However to respond in strength to a NtO, (and also at adjudication), you need something directly related to the alleged contravention. Not responding to an FOI request is outside the CPE process, so you could not put this down as a procedural impropriety, for instance.

The above is my understanding but see what others say.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 22:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:09
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Thanks Incandescent, they've left another 14 days to pay at half rate. From what I read I thought the aim of the hopeless appeal was for them to trip up by not providing all the requested info like photos, traffic orders, log book entries, proof of CEOs in uniform etc? Then this failure to provide they info was grounds for a tribunal to squash the ticket?

Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?

The ticket itself was for contravening a CPZ, so as much as the signs are miles away, theres not a leg for me to stand on, hence the hopeless appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 00:10
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



I really do sympathise with those who live and drive in London. It is a money-making game, we know that, the councils know that, the Mayor knows that, the Government knows that, but nothing is ever done to stop the cash flowing in. ONe does have to wonder why.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 06:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,065
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



What is the date of the authority's response letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 19:44
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Hello folks, yes Incandescent its legalised racketeering, if someone in the street tries to rob you then at least you have a chance to defend yourself, these lot are parasites who only work with the threat of criminalising everyday folk.

HCAndersen, I got the ticket on 30/11/14, I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15 (they stipulate theres no time limit for them to respond to informal appeals. Interestingly the FOI officer at the council has come back saying they will remind parking services of their obligations and investigate the breach of them taking too long to respond, if nothing else parking services may get a snottogram from their FOI colleagues, immature little me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 19:44) *
Hello folks, yes Incandescent its legalised racketeering, if someone in the street tries to rob you then at least you have a chance to defend yourself, these lot are parasites who only work with the threat of criminalising everyday folk.

HCAndersen, I got the ticket on 30/11/14, I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15 (they stipulate theres no time limit for them to respond to informal appeals. Interestingly the FOI officer at the council has come back saying they will remind parking services of their obligations and investigate the breach of them taking too long to respond, if nothing else parking services may get a snottogram from their FOI colleagues, immature little me.

There may be no statutory limit within the CPE legislation about replying to informal reps, but there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do, so assuming you have yet to receive the Notice to Owner, you should wait for this and appeal under "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case".

Of course, you can always fold and pay-up the discounted amount, of course, as their letter offers. It is up to you. However, I suspect doing this will leave you with a feeling of seething resentment, so if it were me, I'd take them all the way, but it is your money, not mine.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,065
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



So, you're gambling the discount against what exactly? What substantive argument do you have now or are you simply hoping that you can trip up the authority and succeed at adj on this point?

As said, it's your money and if you wish to risk it in this way, that's your choice.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:41
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



For details pertaining to your PCN you should not have made a Freedom of Information request. Or indeed a traffic order. If you want proper help with we need to see the PCN and council evidence.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:43


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:56
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I make it two months: I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:57


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:59
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Doubt any adjudicator would worry about 2 months, it is more or less the 56 days allowed for formal appeals
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Yes its a gamble I would be annoyed to pay up now but doubly annoyed to pay full jack on a lost appeal. Not got a leg on ticket itself, original thread is here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95154

I am so useless with accounts I forgot my old login and even the email I used to register it, embarrassed ;-)

I thought I would use Bogsy's hopeless appeal letter including these requests under FOI to parking services as part of my response to the ticket, in the hope they tripped up, I must admit I don't know the exact significance of any leverage given they didn't even enclose photos in their response when the letter said please see enclosed photos.

So the basis of my appeal seems to be:

1)Information requested not provided and FOI deadline of 20 working days has elapsed
2)Their letter said see enclosed photos, no photos were enclosed
3)As suggested by Incandescent they have taken a long time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


I am looking for one for another thread, not made up.... honest

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:17
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



As I said, the FOI is a weak point.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 09:37
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,065
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



According to you you do not have a leg to stand on as regards the contravention, therefore your hopes are pinned on procedural improprieties. At this stage I do not believe that one exists. As I understand it, there is no procedural requirement on the authority to provide the info you've requested to the recipient of a PCN.

Others may know whether this authority tend to re-offer the discount in the event of unsuccessful reps, in which case you could wait for the NTO with no likely downside except the time and effort required to submit reps.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 10:34
Post #19





Guests






QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


It may possibly be better for the OP to argue that taking 2 months to reply fails to comply with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance where it is recommended that council's should respond to challenges within 14 days. Perhaps the Council should be asked to demonstrate that they had regard to the guidance as required by law and to explain why they did not follow the guidance. Any failure to have regard is a procedural impropriety.

88. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO (this does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). They are likely to receive these
within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper
consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in
a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number
of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days.
Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the
appropriate authority to deal with these challenges. If the evidence or
circumstances (including mitigating circumstances) provide grounds for
cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement authority should do so and let the
vehicle owner know. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no
grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its
reasons.


QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:09) *
Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?


The appeal was something I wrote a long long time ago when many councils were still coming to terms with the TMA 2004. It was designed for where there is no obvious appeal point. It was hoped that the council would find it easier to accept the appeal rather than spend the time dealing with it. It did work a few times but councils are now more experienced and less intimidated. I would not recommend using it these days and most certainly would not recommend relying on it if paying the discount is at risk. Pity you did not initially come to us as we could have offered you more hopeful advice.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 10:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 13:13
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


It may possibly be better for the OP to argue that taking 2 months to reply fails to comply with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance where it is recommended that council's should respond to challenges within 14 days. Perhaps the Council should be asked to demonstrate that they had regard to the guidance as required by law and to explain why they did not follow the guidance. Any failure to have regard is a procedural impropriety.

88. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO (this does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). They are likely to receive these
within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper
consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in
a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number
of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days.
Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the
appropriate authority to deal with these challenges. If the evidence or
circumstances (including mitigating circumstances) provide grounds for
cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement authority should do so and let the
vehicle owner know. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no
grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its
reasons.


QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:09) *
Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?


The appeal was something I wrote a long long time ago when many councils were still coming to terms with the TMA 2004. It was designed for where there is no obvious appeal point. It was hoped that the council would find it easier to accept the appeal rather than spend the time dealing with it. It did work a few times but councils are now more experienced and less intimidated. I would not recommend using it these days and most certainly would not recommend relying on it if paying the discount is at risk. Pity you did not initially come to us as we could have offered you more hopeful advice.

I go with that: failure to have regard and see Incandescent's thread for cases.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....zcaCFDP8GFIbe6A

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 13:14


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:25
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here