PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Nottingham City Council (PCN) Contravention Code 05.
we are men of sc...
post Mon, 6 Feb 2012 - 00:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695




Received PCN Code 05.




Sent challenge on the 14th day via e-mail.




On my return from work the following morning i found the above in my in-box.

So i returned the above three times.


Then i received the NtO.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 6 Feb 2012 - 00:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 3 Mar 2012 - 12:01
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You need to understand the points and not just write them.

The council is under a duty to state specific time periods in its docs. The applicable time period in your case was "28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served". They didn't in many case and this is defined as a procedural impropriety which is a statutory ground of appeal.

HCA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Sat, 3 Mar 2012 - 12:30
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Thank you HCAndersen. To summarise, the council used three different time periods when only one is applicable and because of this a procedural impropriety has occurred.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Mon, 5 Mar 2012 - 13:25
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695





I am having problems with photobucket so I will type out the relevant part of Nottingham city council(city of nottingham,consolidation area)(No. 7) Traffic Regulation Order 2011(TRO 6950).

Part 1 Schedule 4
Parking Places (Pay & Display)

Column 1 Item No. 17 (ii)

Column 2 Length of Road Castle Boulevard(the south side) from a point 2.5 meters east of its junction with Haslam Street in an easterly direction for a distance of 54 meters.

Column 3 Days and Hours of Operation Mon-Fri 8am-4pm and Sat 8am-6pm

Column 4 Maximum Period of Waiting 2 Hours
.
Column 5 No Return Within 1 Hour

Column 2 Zone 2

As you can see no reference to Mon-Fri 6-8pm and Sat & Sun 8am-8pm.
Does this mean the sign or the TRO is incorrect and how would I use this at the TPT .
Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 00:57
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I think you say the Traffic Order is invalid or at least that the signage on site does not match the Traffic Order.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 01:21
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Thank you for responding to this post again School Run Mum. So is the sign or the TRO incorrect. If so how would I present this at TPT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 11:32
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Does anyone have any further comment on this case as I will soon have to send submissions to the TPT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 12:56
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



these are your args and you will need to present them and understand them at adjudication

teach a man to fish is the only method that works, if someone else writes them for you then there is every possibility (verging on certainty IMO ) that you will not comprehend the args abd consequently be unable to present of defend them cogently.

Simply go through the thread from start to end and draft out your reps.
then post them here, don't just send them off
if the deadline gets in the way make sure you don't miss the deadline !
BUT do that with reps that say 'details to follow' HCA has posted several good examples of this.
and if you are going to do that still post your draft n here first

better to get the args sorted on here before the deadline.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 02:47
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Hello again.

In the NOR dated 19/01/2012 the council refer me to the TPT TRO library. Part of the relevant TRO from the TPT TRO library is below.
17 (ii) Castle Boulevard (the south side).

The days and hours of operation do not correspond to the sign.

This was some of the information I based my decision on to appeal to the TPT in Feb.
However I received the council evidence in March,



and they sent this TRO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 08:36
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 03:47) *
The days and hours of operation do not correspond to the sign.


Sorry if I'm being dumb and missing something - but how?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 08:57
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:18
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 10:23
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 10:18) *
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?


Thank you for repliyng Neil B.
With regards to the timescales in the NOR, below are my initial submissions to the TPT.I am looking through the councils evidence so I can build on this (I will post all of the councils evidence over the weekend) and the issue with the TRO is one that I thought might be relevant.


Councils additional evidence.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 14:09
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I'm not saying the TRO flaw isn't relevant, just throwing in the question for people to comment.

Are you ok with the timescale flaws on NoR - meaning do you understand them, which one is right and how having three is prejudicial?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 16:55
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



hey pointed you to an out of date TRO - well just the repository. I suppose they thought that was being clever BUT they have still misled you IMO


Then they submit (just extracts of) a different TRO.
When an LA relies on a TRO in the TPT repository they just name it on the forms to save expense for all concerned.
Good idea ! IF they do it properly and filer all the TROS in the TPT repository. neither happens.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Sun, 10 Jun 2012 - 01:28
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 10:18) *
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?


Thank you for repliyng Neil B.
With regards to the timescales in the NOR, below are my initial submissions to the TPT.I am looking through the councils evidence so I can build on this (I will post all of the councils evidence over the weekend) and the issue with the TRO is one that I thought might be relevant.


Any views on the councils additional evidence. I draw your attention to the second sentence of paragraph three in the additional submissions box

Councils additional evidence.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 10 Jun 2012 - 09:06
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The council's evidence is flawed.
1. The fact that they provided you with incorrect evidence in their NOR.
You MUST see this in the context of their "offer" in the NOR to still pay the penalty at the discount rate. So, based on their NOR you could, and did, go to the TPT library, find your way around it (doesn't the arrogance and unhelpfulness of NCC take your breath away - just because they know(do they?) what the hell the TPT library is about, why should you?. You're a motorist not a parking law specialist), find the TRO which NCC claim is in force, which you then read and find that it does not include the required restriction, and as a consequence are buoyed in your chances that you could win at appeal and so do not pay at the discount for this reason - only for the council's evidence bundle to give a different TRO which, according to them, does show the restriction. Bang goes your opportunity to pay at the discount.

except:

2. Extracts from TRO
The Schedule shows a max period of parking (2 hours) and No Return limit (1 hour).

This is not the sign.

Either it's the wrong traffic order but the restriction is correct as is the sign, or it's the correct order, in which case the sign is incorrect.

(a) Wrong order
They're dead. Appeal hearings are determined on the basis of evidence submitted. They've not adduced the correct order. No case to answer, appeal allowed, march out.

(b) Correct order. In which case the sign is incorrect. This is not as strong a point, but you should still succeed on this point because in their NOR they claim that the signs accord with the requirements of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs. Appeal allowed, march out.

Keep your powder dry on this point until the hearing - after all, how's the adj to know what's what?

3. Prior to becoming a Pepipooer (if this word is not in the OED, it should be), and given a choice between c**k-up and conspiracy I would opt for c**k-up. But NCC and others have made me reconsider this approach.
The council are being economical with the truth.
Refer to their evidence (the extract from the Appeals Regs). Look at the section highlighted in yellow and then refer to their NOR. You'd think all was fine. But not us.

The regs don't stop at no. 6. Beleive it or not, there's a regulation 7. And guess what it states?

Appeals to an adjudicator in relation to decisions under regulation 5

7.—(1) Where an authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b) in relation to representations made under regulation 4,this is what they've done, regulation 6 states what the NOR userved under 5(2)(b) must state the person who made those representations may appeal to an adjudicator against the authority’s decision—


(a)before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection; or
(b)within such longer period as an adjudicator may allow.


So the council have failed to comply with regulation 6 (1)© of the Appeals Regs in that they have failed to correctly describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.

That should be enough for you to go on.

IMO, what they've done is tantamount to an abuse of power in that they're continuing to act as if they are correct while at the same time they've provided evidence which they should know does not support their case. But despite this, they're trying to scare/bluff/bully you.

Nail the duplicitous b******s.

If it's all a bit complicated, by all means PM me.

HCA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sun, 10 Jun 2012 - 13:33
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



HCA is spot on. I fully concur.


re the feck up v deliberate
feck ups may happen at the lower levels with individuals actions but institutionally and over a long multi-step process covered by much legislation and rules (and lots of staff in diff depts) its pretty much statistically impossible for it to be anything other than deliberate and institutionalised.
It isn't paranoia if they really are out just to get you(r money) !

'feck up' makes a good cover story is all

And NCC's history on here speaks for itself


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
we are men of sc...
post Sat, 23 Jun 2012 - 03:28
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,695



Attended the hearing on Fri.
The Adjudicator rejected the appeal on every point.

She said the sign was compliant as it did not have to show the No Return Within 1 Hour restriction claiming that signs would become unwieldy if they displayed everything in a TRO.
Adjudicator also said the TRO only needs to be included in the councils evidence to the TPT and not before this time even though I requested it in my original challenge.She said that this TRO in the evidence pack is the correct one and corresponds with the signs.
I raised the fact that my challenge sent on 28/11/11 (14th day) was returned undelivered and therefore the council did not have a system capable of receiving e-mailed challenges as stated on the PCN. She said I should know e-mail is unreliable and should have sent a challenge via the postal system.
The challenge was sent successfully on the 29/11/11 via e-mail but the council admitted that due to an administrative error the original challenge had not been scanned on to the case and that when realised the original document was scanned on the case as a representation on the 29/12/11 as the NTO had already been sent on the 21/12/11. This is in breach of the appeals regs 2007 3(2)(b)(i) that if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served those representations will be considered, but the council could not have considered them before the NTO was served as they had not been scanned on to the case for over a month since being received and over a week after the NTO had been sent. The adjudicator said these points were immaterial as the discount had been re-offered.
The NOR was next to be analysed. I cited the three different time periods the council used in respect of paying the penalty charge; serving a charge cetificate and appealing to an adjudicator stating that there is only one correct time period which applies in every case for compliance with the mandatory requirements of the appeals regs. She said it was semantics and said that the councils PCNs, NTOs and NOR had been challenged previously and are fully compliant with the regs.
The last point was also in the NOR.
"In your representation you have also requested a copy of the traffic order; therefore I would advise to please refer to the TPT website. The website has a TRO library where you will be able to obtain a copy of the relevant order". I went to the site as instructed and found a TRO that pertained to where I parked and discovered that it did not correspond to the signs. I knew this breach would be enough to mount a strong appeal to the TPT and so declined the offer of the extended discount rate that the council had offered as I knew that with the wrong order no offence could have been committed.
Once again the adjudicator rubbished this saying that if you cannot find the order on the website I should have contacted the council but the council knows the TRO is not on the TPT library so why direct me to the site in the NOR.

This is what happened at adjudication.
What now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 23 Jun 2012 - 10:03
Post #39


Member


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



I would ask for a review on the basis that the adjudicator has erred in law. Signs for when parking is permitted and when not must contain what the TRO says, else it would be complete chaos. One has to wonder what the adjudicator would consider necessary and what not in such cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 23 Jun 2012 - 10:14
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Incredible decision from what you've posted. But before we consider what to do, you must post the adj's decision as we need to see the exact wording.

It would seem that you a have a strong argument for seeking a review, but there's a 14-day time limit within which to submit this. We can help, but we do not have unlimited time. So please post the decision letter ASP.

HCA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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 - 11:07
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