PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TfL - Accused of prohibited stopping
CaptainPicard
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Greetings fellow space-farers,

I'm being accused of stopping my starship where I should'nt by those evil war mongers TfL, from the planet Moronia.

So far my dog, woof woof has attempted communications with TfL in their native language - barking and howling. What they call images of evidence, we call foul. Yes that's right, total dog foul. No number plate or even signage was visable in the supposed parked position of the starship that bore resemblance to the image of the starship with the number plate.

However TfL have howled and growled back that they have CCTV video that is available for viewing at their homeworld star system of 'croydonia'. Unfortunately too many black holes exist in this sector to make a holiday there worth while. Alternatively TfL want to extort £10 for the humble privledge of sending the video footage. What saints.

Have a good look at the images and tell me what you think.

Light speed.







This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 21:01
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 21:51) *
not arranging the viewing.

It's clearly in there too. You write, for whatever you require and they comply as described.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 12:24
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 09:25) *
See my earlier post. NO, you MUST act but we don't know relevant dates.


I've got till the 7th of August to pay the discounted pentalty charge.

Here infront of me I have the PATAS form. I think there are some excellent points that have been raised and I will try and put things in a bullet format just to be as clear as possible to the adjudicator.

Roughly it would go along the lines of first, what I was doing (going to a charity shop sure this has no legal basis but it's worth mentioned as pointed out) then some bullets.

1) Lack of evidence provided that the camera has been calibrated and is of an approved type
2) TfL essentially trying to extort me to see the evidence.
3) Some technicality mentioned here. Maybe the one Hippocrates raised.

Is there anything I should add or deduct. Any thoughts on how the ajudicator might react to this defence. Even if I've got a 5% chance or succeeding, its worth a shot. I will send it via recorded delivery.

Thanks again to all

This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 12:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 14:36
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Erm no, not really cos you have something more substantial.

We kinda assume people will read around the forum to get an idea of procedures, progress of cases and how they pan out and what happens at each stage.
Maybe you haven't done that.

You don't need to worry about details of your case yet, other than to decide if you wish to proceed.

Now see below; I'll comment on everything and add in the likely relevant winning matter missed.
QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 13:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 09:25) *
See my earlier post. NO, you MUST act but we don't know relevant dates.


I've got till the 7th of August to pay the discounted pentalty charge.
Thanks; We're still missing a date on the NoR.

Here infront of me I have the PATAS form. I think there are some excellent points that have been raised and I will try and put things in a bullet format just to be as clear as possible to the adjudicator.
Not yet; when you get around to it and when you are clear on matters. Why? - see below.

Roughly it would go along the lines of first, what I was doing (going to a charity shop sure this has no legal basis but it's worth mentioned as pointed out) then some bullets.
Nope. This is important and has been missed because you chose to make a semi amusing first post whereas the simple facts could have made this so easy.
I now realise you were in a loading bay - loading! - You said so. Hence exempt and there was no contravention of stopping when prohibited on a RR. Simple. I can see you were likely delivering to the NMPH shop which, being adjacent, is evidence in itself.
That is provided you were continually engaged in the loading process, did not take longer than necessary and took no longer than 20 minutes. Ideally, some evidence to back this up further will make things easier.

- and -- in relation to that, what did you say to TFL? We haven't seen what you sent have we?


1) Lack of evidence provided that the camera has been calibrated and is of an approved type
No. I don't know where you get 'calibration' from. You are entitled to request evidence the camera has VCA approval and that any camera they then mention IS actually the one used.
BUT - in light of the above, apparently having a strong basic case in the first place, this should not take any particular prominence. Use as backstop only.

2) TfL essentially trying to extort me to see the evidence.
You will need to word this carefully, with consideration for any previous rulings and the fact that it ties in with a related failure on the PCN. We can think further on that later.
3) Some technicality mentioned here. Maybe the one Hippocrates raised.
What is that exactly? I've only seen reference to a PATAS ruling on a PCN for another Council, where the wording bears no resemblance to yours and failed to include vital information that your PCN does.
Have you read the case? have you seen an example of the relative PCN in that case?
There IS a failure on your PCN but it isn't the matter cited as the reason for cancellation in that case ---- although, it was mentioned as an aside, as I explained.
So to just mention the case is to ask an Adjudicator to find something you haven't yet explained. Hippo hasn't explained what he is saying other than he feels he has made his position clear? I don't know what that position is cos I only see a case mentioned.

The best thing to do is for you to have the facts and decide for yourself: It's not a particularly technical matter; Just simply whether or not certain info is on the PCN. Some is, some isn't but which? I'll give you the relevant detail shortly.

Is there anything I should add or deduct. Any thoughts on how the ajudicator might react to this defence. Even if I've got a 5% chance or succeeding, its worth a shot.

I will send it via recorded delivery.
DON'T send any of the above yet!!!! AND - certainly DO NOT evr use Recorded delivery as it is a waste of money.

IF and when you decide you wish to proceed, within timescale, then ALL you need do for now is to 'Register' your appeal. in light of the new, substantial matter, tick 'no contravention' and in the details box state 'details to follow'.
This is standard advice here. It makes sure you do not miss the opportunity to appeal and then gives you plenty of time to formulate a strong and comprehensive but focused and concise appeal.
Normal advice is to opt for personal hearing and, in your circumstances, certainly so.

All you need when sending is 'Proof of Posting' , available free at the Post Office.

Thanks again to all


Back when I can; asap.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 14:40


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 16:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ok.

Firstly, do not miss the importance of the matter of the contravention and your likely exemption as this is the prime concern of any appeal.
On that, you need to clarify for us what actually happened and what you sent to TFL.

-------
The matter discussed re the PCN.
Back to basics as you've stated a lack of experience.
It's a legal document that must give ALL and ANY potential recipients certain info. Some of the items of info are more important than others.
Your PCN omits some info re facilities for viewing footage -- and -- this is because those facilities themselves are inadequate and hence unlawful.

The relevant required content re viewing footage is --


Scope of Part 2 and duty to notify rights to make representations and to appeal
3.

(4) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information—

(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).

(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—

(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.


Now, the case cited does apply and help you but you must be clear on why and which part.

At the end of the text (you must read it) the Adjudicator noted that the Newham PCN failed to comply with (5)(a) above. I'll retract my earlier comment that this was an 'aside' because the Adjudicator said so before the words "I allow this appeal" so it did count as one of the reasons.
The Newham PCN failed because viewing was, as yours, limited to one venue. Had it been discussed, this would have been enhanced because Newham also offer no alternative facilities at all, e.g. on-line viewing. Neither do they make any offer of sending out copies of footage.

So, does your PCN fail to comply in the same way on that point? I think yes, clearly so: Croydon being a trek for most, etc. I can give you some further points to make on that matter if you need them but most will be obvious and just common sense.
I think it likely this is what Hippocrates was referring to re the cited case.

--
The related issue discussed was compliance with sub para (6) above. This because that was actually the issue raised by the appellant in the cited case. The adjudicator found the Newham PCN did not comply and, IIRC, is correct in that assertion. More significantly but not mentioned, it's relevant that Newham will NOT put any case on hold while in the process of complying with requests to view footage and make a statement to that effect on their PCNs. The matter of 'reasonable time', which Newham failed to mention, is hence even more significant.

The matter for you to decide is whether or not your PCN states, as (6) requires, they 'will comply with the request within a reasonable time'. Only substantial compliance is required, that is, to convey that info: What words they use are not so important unless they actually convey a different message.
I'm fairly sure Hippocarates didn't mean that this part of the case he cited was applicable to you but I can't imagine why he hasn't made that clear for you when I asked.

Read your PCN. You don't need me or anyone else to tell you the obvious answer.

If you raise an issue that has no worth or clearly dubious worth, overshadowing strong points you may have, then the likely effect on an Adjudicators attitude to your case should not need explaining.

---------------

If you wish to appeal then register the case as I explained.

Apart from the detail of the loading circumstances being forthcoming I'm going to leave you to it for a while now; You will have plenty of time to make your decisions and formulate a good appeal.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 18:36
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ok.

Firstly, do not miss the importance of the matter of the contravention and your likely exemption as this is the prime concern of any appeal.
On that, you need to clarify for us what actually happened and what you sent to TFL.

-------
The matter discussed re the PCN.
Back to basics as you've stated a lack of experience.
It's a legal document that must give ALL and ANY potential recipients certain info. Some of the items of info are more important than others.
Your PCN omits some info re facilities for viewing footage -- and -- this is because those facilities themselves are inadequate and hence unlawful.

The relevant required content re viewing footage is --


Scope of Part 2 and duty to notify rights to make representations and to appeal
3.

(4) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information—

(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).

(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—

(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.


Now, the case cited does apply and help you but you must be clear on why and which part.

At the end of the text (you must read it) the Adjudicator noted that the Newham PCN failed to comply with (5)(a) above. I'll retract my earlier comment that this was an 'aside' because the Adjudicator said so before the words "I allow this appeal" so it did count as one of the reasons.
The Newham PCN failed because viewing was, as yours, limited to one venue. Had it been discussed, this would have been enhanced because Newham also offer no alternative facilities at all, e.g. on-line viewing. Neither do they make any offer of sending out copies of footage.

So, does your PCN fail to comply in the same way on that point? I think yes, clearly so: Croydon being a trek for most, etc. I can give you some further points to make on that matter if you need them but most will be obvious and just common sense.
I think it likely this is what Hippocrates was referring to re the cited case.

--
The related issue discussed was compliance with sub para (6) above. This because that was actually the issue raised by the appellant in the cited case. The adjudicator found the Newham PCN did not comply and, IIRC, is correct in that
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 21:39
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Hi Neil thanks again for the wonderful help and advice,

Yes I had looked at some other cases but I didn't find the one mentioned in Newham...I must dig a little deeper in future.

Just to clear up a bit of confusion, it wasn't me who was actually driving the vehicle at the time, it was someone else hence I'm trying to figure this out on their behalf!!

I will take thorough heed and note of the suggestions and citations you've made. However, in the mean time below I won't proceed until I put up a copy of the original appeal we sent to TfL. Working on that ASAP (involves prying passwords from family members who are hard to nail down!)

Just some extra bits of information in the meantime :

PCN Issue date : 16/6
Notice of rejection letter dated 17/7

Gives an idea of timescales involved.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 21:58
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:39) *
Yes I had looked at some other cases but I didn't find the one mentioned in Newham...I must dig a little deeper in future.

The Newham case is the PATAS result Hippo referred you to.

He gave you the PATAS case number and a link to the patas website where you just type it into search.

Bama then confirmed that was what you needed to do.

QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:39) *
Just to clear up a bit of confusion, it wasn't me who was actually driving the vehicle at the time, it was someone else hence I'm trying to figure this out on their behalf!!

I will take thorough heed and note of the suggestions and citations you've made. However, in the mean time below I won't proceed until I put up a copy of the original appeal we sent to TfL. Working on that ASAP (involves prying passwords from family members who are hard to nail down!)

Just some extra bits of information in the meantime :

PCN Issue date : 16/6
Notice of rejection letter dated 17/7

Gives an idea of timescales involved.


Is the driver the Owner and RK? or are you? The Owner is the person legally responsible.

I'm most interested in the loading issue which I asked you to describe further. Were you continually involved in loading or a task associated with that?
(You were parked in a loading bay and have described what sounds like loading (unloading) )

--

Your ultimate deadline, other than the discount deadline you've mentioned, is 15th August but you may, as I said, register the appeal as soon as you decide you wish to proceed.
Any appeal will be for the full amount of the penalty, £130.


Re your PM.
Neither I nor anyone else here, as far as I know, can accept or even expect any money for what we do here.

What we normally suggest, if you are successful and wish to donate, is to do so to the running costs of this website. When the time comes the Moderators will point you in the right direction if you ask them. It is not something that anyone is 'required' to do but will be welcomed.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 18:25
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:58) *
Is the driver the Owner and RK? or are you? The Owner is the person legally responsible.


Yes, driver was the RK.

QUOTE
I'm most interested in the loading issue which I asked you to describe further. Were you continually involved in loading or a task associated with that?
(You were parked in a loading bay and have described what sounds like loading (unloading) )


Yes according to the RK, was continually loading!

Below is the letter we sent TfL

I am writing regarding a notice for an alleged parking offence for
vehicle number x

The photos provided do not appear to prove any offence has been
committed. From the picture on the right of the letter, the above
mentioned vehicle is not clearly visible, and does not show the
registration number. The picture on the left simply shows the car on
the road but not evidently commiting any offence.

Furthermore the time mentioned for the offence committed was 14:56;
however from the photo showing the time 14:56, the vehicle is on the
road and not evidently committing the alleged offence.

I therefore wish the challenge the facts and evidence provided by TFL,
as I do not believe there are grounds for prosecution. Please provide
any further evidence relating to the alleged contravention.

End

My concern is if we write some entirely different defence to the adjudicator with something else from the above, they won't be interested. I'm not sure if I'm meant to be 'appealing' my existing defence, or if we're allowed to raise something entirely different.

Thoughts on any of this?

Thanks once again Neil!

This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 18:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 18:50
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



you can change your grounds when you appeal to patas. The original reps are of no importance unless you go on to contradict yourself at patas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 16:52
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Update :

I sent my PATA appeal off not so long ago and a hearing date was set. Essentially the best defence I think is simply the fact that no offence was committed! We were using the loading bay for it's intended purposes. For the purposes of the hearing, I will even try and get a statement supporting this from the charity shop.

Now most interestingly, TFL has sent a big envelope to someone refuting their case, and providing a bunch of legal clauses and legislation from what I've been told.

Best part is, someone has uploaded the footage to youtube. Tell me what you think !! Case closed? (Remember we were within the loading time limit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_w7wKRNjYQ...eature=youtu.be

This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 16:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 18:09
Post #31


Member


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



Can't see the video.

But definitely get a statement from the charity shop, definitely, you will only have to pop in surely when the manager is there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 18:28
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Yes, we're going to do that too.

Shows how TfL are such a bunch of time wasting opportunistic vultures. Completely cowardly camera operators, too. Essentially on the letter, TFL justified issuing the PCN because they observed for 5 minutes without seeing any 'loading activity'. Stupid justification I don't think there are any rules out there that says that every 5 minutes of time spent during the loading bay period a loading activity has to take place. It's too ridiculous to bare contemplation.

Opportunistic bast**ds! Theyve probably established that 99% of poor people would pay up without a fight.

Now, I'm just wondering if there are any repercussions for churning out opportunistic and invald PCN's. They have nothing to lose, do they?

Oh and one last thing. The named person on the PATA appeal will be away at the time of the hearing. Genuinely. Am I allowed to represent them, being an immediate family member?

This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 18:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 20:19
Post #33


Member


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



only if they appoint you/grant it to you with a letter (c: it to the Adj and the LA)

SRM go on youtube and do a search for
132dawe2345ad456ad33avbhy
if you still can't see it it must be a setup thing


--------------------
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
qafqa
post Sun, 26 Aug 2012 - 13:29
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



In the package from TfL is there a contemporaneous photo of
the actual sign used to inform the motorist of the parking restriction.

I didn't see it on the video, here are some examples from
various cases where the adjudicator commented on signage
missing from the CCTV.

They can be read via the search function on this page,

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/

2110494931

2110669208

2110465194

2110525977

2110475369

This post has been edited by qafqa: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 - 13:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 26 Aug 2012 - 16:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 17:52) *
Best part is, someone has uploaded the footage to youtube. Tell me what you think !! Case closed? (Remember we were within the loading time limit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_w7wKRNjYQ...eature=youtu.be


QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 19:28) *
I don't think there are any rules out there that says that every 5 minutes of time spent during the loading bay period a loading activity has to take place. It's too ridiculous to bare contemplation.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here? Yes, there are very clear rules; You must be loading or engaged in an associated activity for the entire period. Care to talk us through what is actually happening in that video?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Sun, 16 Sep 2012 - 13:36
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Appeal allowed!

Excellent.

Thanks to all here for the support.

2120407398
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Sun, 16 Sep 2012 - 13:52
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 16 Sep 2012 - 14:36) *
Appeal allowed!

Excellent.

Thanks to all here for the support.

2120407398



EPIC WIN


What a week its been biggrin.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:52
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