PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane PCN
Ignatius1
post Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 20:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Can anyone help sport any flaws etc. in the bus lane PCN below or at least help me try to construct an appeal?



This wasn't the only one received. There was another from 13 June, which I haven't scanned etc. (it's pretty much identical)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 20:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:09
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,828
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:13


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 10:38
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 11:42
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,828
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 11:38) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?


yes the transport act 2000, is the act defines what a bus lane is, what is a contravention and allows an authority to enforce them.
The bus lane regs govern how they enforce, what they must do etc, so enforcement, particularly as regards to appeals is via the bus lane regs


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Mon, 8 Aug 2016 - 23:55
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 12:42) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 11:38) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?


yes the transport act 2000, is the act defines what a bus lane is, what is a contravention and allows an authority to enforce them.
The bus lane regs govern how they enforce, what they must do etc, so enforcement, particularly as regards to appeals is via the bus lane regs


I guess that the council will try to counter argue that BUS TAXI AND CYCLE is displayed on the road and in their pictures and / or video, but of course not all roads with BUS TAXI CYCLE printed on the road surface restrict other cars at ALL times.

I really haven't added or changed much to the appeal that you composed. The date of the NoR is 12/07/2016 so two days after that for the delivery and then 28 days added on top should bring the deadline to 11/08/2016. It can also be sent electronically. I'm more inclined to do via post, though. What do you reckon?

Here's the current draft:

**START**

Appeal against the imposition of
PCN number ********* and
PCN number ********
VRM **** ***

Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under “The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005”. I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations.

My appeal is based on my representations to the authority copied here:-



“Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******* & ******

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"


I take these three points in order. Point 1 under the ground specified at 9(2)(a) of the regulations.

The contravention did not occur

I am a careful driver and would not deliberately ignore a prohibitory sign. The still pictures enclosed within the PCN show no signs indicating a bus lane. The onus lies with the authority to prove a contravention, but they have failed to do this.

Whilst I asked for a copy of the video showing a contravention, I was supplied with stills showing signs, but undated and impossible for me to reconcile with being in position at the alleged date.

I cannot attest to the fact that the signs in the photos or any other signs were in place at the time I am alleged to be in contravention. It is possible that they were missing or had been obscured in some way. My contention is that it is for the council to show that the signage is in place, and that they have failed to do so.

I respectfully point the adjudicator in the direction of;

“The Bus Lanes (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2005 Schedule (2)©(ii)2. The equipment includes a camera which is© capable of producing (ii) a wider angle image of the carriageway such as will enable information to be provided about any circumstances which may have caused the vehicle to be in the bus lane or the selected area“

It is my contention that the CCTV camera being forward facing cannot comply, as it is not possible to attest to the accuracy of the signage.

If the signs were in fact missing or in some way obscured, as is the case, then there is no indication of a restriction and no contravention can occur. This being so, the PCN cannot justly be enforced and should be cancelled.

Point 2 under the ground specified at 9(2)(f) of the Bus Lane Regulations, “that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case”.

It was determined by PATAS adjudicator Mr Martin Wood in case reference 2020400959 (exhibit 1), that traffic adjudicators rule on collateral challenges against errors in service or wording of a PCN that would render it invalid under this ground. This seems to be a sensible interpretation of the law, and I ask that you find this to be the case, also.

The PCN in this case shortened the statutory ground to “The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable”. This is obviously prejudicial. By omitting the phrase “in the circumstances of the case”, it alters the meaning of the ground to being only applicable if the Council demand more as a penalty than allowed by statute and removes the ability to challenge the Council where they are in error. Whilst it is accepted that the wording of a PCN does not have to mirror the regulations, it must convey the same meaning. “The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable”, does not.

Point 3 again under the ground at 9(2)(f) At 8(5)(k) the regulations state, that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(i) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

The PCN in this case does not state this. At paragraph 4 line 4 of the PCN the word WILL is used rather than the word MAY.

The drafting of the regulation here, is such, as not to interfere with the common law duty not to fetter the discretion the council has and must always be ready to use. By using the word MAY this does not impose by statute a conflicting requirement. The council on the PCN, choose the word WILL in presenting the information, thus changing completely its meaning. I contend that this deviation from the wording of the regulation changes its meaning to such a degree that it does not convey the requirement of the regulation.

In considering this point, I ask that you have regard to the findings of TPT adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson in Traffic Penalty Tribunal case number UW05060M (exhibit 2). There are many London Tribunal cases listed within the decision that support his or her decision.

Having dealt with the points raised within my representations, I would like to turn your attention to the Notice of Rejection. I contend that there are failings that make further enforcement impossible.

As per regulation 10(1)(a) and 10(4)(a) the authority have a mandatory duty to consider representations correctly made. My contention is that my representations have not been considered by a competent person or if competent they have made a number of errors that would suggest lack of care.

It is stated that the NoR has been issued under the Transport act 2000. This is the enabling act, however all matters pertaining to a PCN are regulated by The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. Issuing the NoR under the wrong regulation renders it invalid and as such the PCN should be cancelled.

The high handed dismissal of my assertion that the PCN contained errors that only a short amount of time researching online turn up, is also indicative of a failure to consider.

Finally,

That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. In that the authority fail in their duty under the regulations at 10(4)©

A Notice of Rejection is required by regulation to contain certain information as regards the Appeal process. 10(4)© requires that they specify the statutory grounds of appeal. This is not within the body of the NoR.

Although these have been relegated to the leaflet published by the TPT, nothing within the NoR directs a person to them.

The findings (exhibit 3) of Mr Justice Jackson sitting in the high court THE QUEEN on the application of the LONDON BOUROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL vs THE TRAFFIC ADJUDICATOR, at part 4 chapter 36 paragraph 4. He states “As to the payment slip, it is in my view not part of the PCN at all it is a separate document that is, for convenience, attached to the PCN.”

It is not a huge nor unreasonable leap to also apply this to a NoR, a statutory document required in the prosecution of a PCN. I contend this is a reasonable conclusion.

**END**


This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 - 00:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Tue, 9 Aug 2016 - 22:58
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



I think I'm choosing to send by recorded post tomorrow. I've printed the three exhibits and used a highlight marker to draw the adjudicator's attention to the references. Next to "Grounds of appeal" on the TPT form I'm of course going to write in letters 'A' The alleged contravention did not occur and 'B' The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

To the first point in the appeal, I thought about adding a bit about my driving by Kirkgate (to find that the road was closed) and speculate that the road was in fact closed for the council to paint or repaint roads and BUS lane markings etc., but that photo I took clearly displays many signs (whether or not those same signs were there on 10 and 13 June, I don't truly know) so probably not a good idea to send that photo, but maybe I could just textually raise the point about my suspicions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 07:44
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,828
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Don't bother with recorded, just get free proof of posting from the post office.

As to the appeal, I have given you some pints worthy of raising with the adjudicator and supporting views. But you must send what you are comfortable with
you must understand what you are sending and be able to re enforce the points orally at adjudication if you attend.

personal hearings give the better chance of success,


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 10:00
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



OK. I know that I can send via email, but I'm really choosing to send via post because of two things; I had already printed the first two exhibits that you provided and I think the information that is being presented might work better this way. For me to get the appeal in by tomorrow, I'll need to choose a speedy service. I can still ask for the proof of posting, though, I think.

I'm comfortable with the points and understand them, however I would prefer not to attend some adjudication. On the TPT form, I've already ticked "Without a hearing".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 10:39
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,501
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



TPT offer telephone hearings, IIRC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 10:46
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 11:39) *
TPT offer telephone hearings, IIRC.


Yes, they do. There are three options; Without a hearing, Telephone, Face to Face. I'm sat here now pretty much ready to go the Post Office and get everything sent over to Wilmslow, but am now unsure whether to proceed solely with written submissions. Perhaps I ought to send everything, but also tick either telephone or face-to-face....

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 10:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steofthedale
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 11:19
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 2 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,395



If you can spare the time, I would suggest face to face.

It was not at all intimidating when I attended a TPT last month, and it allows the adjudicator to assess your credibility along with the submitted evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 11:20
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,501
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



Advice here is personal hearing is always best, with telephone as second best.
It gives you the chance to answer any questions the adj might have, and for the adj. to assess your credibility.

The hearings themselves are very informal across a table and the adj will do his best to set you at ease.
The Council very rarely sent a representative.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 13:04
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



I see. Well just earlier this afternoon I posted 1st class recorded £2.37 (all the exhibit print outs) and have ticked "without a hearing". I guess I could later today send an email and apologise for two submissions, but I no longer have the form to tick face to face or telephone.

Could I perhaps send the email (without the TPT form (I should have scanned it)) with my evidence and provide them with the PCN numbers etc, postal address and email address and now explain that I'd like a face to face hearing at Leeds (Holiday Inn)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 14:08
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,501
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



You could try telephoning TPT and following up with e-mail.
London are helpful about changing nature of hearing (at an early stage) - don't see why TpT hsould be different.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 15:10
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



But I guess it's difficult to say whether or not and, if so, by how much chances of success are increased with face to face hearings. I don't know if I'll contact the TPT about changing the requested hearing type. I might have to read more into the Bus Lane regs about face to face hearings and such like.

I guess the first thing I might do is wait to see if the 1st class letter recorded letter that I sent arrives tomorrow. If not, I'll definitely be making contact, but if that happens then I might be in trouble because I forgot to scan the form before sealing it in the envelope. All I did was fill in my personal
details, signed and dated it and wrote "A, B" as the main two grounds the appeal is based on. Nothing was written into the box to refer the reader to the enclosures. All these little things could go against me. I'll mainly hope that the letter does arrive tomorrow and then decide whether or not to follow it up with further contact for changing the hearing type requested, something that I'm undecided about.

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 15:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steofthedale
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 15:21
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 2 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,395



All the more reason to be present so that you are able to clarify any issues regarding your evidence.

The adjudicator does not expect you to be a legal expert. It helps for you to understand and to be able to explain the grounds upon which your appeal is based.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 17:09
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,501
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
But I guess it's difficult to say whether or not and, if so, by how much chances of success are increased with face to face hearings. I don't know if I'll contact the TPT about changing the requested hearing type. I might have to read more into the Bus Lane regs about face to face hearings and such like.
.... All these little things could go against me.


Methinks you worry too much!

You are registering the appeal. If you wish to change it to personal or telephone follow the advice in post#53
I suspect if you leave it as postal, and you do not succeed, you'll always be wondering if the reason was not apparing face-to-face.

(There's nothing in the Bus Lane Regs about face to face hearings!!!)

Once you have clarified with TPT the nature of the hearing, they will write back to you with a date.
The Council will send into TPT their evidence pack, attempting to refute your submission. They will also send a copy to you. It should arrive not less than three days before the hearing, to give you a chance to make any further rebuttals.

People here will help you with the successive stages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 18:45
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 18:09) *
QUOTE
But I guess it's difficult to say whether or not and, if so, by how much chances of success are increased with face to face hearings. I don't know if I'll contact the TPT about changing the requested hearing type. I might have to read more into the Bus Lane regs about face to face hearings and such like.
.... All these little things could go against me.


Methinks you worry too much!

You are registering the appeal. If you wish to change it to personal or telephone follow the advice in post#53
I suspect if you leave it as postal, and you do not succeed, you'll always be wondering if the reason was not apparing face-to-face.

(There's nothing in the Bus Lane Regs about face to face hearings!!!)

Once you have clarified with TPT the nature of the hearing, they will write back to you with a date.
The Council will send into TPT their evidence pack, attempting to refute your submission. They will also send a copy to you. It should arrive not less than three days before the hearing, to give you a chance to make any further rebuttals.

People here will help you with the successive stages.


I do worry too much ohmy.gif

These are good thoughts really. The council's submissions to the TPT might contain flaws and can then be refuted at the hearing, possibly further enhancing my representations. The adjudicator will probably judge me on my appearance, behaviour, and what I say. I don't completely know how to put in my own words what the omission of "in the circumstances of the case" means, though.

I will only contact the TPT at some stage tomorrow to let them know of the change of hearing type requested. For now, I will eat apple.

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 19:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 19:32
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,828
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The first page of this key case should explain it for you, if not ask

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...d%20version.pdf


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 19:41
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 20:32) *
The first page of this key case should explain it for you, if not ask

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...d%20version.pdf


Thank you. I'll look shortly.

Does anyone happen to know of or have a copy of someone's scanned TPT appeal form (hopefully redacted) so that I can edit, print, write on, scan and send to TPT, if what I sent today doesn't arrive tomorrow.

I've been doing some googling to try and find this, but can only find the front page in that turquoise blue colour. I should have scanned both sides (I think there were only two sides). Maybe someone else has in these forums?

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 19:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 21:29
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 20:32) *
The first page of this key case should explain it for you, if not ask

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...d%20version.pdf


Yes, that last paragraph seems to be the key text. This was the text that I highlighted after printing and labelling the attachment as 'exhibit 1' before sending to the TPT.

"I do not agree with his analysis. The circumstances seem to me to fall within ground (f) in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act: that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. If the PCN was not served, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the Council. Even if this were not so, the issue raised by Mr Flannery would be a collateral challenge and therefore justiciable by the Adjudicator: R v Parking Adjudicator Ex p. Bexley LBC QBD 29 July 1997."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 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: Sunday, 19th January 2020 - 09:42
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.