PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Traffic adjudicators , Split from original thread
4101
post Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:38) *
QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 01:12) *
Guys please I would really appreciate some specific replies

That coming immediately after #29 and #30 I'm so glad I didn't reply in the early
hours when I read it.

If you don't understand points made or what you might glean from previous Tribunal cases
then ask questions.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 11:16) *
I suggest otherwise. 4101 is probably right the council will not cancel, but adjudicators like to see consistence so your reps should cover all points you intend to appeal on, even if only briefly

+1 and he's not right: See post #24.

The only exception I've found so far is hugely in OP's favour.

and there are further implications (Mick?) where they routinely issue the two and almost always only contest
one.
No, it must be only reject one because I'm not seeing DNCs in Register.



So what not write the reps. for him? You have all the answers to assure acceptance it seems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 16:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,102
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:50) *
So what not write the reps. for him? You have all the answers to assure acceptance it seems.

Don't presume to tell me what to devote my time to.

I haven't suggested the OP make reps at all yet. I might even advise payment if I think
it the best likely outcome. It's perhaps dependent on the OP's level of understanding.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 16:58
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,252
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:50) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:38) *
QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 01:12) *
Guys please I would really appreciate some specific replies

That coming immediately after #29 and #30 I'm so glad I didn't reply in the early
hours when I read it.

If you don't understand points made or what you might glean from previous Tribunal cases
then ask questions.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 11:16) *
I suggest otherwise. 4101 is probably right the council will not cancel, but adjudicators like to see consistence so your reps should cover all points you intend to appeal on, even if only briefly

+1 and he's not right: See post #24.

The only exception I've found so far is hugely in OP's favour.

and there are further implications (Mick?) where they routinely issue the two and almost always only contest
one.
No, it must be only reject one because I'm not seeing DNCs in Register.



So what not write the reps. for him? You have all the answers to assure acceptance it seems.


what a post! So we are going to stop advising on possible reasons for reps, and tell them to write gobbledy ****. Wrong Wrong Wrong. Reps should be drafted knowing that an adjudicator will see them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:16
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:10) *
4101, I will send the FOI request separately to the right email address. Thanks.

Bastmybest, I think you are the best, lol. Seriously, I am much obliged for your assistance in writing up the challenge.

With regards to the 14 days, I thought that you could put an informal challenge within the 14-day discounted period, and if the council rejected it they will still re-offer you the 50% discount before it goes to representation. I guess it is different with the moving traffic.

There seem to be several EAT cases that have similar if not exact circumstances as mine and they were allowed. This makes me optimistic. What do you think? How optimistic are you based on what you know? What are my chances? I am willing to take it all the way to the tribunal with solid evidence.



I am not sure, phone and ask? I am not the font of all knowledge.

Will you win at appeal? Who knows? Maybe offer HC a deal, pay one PCN at 50% they drop the rest? Could be worth a try.

If you do appeal I have a novel defence regarding the ability of traffic adjudicators to hear appeals which I would like to try.

Since the relevant parts Road Traffic Act 1991 was repealed on 31st March 2008 I dont see how traffic ajds. can hear appeals.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...raph/10/enacted
Traffic Adjudicators
10(1)Functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule shall be discharged by the persons who are appointed as parking adjudicators under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).
(2)Regulations under section 73(11) of the said Act of 1991 (provision as to procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings before parking adjudicators) may make provision with respect to proceedings before parking adjudicators when exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule; and any regulations under that subsection in force at the coming into operation of section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to such proceedings.
(3)The references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators in section 73(13) to (15) and (17) and (18) of the said Act of 1991 shall include references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule but section 73(15) of that Act shall not apply to a penalty charge under the said section 4 which remains payable following an adjudication under this Schedule.


Section 73 was repealed. So, now what???????
I will need to speak to Bogsy about that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,908
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Gordon Bennett.

Defend against a PCN by asserting that adjudicators have no lawful standing ?????

Have I lost the plot or what ???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:52
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,102
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Optima. Just a heads up.

None of the below is supported by any other member of this forum as far as I am aware of.
Follow it at your own risk.


QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:16) *
Will you win at appeal? Who knows? Maybe offer HC a deal, pay one PCN at 50% they drop the rest? Could be worth a try.

If you do appeal I have a novel defence regarding the ability of traffic adjudicators to hear appeals which I would like to try.

Since the relevant parts Road Traffic Act 1991 was repealed on 31st March 2008 I dont see how traffic ajds. can hear appeals.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...raph/10/enacted
Traffic Adjudicators
10(1)Functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule shall be discharged by the persons who are appointed as parking adjudicators under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).
(2)Regulations under section 73(11) of the said Act of 1991 (provision as to procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings before parking adjudicators) may make provision with respect to proceedings before parking adjudicators when exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule; and any regulations under that subsection in force at the coming into operation of section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to such proceedings.
(3)The references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators in section 73(13) to (15) and (17) and (18) of the said Act of 1991 shall include references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule but section 73(15) of that Act shall not apply to a penalty charge under the said section 4 which remains payable following an adjudication under this Schedule.


Section 73 was repealed. So, now what???????
I will need to speak to Bogsy about that.



--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:54
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:49) *
Gordon Bennett.

Defend against a PCN by asserting that adjudicators have no lawful standing ?????

Have I lost the plot or what ???



Have you read the legislation?

I will lend you a plot, if you are short.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 08:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,252
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:52) *
Optima. Just a heads up.

None of the below is supported by any other member of this forum as far as I am aware of.
Follow it at your own risk.


QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:16) *
Will you win at appeal? Who knows? Maybe offer HC a deal, pay one PCN at 50% they drop the rest? Could be worth a try.

If you do appeal I have a novel defence regarding the ability of traffic adjudicators to hear appeals which I would like to try.

Since the relevant parts Road Traffic Act 1991 was repealed on 31st March 2008 I dont see how traffic ajds. can hear appeals.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...raph/10/enacted
Traffic Adjudicators
10(1)Functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule shall be discharged by the persons who are appointed as parking adjudicators under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).
(2)Regulations under section 73(11) of the said Act of 1991 (provision as to procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings before parking adjudicators) may make provision with respect to proceedings before parking adjudicators when exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule; and any regulations under that subsection in force at the coming into operation of section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to such proceedings.
(3)The references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators in section 73(13) to (15) and (17) and (18) of the said Act of 1991 shall include references to a parking adjudicator or parking adjudicators exercising the functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule but section 73(15) of that Act shall not apply to a penalty charge under the said section 4 which remains payable following an adjudication under this Schedule.


Section 73 was repealed. So, now what???????
I will need to speak to Bogsy about that.



5(2)© 5(3) and 6(30 of schedule 1 of the 2003 act seem to cover that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:01
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



I dont know what you mean, Pls copy and paste.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/5/enacted

Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(b)where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires; or
©where there has been an unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with the date on which notice of the adjudicator’s decision is served on the appellant.
(3)Where an appeal against a notice of rejection is made but is withdrawn before the decision of the adjudicator is made the relevant period in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:03
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,252
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:01) *
I dont know what you mean, Pls copy and paste.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/5/enacted

Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(b)where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires; or
©where there has been an unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with the date on which notice of the adjudicator’s decision is served on the appellant.
(3)Where an appeal against a notice of rejection is made but is withdrawn before the decision of the adjudicator is made the relevant period in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.


You are now in the same position re my post as I with yours then
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



It is very simple. Start by reading the legislation.

A traffic adjudicator is appointed under section 73 RTA 1991.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...raph/10/enacted

Traffic Adjudicators
10(1)Functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule shall be discharged by the persons who are appointed as parking adjudicators under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Section 73 was repealed in 2008. So have can there be any traffic adjudicators? The max period is five years. So that expired in 2013.

Same for bus lane adjudicators.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:15
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,102
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:09) *
Section 73 was repealed in 2008.

Was it?


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:20
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,252
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:09) *
It is very simple. Start by reading the legislation.

A traffic adjudicator is appointed under section 73 RTA 1991.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...raph/10/enacted

Traffic Adjudicators
10(1)Functions of traffic adjudicators under this Schedule shall be discharged by the persons who are appointed as parking adjudicators under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Section 73 was repealed in 2008. So have can there be any traffic adjudicators? The max period is five years. So that expired in 2013.

Same for bus lane adjudicators.



Imagine no traffic adjudicators, so non of those nasty PCN's are valid. Happy days.



This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:21
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:15) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:09) *
Section 73 was repealed in 2008.

Was it?



Is that a serious question are you incapable of checking for yourself LOL?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 10:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,908
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:54) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:49) *
Gordon Bennett.

Defend against a PCN by asserting that adjudicators have no lawful standing ?????

Have I lost the plot or what ???



Have you read the legislation?

I will lend you a plot, if you are short.


I don't think I want a plot that will.... that is WILL.... totally FUBAR anyone trying it at adjudication.

You may well be right, adjudicators may be acting totally ultra vires but trying to use someone else's PCN and risk to sort out your own personal theories is not the route to go.
Get your own PCN and test them, keep us appraised of the tactics, assertions and results, I can assure you we will be interested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:02
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 10:21) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:54) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:49) *
Gordon Bennett.

Defend against a PCN by asserting that adjudicators have no lawful standing ?????

Have I lost the plot or what ???



Have you read the legislation?

I will lend you a plot, if you are short.


I don't think I want a plot that will.... that is WILL.... totally FUBAR anyone trying it at adjudication.

You may well be right, adjudicators may be acting totally ultra vires but trying to use someone else's PCN and risk to sort out your own personal theories is not the route to go.
Get your own PCN and test them, keep us appraised of the tactics, assertions and results, I can assure you we will be interested.


the only way to find out is to include that in an appeal. What "risk" is there? Answer: None. If the ground fails it does not mean the other grounds automatically fail.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:10
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,908
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:02) *
........the only way to find out is to include that in an appeal. What "risk" is there? Answer: None. If the ground fails it does not mean the other grounds automatically fail.


May I suggest you get your own PCN to test this with.

Personally I reckon that going into adjudication with one point being that the adjudicator has no legal standing is akin to going into a bar in Atlanta and whistling Marching through Georgia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:10) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:02) *
........the only way to find out is to include that in an appeal. What "risk" is there? Answer: None. If the ground fails it does not mean the other grounds automatically fail.


May I suggest you get your own PCN to test this with.

Personally I reckon that going into adjudication with one point being that the adjudicator has no legal standing is akin to going into a bar in Atlanta and whistling Marching through Georgia.



You can suggest what you like, I have put forward an arguable point, you have no reply save for childish ad hominem replies.

I have done over 30 personal hearings. I doubt you have done any judging by your attitude. Adjs. are not children.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:28
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,908
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:22) *
.......I have done over 30 personal hearings. I doubt you have done any judging by your attitude. Adjs. are not children.


But they are human and quite capable of being peed off.
My record at hearings is simple, been there, done it, got the tee shirt and not lost.
But I have never gone in with a strategy that is guaranteed to wind up an adjudicator.

Ad Hominem.... ain't started yet.
But will if you want to make accusations of that nature.

My suggestion stands.
If you want to test obtuse points, get your own PCN to test with.
But stop risking and confusing other people's cases. Along with their chances of winning and their money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,024
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 16:22) *
I have done over 30 personal hearings. I doubt you have done any judging by your attitude. Adjs. are not children.

So you've been to 30 personal hearings before people purporting to be adjudicators, but which you argue were not in fact adjudicators? One wonders why you bothered, surely their decisions would have been void anyway. Or were these all hearings before 2013?
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: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 06:08
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.