Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:41
Post #1425873

Hi there,

So Hackney Council have placed a new restriction on the roads surrounding Millfields School. All the roads in this area are dead ends and Rushmore Road, which runs along side the school, is the only exit route out of the area.

A flyer delivered in February offering all information, prior to the enforcement, gave the impression that all vehicles assigned to residents in Zone N would automatically be registered for exemption. On reading it again - there seems to be a contradiction.

A PCN has been delivered. Please see the attached, as well as the flyer initially received by all in the area.

All comments and thoughts welcome. The local council has been called, however, they will not cancel it over the phone, so a strong initial case is necessary.

Side note: the image on the right is as unclear as it appears - only the reg number is visible.

Here's the PCN and flyer:


Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: This is a 6 page doc - but I'm having difficulty saving the pdf with all pages to a JPEG (it's just saving the first page) - any advise appreciated. tinypic is not playing ball anymore it would seem.... or for now, so I can't add them as separate pages.

smile.gif

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:45
Post #1425876

post a GSV of the location , those signs don't seem right but its hard to tell

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:46
Post #1425877

Show us this flyer you speak of.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:11
Post #1425884

Struggling to upload, and have to rush out - will attempt again later. tinypics keeps failing, and even though the attachment is small in size it won't upload directly (I might have missed something here).

What's a GSV? (excuse my ignorance - it's not on the abbreviations list!).

Cheers

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:15
Post #1425885

google street view

use https://imgbb.com and post the BBCode embed links

reinstate all dates and times on PCN.

for Millfields the resident exemptions are:

Zone SS3 - Millfields
Only vehicles registered to these address can be driven in zone SS3 during operating times:

23-39 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - odd numbers only
40-56 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - even numbers only
1-14 Domfe Place E50EZ
1-35 Hilsea Street E5 0SG
2-44 Elmcroft Street E5 0SQ

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:32
Post #1425887

Haha - googled it... the irony.

Sadly these images are out of date - the enforcement signs are not up in them - I'll have to take pics tomorrow.

https://goo.gl/maps/KQr1cJnuFhH2

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 20:15) *
google street view

use https://imgbb.com and post the BBCode embed links

reinstate all dates and times on PCN.

for Millfields the resident exemptions are:

Zone SS3 - Millfields
Only vehicles registered to these address can be driven in zone SS3 during operating times:

23-39 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - odd numbers only
40-56 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - even numbers only
1-14 Domfe Place E50EZ
1-35 Hilsea Street E5 0SG
2-44 Elmcroft Street E5 0SQ


Yes, the council mentioned these roads and the map on the website - these are the direct roads around the school.

I've managed to upload the flyer now - this is what was received in feb, which seems contradictory - bullet 4 and bullet 6




Date of notice 10/10

Date of Contravention 3/10, 15:24

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:32
Post #1425892

It's badly written but they mean that only exempted zone N residents can enter the school street during restriction time, as you've deduced.

Whether it's enough to convince an adjudicator is your call, as i presume you feel misled.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:54
Post #1425903

Yes, being a Zone N resident with a Zone N parking permit and registered vehicle. Bullet 4 suggests that all Zone N residents are automatically exempt. The fact that this is the only exit from all the linking roads I would have thought this made perfect sense... But of course not!

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 20:22
Post #1425909

I write and edit for living and if I had the power I would make it compulsory for all council communications to pass both a plain English and a structured communications test of some sort.

In this case the dual use of the word 'zone' is the problem - although they refer to the scheme as a zone earlier, in bullet 4 we have two zones in play. This should at least have had the words 'school streets' in front of the first mention.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 22:23
Post #1425949

Yes, I totally agree. From the conversation with the council, it sounds like a few people have been caught out by this.

Given that this might be a difficult point to fight, is there anything else that can be used in respect of the PCN? I've managed to get the other pages uploaded:







Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:55
Post #1426137

I think we need to see photos of the signs before we can properly advise on the best way forwards.

Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 16:34
Post #1427156

Here are the signs as I approach from my road and one close up. There are no pre warning signs from on the street before the zone:



Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 16:58
Post #1427163

Can we pl be clear on what the OP has by way of information and what posters might have obtained.

As I understand it, the OP has a flyer, a PCN and knowledge of the signs.

They do not have info regarding exempted properties and no reason to believe the flyer means anything other than what it says.

Also we don't know whether the OP is exempted by virtue of qualifying under any of the exemptions.

OP, pl confirm:
You do/do not qualify under an exemption;
You believed you were exempt by virtue of the flyer.

Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 17:43
Post #1427173

Hi,

Yes, the OP believed they were exempt by virtue of the flyer - given the fourth bullet, they did not think the other bullets were relevant.

As a result, it was believe that an automatic exemption had been issued for all Zone N residents.

There was no other information provided to residents prior to the implementation of this restriction.

It has become apparent that all Zone N residents are not exempt - only discovered because the PCN was issued. Only those in the School Street Zone itself are exempt within Zone N. The terminology used to distinct the two zones is what has caused confusion and ambiguity here and misled the OP into thinking they were included in the exemption.

Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 18:08
Post #1427181

This is the front of the flyer...



and the back again...

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:16
Post #1427193

Signs look clear to me, the only angle this can be fought on is, IMO, that the flyer is ambiguous / misleading. This will need to be worded very carefully though and there is no guarantee of success.

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 21:50
Post #1427219

The OP was told by virtue of the notification issued by a competent authority that they were exempt with no further action required on their part.

I wouldn't bother looking at the signs (to which the notification referred specifically) or trying to second-guess their meaning.

Just make measured reps and point out THEIR error, not yours.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 08:27
Post #1427258

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 22:50) *
The OP was told by virtue of the notification issued by a competent authority that they were exempt with no further action required on their part.

Sort of, the flyer is ambiguous and could be read either way. We're relying on the adjudicator resolving the ambiguity in the motorist's favour.

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 08:52
Post #1427267

The OP's not at adjudication, but they need to play a long game with this in mind.

Make reps.

On *** I received the enclosed notice from the council ( enclose the notice).

You will see that at points 3 and 4 it states that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered.

I hold a Zone N permit ( see copy enclosed) and was therefore surprised to receive a PCN for entering the area. I can only think that somehow my details were not registered by the council in time and would hope that this has already been rectified otherwise more PCNs could possibly be on their way to me. This is the only vehicle for which I hold a permit and there are no other vehicles in the household.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.


(only include the reference to other vehicles in your household if true otherwise leave the point. I have used their language 'other vehicles' but omitted the quote marks as I think you need to approach this point obliquely)

Wait for other comments.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 11:41
Post #1427322

I agree with hcandersen's draft, it's spot on.

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 11:49
Post #1427326

Will be interesting to see Hackney's reply as they will no doubt reject. If it explains what they meant to say then I think you've got them.

Posted by: RootieTootie Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 16:04
Post #1427431

Thank you for all your comments and advice.

Will do so - I'm guessing sending a digital copy of the flyer is acceptable in this case? I wouldn't want them to 'lose' the original flyer.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 20:05
Post #1427488

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 17:04) *
Thank you for all your comments and advice.

Will do so - I'm guessing sending a digital copy of the flyer is acceptable in this case? I wouldn't want them to 'lose' the original flyer.

Yes a digital copy is fine, keep hold of the original.

Posted by: RootieTootie Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 22:40
Post #1427558

Bizarre turn of events... on driving passed the street in question this evening - all the signs seem to have been removed to the school street zone oddly.




Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 07:37
Post #1427618

It's half term.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 10:23
Post #1427674

I just found out. laugh.gif

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 16:25
Post #1437677

Hi all,

A response was finally received today (dated Friday) rejecting the representation (spelling the surname wrong in the opening of the letter).

Of course, they totally ignored the reasons regarding the misleading flyer, instead accusing the driver of ignoring the road signs as the reason for the rejection.

Please do advise on the next step to take.




Many thanks in advance.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 16:50
Post #1437686

What time was the contravention and is the video available?

Mick

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:58
Post #1437701

Time: 15.24

Yes there is a video.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:09
Post #1437704

I do wonder if it's worth requesting through freedom of information, how many motorists in the area have been fined since this was implemented.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 19:07
Post #1437733

They have made no comment on the leaflet they provided, that could be seen as a procedural impropriety.

Posted by: RootieTootie Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:57
Post #1437881

What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:59
Post #1437882

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:57) *
What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?


POPLA is for private tickets. The next step is London tribunal where an adjudicator looks at the case. But it will be at the full £130. You can attend in person.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 15:08
Post #1437940

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:57) *
What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?

Have a read of this: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appeals-process-explained

Posted by: RootieTootie Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 17:14
Post #1438513

This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 19:52
Post #1438564

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 17:14) *
This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.

Ignoring your representations can win on its own due to failure to consider, even if the underlying representation is devoid of merit. I would fight on.

Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:39
Post #1439511

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 20:52) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 17:14) *
This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.

Ignoring your representations can win on its own due to failure to consider, even if the underlying representation is devoid of merit. I would fight on.



Okay. I will fight on.

Should any specific terminology be used in the appeal?

One of the main issues with this case is that no other official communication was sent to highlight the changes in this area. Just this flyer which looks like an advert for a school fête.

Would getting hold of how many may have been fined on this street since January help the case at the tribunal, if it arrives in time?

Thanks again.



Also, is it preferable to do a personal hearing over a postal hearing?

"One of the first questions on the Notice of Appeal form asks you whether you want a postal decision or a personal hearing."


Posted by: RootieTootie Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:55
Post #1439523

This is my freedom of information request. Just would like an outside eye to check I haven't missed anything obvious in my request:

Please could you provide me with the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued by Hackney Parking Services (Hackney Council) on the following roads from 1st February 2018, to date:

Elmscroft Road
Rushmore Road (between Hilsea Street and Mayola Road).

Please could you inform me, how many of those PCN issued, were to residents in the Hackney Zone N area.

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 20:44
Post #1439643


QUOTE
Also, is it preferable to do a personal hearing over a postal hearing?

"One of the first questions on the Notice of Appeal form asks you whether you want a postal decision or a personal hearing."


Opt for personal if at all possible - you can always change later.

Important thing is to register the appeal. You can do thios now, and write in the appropriate box something like
Full submission (to follow).

Keep hard copies of anything submitted online.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 16:36
Post #1439845

Post a draft of your appeal here before submitting it to the tribunal.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 14:45
Post #1440073

Hi all, I've added a very quick draft below. I've never had to write an appeal and so am not sure of the best format/language to use and if I've covered all bases. Please advise. Thanks!



Dear Sir/Madam,

REF:……

My reasons for going to appeal are as follows:

1/ Hackney Council has ignored my representations in their letter of rejection of 23rd November 2018, by making no reference to my challenge and the evidence I submitted to support my appeal. This is procedural impropriety.

2/ No formal correspondence was sent to residents in Zone N who would be affected by the School Street restrictions. 


3/ A flyer, which looks very much like an advert for a school fête, was the only correspondence delivered to local residents regarding the new restrictions in the area.

4/ Bullets 3 and 4 on the flyer state that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered. As a resident reading this flyer, it seemed clear to me I did not need to take further action as my vehicle would be automatically registered.

5/ I am a proofreader by trade and clarity of language when communicating through correspondence is essential. I believe Hackney Council failed in their communications in this instance. They neglected to clearly inform local residents through any official communications of the proposed restrictions and significant changes to vehicle access within the School Street area. The language used in the only form of communication to residents within the area, a flyer, uses misleading and contradictory language.

6/ Additional evidence to follow.

Yours sincerely,

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 18:52
Post #1440143

Needs rewriting to be honest, don't have time now, might look at later or tomorrow.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:59
Post #1440165

Thank you. I just reread the last sentence which makes no sense (!) – definitely written in a rush!

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 12:51
Post #1440292

Keep all formatting exactly as I have used it below, including bold and italics. You may want to put this in a PDF call Grounds of Appeal and upload it to the tribunal website, you can use this template if you want https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xDgGcrLLVKl-sAWvt2INEJI34LkuHrkU

Ground 1:
The council delivered a flyer, which I submit in evidence, advising residents of the new restrictions. The flyer states that "Zone residents with vehicles in possession of a Zone N parking permit will be automatically registered; any other resident/business needs to apply for an exemption", I understood this to mean that because I was a resident of Zone N and in possession of a Zone N permit, I would be automatically registered for an exemption.

It is not open to the council to issue such a communication and then resile from it in order to enforce a penalty charge notice, this is intrinsically unfair and all public authorities are under a duty to act fairly, as per R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill: ‘Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances

The flyer states that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered. As a resident reading this flyer, it seemed clear to me I did not need to take further action as my vehicle would be automatically registered.

Ground 2:
While previous adjudications are not binding they can be persuasive and I draw the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432):

"The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed."

Hackney Council has ignored my representations in its letter of rejection of 23rd November 2018, by making no reference to my challenge and the evidence I submitted to support my representations. Instead the Notice of Rejection drones on about largely irrelevant matters, such as a commentary on the nature of the restrictions, the quality of the signage and the purpose behind the scheme. As complaint as the scheme may be with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, and as laudable as the reasons behind the scheme might be, none of this was raised in my representations.

My representations were in substance the same as ground 1 above, however no mention of this is made at all in the Notice of Rejection. Indeed, the Notice of Rejection appears to be nothing more than a generic template that could be issued as a response to any representations that raise issues about the visibility or lawfulness of the signage.

Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that:

(7) It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.


The Notice of Rejection makes no mention at all of the grounds submitting in the representations, and the enforcement authority has thus failed to discharge its duties under the statutory scheme. While the Act does not include a procedural impropriety as a ground of appeal, in the circumstances the only penalty that may be demanded is zero.

Posted by: RootieTootie Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 13:06
Post #1440578

Thank you. I really appreciate this. Will get it sent.


Posted by: RootieTootie Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 01:17
Post #1443050

The hearing date has come through for early Jan. I have never attended a hearing before and would appreciate any advice on how to present the case. Should anyone else be present with the appellant? What's the best approach to presenting the evidence? Should the cases referred to in the appeal above be researched (and where would the full cases be found?). It feels like it will be quite a daunting situation!

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 09:31
Post #1443078

Well let's start by saying that you can ask for a decision to be made based solely on your written submissions, there is no requirement to have a hearing at all. That having been said, the tribunal is not a court and the procedure is informal, if you do opt for a hearing nobody needs to be present with the appellant and the adjudicator will go through the evidence that has been submitted.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Doody is published here https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/8.html but frankly you don't need to read it.

Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich you will find on https://londontribunals.org.uk and it should be self-explanatory.

Posted by: RootieTootie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:21
Post #1444060

Hi,

Following my FOI request, I've had an email response for the council today. Do you think the following is something that can be used at the tribunal? I realised I should have also requested how many residents in Zone N, own a Zone N permit to understand the % of those issued with a PCN – although it's really residents in the immediate area that this relates to more than those permit holders in whole Zone. Perhaps I can still request this as it may arrive in time.

Also this was sent via email - is a printed email acceptable to present at a tribunal?

You requested the following:

Please could you provide me with the following: 1/ The number of Penalty Charge Notices issued by Hackney Parking Services (Hackney Council) to vehicles driving through the Hackney Millfields Community School Streets Zone, on the following roads, between 1st February 2018, to date (5th December 2018): Hilsea Street Elmscroft Road Rushmore Road (between Hilsea Street and Mayola Road). 2 / How many of those PCNs issued, were to registered vehicle owners/drivers resident in the Hackney Zone N area


The Council’s Response

A total of 1,230 PCNs have been issued on Rushmore Road between 1 February 2018 and 5 December 2018 for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone of which 210 are Zone N permit holders.

Keen to know your thoughts on the above statistics.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:27
Post #1444066

To be honest this sort of statistical information is of very little value. You don't know how many people were driving down that road before the scheme was introduced, so you cannot say how much of a difference the signs have made.

If you could say that the week before the restrictions were put up you had 100 cars a day drive through, and the week after you had 50 cars a day drive through, you could say "well look, half of all drivers are missing these signs, so they can't be adequate", but as the data you would need doesn't exist, I think there's not much point in pursuing this.

You have even less of a chance to determine how many zone N residents with a zone N permit would have driven through that road, had the scheme not been in place...

Posted by: RootieTootie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:27
Post #1444101

I was thinking more along the lines of it being quite a high percentage of drivers in Zone N who supposedly also received the flyer and as a result logically thought they were automatically exempt, or worse, didn't realise this flyer was imparting crucial information (as it looks like an flyer for a school fete) as it's not on an official letter headed document. Technically, no one, or very few resident drivers in Zone N should have received a PCN if the communication by the council was effective.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:41
Post #1444106

But maybe, absent the restrictions, vehicles would have driven along that road 1,230,000 times, meaning that maybe the flyer has been over 99% effective...

The problem is you cannot say what effect the flyer has or hasn't had, if you can't show what would have happened if the flyer hadn't been sent.

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:23
Post #1444117

Had a quick look on Tribunal cases - most refused, a few allowed on signage. A few have tried the N permit angle without success but couldn't see one reference the flyer.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 16:29
Post #1447207

Just received the council's evidence pack.

It contains mostly reference to their signage, the legality of the devices they used to capture the vehicle, the public consultation regarding the restrictions dated Sept 2017 and the council documents found online regarding the restrictions. They have included the same flyer.

There is still no reference to the language used in the flyer. I now know they should have referred to the SS3 zone as the area in which exemption applied. There is no reference to this zone at all in the flyer.

Should I list here everything they have supplied?

I'm not sure if it's too late now (I think I have up to 3 days to add evidence). I was thinking to enclosed a map with my residence pinned to show how close I am to the zone and why it made sense to me that I would be exempt as this is the closest route out due to all other roads out being dead ends. Is it worth doing this?

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 17:25
Post #1447241

For now just show us the council's case summary.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 18:11
Post #1447253

Got it. What should i redact before uploading?

I was also thinking, if this school street zone has been implemented in other boroughs it might be worth finding evidence of correspondence to those residents as a means of comparison.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 18:14
Post #1447257

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 18:11) *
Got it. What should i redact before uploading?

Just your name, address and number plate, I can't imagine anything else in there would identify you.

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 18:11) *
I was also thinking, if this school street zone has been implemented in other boroughs it might be worth finding evidence of correspondence to those residents as a means of comparison.

I think you're thinking outside the box a bit too much, this is a relatively straightforward case and you're not making an appeal to the Supreme Court. Correspondence in other boroughs is likely to be completely irrelevant and to be honest I suspect it would just irritate the adjudicator, at the end of the day either they accept your flyer was misleading, or they don't.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 18:47
Post #1447268













Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 19:46
Post #1447287

Send this response:
------------
The council's submissions are noted and the following is submitted in response:

There is clearly an irreconcilable difference between the parties as to whether the flyer issued by the council could mislead or cause a motorist to misunderstand the extent of the automatic exemption for local residents. This is a matter on which the tribunal will need to make a finding of fact and little can be added to what has been previously said.

However it is inescapable that the council failed to consider the representations originally submitted against the PCN. In its case summary under the column headed "The Council's Evidence", the respondent submits that the appellant's point regarding the flyer is not accepted. The council goes on to explain that the respondent does not benefit from the exemption due to residing outside of the exempted area (though this does not address the fact that the flyer is, at best, ambiguous).

I have already drawn the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432) but I would re-emphasise the following passage from that decision: "Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected.". If the Notice of Rejection had included any explanation as to why the council did not accept the representation which had been submitted in relation to the flyer, using wording similar to those found in the council's case summary, the Notice of Rejection could not be impugned on procedural grounds.

However no such explanation can be found in the Notice of Rejection, which is simply silent on the matter. In light of this, the NoR is effectively silent on the only representation that had been submitted.

It follows that regardless of the tribunal's findings in relation to the flyer, it is self-evident that the respondent has failed to discharge its duties under paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 to "consider [representations] and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides" and "to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established". This will always be the case where the notice of rejection make no mention whatsoever of the representations that had been submitted, as is the case here.

It is submitted that in light of this failure to consider, even if the alleged contravention occurred, the only penalty that may be lawfully demanded is zero.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 19:49
Post #1447290

Do I submit this as an attached document under further evidence?

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 19:51
Post #1447292

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 19:49) *
Do I submit this as an attached document under further evidence?

I would do that (it preserves formatting), and I would also send a message through the messaging system to confirm that you've attached further submissions.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 23:00
Post #1447339

I have submitted as an attachment. I could not see the option to add a message but on going in a second time found the place to note I have added other evidence.

Thank you again for your advice.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 03:13
Post #1449559

Hi,

I have my tribunal today (10th), and I've realised I may have omitted key evidence. I didn't send a copy of the council's Notice of Rejection. I completely forgot this is an independent panel. Am I allowed to show my copy of the letter? Can I referred to the Council's own evidence as they have submitted it themselves as evidence?

I also did not number/letter my evidence which I hope won't annoy the adjudicator (this is a learning curve!).

Incidentally, how do I address the adjudicator? Is there a formal code of conduct in this situation? I don't want to irk them before I even begin!




Posted by: Incandescent Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:42
Post #1449628

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 03:13) *
Hi,

I have my tribunal today (10th), and I've realised I may have omitted key evidence. I didn't send a copy of the council's Notice of Rejection. I completely forgot this is an independent panel. Am I allowed to show my copy of the letter? Can I referred to the Council's own evidence as they have submitted it themselves as evidence?

I also did not number/letter my evidence which I hope won't annoy the adjudicator (this is a learning curve!).

Incidentally, how do I address the adjudicator? Is there a formal code of conduct in this situation? I don't want to irk them before I even begin!

You'll be fine. Be sure you never get "confrontational" with the adjudicator. First names are out so, best to use "Mr aaaaaa"

The adjudicator looks at all the evidence, theirs and yours and decides "on the balance of probabilities", as this is a civil, not a criminal matter. Their letter of rejection is there in the evidence, so don't worry.

Posted by: RootieTootie Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:27
Post #1449812

Tribunal done.

Not sure it went very well.

The adjudicator didn't think the NoR was a pro forma letter - I, in hindsight, should have pushed the fact that enough PCNs had been issued by now that it was.

The adjudicator didn't feel the flyer was unclear, and that because the road sign says 'SS3 zone residents are exempt', that this detail on the sign still should have been noticed and adhered to, and that it doesn't say 'Zone N residents are exempt' on the sign. I should in hindsight have pointed out that the flyer specifically says Zone N residents would be exempt.

I did push the point that the term SS3 zone was not mentioned at all on the flyer and that the flyer was delivered long before the signs went up so was taken at face value that I was exempt so had no reason to question the sign, and that no other communication was delivered to residents.

I also kept referring to the lack of reference to my evidence - the flyer specifically - in their NoR.

Oh well, let's see. I felt I rushed through it. I should have systematically picked apart their argument but instead muddled through my own points. He didn't look convinced.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 20:24
Post #1449900

QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:27) *
I should in hindsight have pointed out that the flyer specifically says Zone N residents would be exempt.

+ 1 million, that's the whole basis of your case. If going for a personal hearing it's advisable to recite your oral case, there's a big difference between writing legal submissions at your own desk, in your own time, and having to put a point across in an oral hearing. There's a reason barristers make more than solicitors after all. However the fact that he didn't give you a decision ex tempore is a good sign, normally when they're not convinced they just dismiss the appeal there and then.

Posted by: RootieTootie Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Post #1450550

Hindsight's a wonderful thing. I did, of course, hone this point about the Zone N exemption on the flyer at the beginning. But I didn't remind him when he kept mentioning the SS3 zone. I did also have a practice but there's something strange about reading what you've submitted to someone who has the same document in front of them, it made me rush through it, rather than read it deliberately. Anyway, I'm glad I did it regardless. I still stand by my argument!


Oddly, I still haven't heard from them. He said I would hear within 24 hours and that was Thursday.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:48
Post #1450713

Maybe log onto the tribunal website and see what the case status is?

Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:48
Post #1450755

It says the case is now sealed. Maybe it will arrive in the post Monday.

Posted by: MrChips Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 02:23
Post #1450760

Sounds like good news

2180488150

At this scheduled personal hearing the appellant attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Rushmore Road, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which clearly indicates that at certain times, including the material time, all motor vehicles are prohibited except for holders of an ‘SS3’ permit.

The appellant’s case is that she lives in Mayola Road, a few doors from the sign, and had received a flyer from the Enforcement Authority announcing the inception of the pedestrian zone, which did not mention ‘SS3’.

However the flyer included the following:

> Access for residents and businesses will be maintained if they have registered their vehicle for an exemption

> Zone residents with vehicles in possession of a Zone N parking permit will be automatically registered; any other resident/business needs to apply for an exemption

The appellant is the holder of a Zone N permit, which is not disputed.

The appellant sent a copy of the flyer with her original representations to the Enforcement Authority but the Notice of Rejection does not refer to this in any way.

In their case summary, the Enforcement Authority state that the flyer explained that zone as:

> Hilsea Street, Elmcroft Street and Rushmore Road between Hilsea St and Mayola Rd will be made a pedestrian and cyclist only zone from 8.30am-9.15am and 3.15pm-4pm on school days only.

This is correct but there is no reference to Zone ‘SS3’ anywhere on the flyer.

It does generally remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, the Enforcement Authority also have a responsibility to ensure that the motorist is not mislead. Such motorist, particularly a resident of the area, is entitled to rely upon communications for the relevant Authority.

The flyer is at best ambiguous if not very misleading. If it were simply the case that the appellant passed the sign aware that she not have an ‘SS3’ permit then she would probably be liable for the contravention.

I have had the opportunity of hearing the appellant personally and find her to be an honest, credible and convincing witness. I accept what she tells me about her genuine reliance on the Enforcement Authority communication and had been ‘automatically registered’ as described. I also note that although the Zone restrictions at the end of her road came into force in January 2018, this Penalty Charge Notice was issued in October 2018.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur. Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:46
Post #1450807

Well done RootieTootie, excellent result.

Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:57
Post #1450810

Great result - this was always going to come down to the wording on the flyer as we saw from the start of this. You worried unnecessarily that the adjudicator didn't pick this up but they did!


Posted by: RootieTootie Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 18:48
Post #1451348

Wow! Great news! (I am surprised!).

Thank you for posting this - I still haven't had any direct communication! Where did you find it?

Thank you for all your help - I certainly couldn't have done it without your support and advice.

My bank account is also incredibly thankful after a tough month!

smile.gif

Posted by: MrChips Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 23:36
Post #1451485

All decisions at London Tribunals are available through their website.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

One can search by date, local authority etc

Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 16:08
Post #1453461

Thanks again to you all, particular thanks to hcandersen and especially cp8759 for helping with drafting responses.

I only received the letter yesterday(!).

Do I need to log this win somewhere on this forum? Let me know.

Warmest

RootieTootie icon_salut.gif

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 16:24
Post #1453466

Let me add my congrats on this.

Nowhere you need to add but there is a forum dedicated to wins, you can add in there if you want.

One thing confuses me

QUOTE
I also note that although the Zone restrictions at the end of her road came into force in January 2018, this Penalty Charge Notice was issued in October 2018.

Which presumably means that you had passed the sign and camera many times before and quite possibly since?
And they didn't issue a PCN those times?
Which seems to make it clearer that you do qualify for any exemption and thus council were acting wholly unreasonably in resisting any challenges.

In turn that makes me think on costs and/or a major complaint to the council

Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 16:36
Post #1453467

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 16:24) *
QUOTE
I also note that although the Zone restrictions at the end of her road came into force in January 2018, this Penalty Charge Notice was issued in October 2018.

Which presumably means that you had passed the sign and camera many times before and quite possibly since?



Well it came in 1 Feb and only operates Mon-Fri 8.30 am-9.15 am and 3.15pm-4pm. Term time only too.

So OP may well not have used the roads affected during these times.

Hackney is consulting on more of these school streets, including one by my kids' school. I have voiced my support.


Posted by: RootieTootie Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 18:39
Post #1453494

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 16:24) *
One thing confuses me
QUOTE
I also note that although the Zone restrictions at the end of her road came into force in January 2018, this Penalty Charge Notice was issued in October 2018.

Which presumably means that you had passed the sign and camera many times before and quite possibly since?
And they didn't issue a PCN those times?
Which seems to make it clearer that you do qualify for any exemption and thus council were acting wholly unreasonably in resisting any challenges.

In turn that makes me think on costs and/or a major complaint to the council


I didn't drive through this zone until this occasion in October (I don't use my car much - normally at weekends and sometimes evenings). The adjudicator, on noticing the time difference between the enforcement of the restrictions and the date of the PCN, told me in the first few weeks PCNs issued are often waived due to the enforcement being a new restriction in the area. I thought the time period, therefore, wouldn't go in my favour (another reason why I didn't think I was going to win), because it suggests I avoided the restriction until this particular occasion. I didn't think to tell him that it was because I don't use my car in the daytime much.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)