Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Incorrect Notice of Rejection Date

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 22:16
Post #1518251

Penalty Charge Notice dated 21st June 2019 was received from London Borough of Redbridge by post.

It was contested via Redbridge website on 4th July 2019 on the basis of inadequate signage and that “there was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign”.

Notice of Rejection letter together with Notice of Appeal and Your Right to Appeal was received on 2nd September 2019. I am not sure how I can prove this, but it is true. The Notice of Rejection letter is dated 30th August 2019, However on page 2 of the Notice of Appeal the Notice of Rejection date is stated as 2nd August 2019.

An Online appeal on the London Tribunals website has been made on 25th September 2019 (26 days after 30th August). The submission was accepted and a Case Reference Number has been provided via e-mail. It was flagged by the web form during appeal submission that the appeal was more than 28 days from the Notice of Rejection date and an explanation for the late submission was requested and provided.

I am suspicious that the London Borough of Redbridge has deliberately sent the Notice of Rejection letter out 28 days after the date contained in the Notice of Appeal attached to the letter. This having the effect of potentially time barring the appeal to London Tribunals and also allowing Redbridge to follow up with a Charge Notice to apply that bit more pressure within the 28 day appeal allowance. What do you all think? Is this something you have seen before?

Charge Notice dated 23rd September 2019 also attached.

PCN
https://ibb.co/3YMYxGw
https://ibb.co/0ff0tZh
Rejection of Representation
https://ibb.co/CHfsbyN
https://ibb.co/S6F1GG7
https://ibb.co/H7zf8xX
https://ibb.co/CzksFJk
https://ibb.co/0JxwvL9
https://ibb.co/m4JQYHY
Charge Certificate
https://ibb.co/SVSnnR1
https://ibb.co/DgYcm7q


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 22:27
Post #1518253

I think barring a total aberration by the adjudicator you have won . The premature service of a charge certificate is an unlawful demand for money and seeks to usurp the authority of the tribunal

post a copy of you r appeal to date and a copy of your original representation so we can look at what is going on and add what should be the winner

Also give us the location so we can check out the signage on GSV

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 22:30
Post #1518254

Looks like a cock-up - they rejected but sent out the letter nearly a month later. It's the date on the letter that counts and as PMB says the CC is unlawful.

You've blanked a lot of detail - it is all the same PCN?

you've sitting on this for a few weeks though - were you going to appeal?

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 23:07
Post #1518260

QUOTE (NaughtyBoy12 @ Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 23:16) *
Notice of Rejection letter together with Notice of Appeal and Your Right to Appeal was received on 2nd September 2019. I am not sure how I can prove this, but it is true. The Notice of Rejection letter is dated 30th August 2019, However on page 2 of the Notice of Appeal the Notice of Rejection date is stated as 2nd August 2019.

Are you having a laugh? You've just shown exactly how you prove it.

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 09:14
Post #1518314

Thank you PASTMYBEST and stamfordman. The adjudicator first has to consider why the appeal was submitted late and I really don’t know how good they are at this. I get the impression from reviewing Tribunal appeals that those submitted late are almost always because there is no defence. The Tribunal therefore rejects the appeal. I see a “total aberration” by the adjudicator as a real possibility that would not be open if the Notice of Rejection date had been correctly stated. More chance of Redbridge winning and more chance I might just give up to avoid the hassle. Particularly the additional hassle of having to complete a Witness Statement for the court because of the illegitimate Charge Notice.

I’ve posted a copy below of my representation. Not a masterpiece but it does the job. However, I do know that for this and a couple of other similar locations, Redbridge never submit their evidence and the PCN will be cancelled at Tribunal. I suspect that the signage is inadequate, or more likely the enabling legislation will not stand up. The reason for posting is primarily to enquire whether Redbridge are now moving away from the prescribed rules in order to put additional pressure on those who initially contest their a PCN.

Yes it’s the same PCN.I blanked out detail in order to avoid identification as was recommended in the starters sticky.

I was always going to appeal, as I know I will win. In other forums it generally recommends submission of appeals towards the end of the allowed period. Only for this reason did I wait 25-26 days before submitting the appeal.

https://ibb.co/x3tR2Fp
https://ibb.co/YcDvsXq
https://ibb.co/nr24QxJ
https://ibb.co/gds18sy


QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 00:07) *
QUOTE (NaughtyBoy12 @ Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 23:16) *
Notice of Rejection letter together with Notice of Appeal and Your Right to Appeal was received on 2nd September 2019. I am not sure how I can prove this, but it is true. The Notice of Rejection letter is dated 30th August 2019, However on page 2 of the Notice of Appeal the Notice of Rejection date is stated as 2nd August 2019.

Are you having a laugh? You've just shown exactly how you prove it.


Thanks Neil B.

Yes. It was intended to be a throw away amusing comment. Sorry perhaps not appropriate.

I can’t prove when I received the letter, which is immaterial as the date of the letter is all that matters.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 09:36
Post #1518318

You have registered your appeal which will be heard by the adj.

Have you elected for a personal or postal hearing?

You need to focus on the permissible grounds of appeal.

The one that suits your case as you have described here is 'penalty exceeded.....circumstances of the case'.

I have no idea about the contravention because we have no information.

Whichever way you cut it, the authority's CC was ultra vires.

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 11:44
Post #1518369

Thank you hcanderson.

London Tribunals hearing is on Wed 23rd October. I have elected to attend in person.

The current appeal is for incorrect signage and that “there was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign”. Note that there is now a new, and stronger, ground for appeal, as a Charge Certificate increasing the amount of the fine has been illegally issued.

So far I have been unable to log on to my case on the London Tribunals website. I have e-mailed to find out why. I plan to post a draft of my further evidence before actually adding it to the Tribunals site.

The Contravention code is “52m – Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)”

As of the 7th October Redbridge can apply for Registration of Debt and subsequently issue an Order for Recovery. In the Witness Statement I can challenge the Order on the basis “You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the enforcement authority of your representations but had no response to the appeal”. The appeal is not due to be heard until the 23rd October. Is it the case that, as the appeal has not been heard that there is “no response”?

I could challenge on the basis “The appeal had not been determined by the time the charge certificate was served”. However the Charge Certificate was issued on the 23rd September and the appeal was made on the 25th September, so no appeal had been made at the time the Charge Certificate was issued.

https://ibb.co/JyhTTXj

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 12:10
Post #1518375

The notice of rejection was dated the 30th of August Given the weekend the deemed date of service is the 2nd of September 28 days from then is the 29th of September.. so the earliest date a CC can be issued is the 30th so it was served early and there fore is an unlawful demand for money.

You must take with you the NOR showing the 30th and also take with you the copy of the LT form. that is the error. Make clear to the adjudicator that whilst the form is sent with NOR it is not part of it and an administrative error upon it by the council is irrelevant to the legal date of posting and of service of the NOR

Add this case

2160539769

The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 24.11.16 and the Notice of Appeal received by ETA on 22.12.16. This was in time and the appeal was accepted on 23.12.16. I am satisfied that by 04.01.17 the Enforcement Authority were aware of these proceedings before ETA. Despite this, they issued a Charge Certificate to the Appellant on 04.01.17.
The Enforcement Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator’s decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated:
‘The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.’
I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal.

point out to them that the early service of a CC before the appeal period has expired is in the same way unlawful

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 12:39
Post #1518390

Did you make the appeal on-line?

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 12:55
Post #1518395

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:10) *
You must take with you the NOR showing the 30th and also take with you the copy of the LT form. that is the error. Make clear to the adjudicator that whilst the form is sent with NOR it is not part of it and an administrative error upon it by the council is irrelevant to the legal date of posting and of service of the NOR


Thank you for this important clarification about the documents being separate.

By way of background I read the NOR letter when it arrived. I saw the Notice of Appeal form, but didn’t read it once I saw that I could appeal on line and therefore didn’t need the form. It was only when submitting the appeal when the web form said that I was late, that I went back to work out why I was late.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:00
Post #1518397

In which case -

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:10) *
You must take with you the NOR showing the 30th and also take with you the copy of the LT form. that is the error. Make clear to the adjudicator that whilst the form is sent with NOR it is not part of it and an administrative error upon it by the council is irrelevant to the legal date of posting and of service of the NOR

Add this case

2160539769

The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 24.11.16 and the Notice of Appeal received by ETA on 22.12.16. This was in time and the appeal was accepted on 23.12.16. I am satisfied that by 04.01.17 the Enforcement Authority were aware of these proceedings before ETA. Despite this, they issued a Charge Certificate to the Appellant on 04.01.17.
The Enforcement Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator’s decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated:
‘The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.’
I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal.

point out to them that the early service of a CC before the appeal period has expired is in the same way unlawful

Take?

Submit online, now, surely?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:04
Post #1518398

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 14:00) *
In which case -
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:10) *
You must take with you the NOR showing the 30th and also take with you the copy of the LT form. that is the error. Make clear to the adjudicator that whilst the form is sent with NOR it is not part of it and an administrative error upon it by the council is irrelevant to the legal date of posting and of service of the NOR

Add this case

2160539769

The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 24.11.16 and the Notice of Appeal received by ETA on 22.12.16. This was in time and the appeal was accepted on 23.12.16. I am satisfied that by 04.01.17 the Enforcement Authority were aware of these proceedings before ETA. Despite this, they issued a Charge Certificate to the Appellant on 04.01.17.
The Enforcement Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator’s decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated:
‘The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.’
I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal.

point out to them that the early service of a CC before the appeal period has expired is in the same way unlawful

Take?

Submit online, now, surely?



Yes that would be good but obviously needs drafting. post what you would say on the matter here for review lets make sure it gets the message home

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:06
Post #1518401

It's been said but the early service of the CC should be a clear winner.
Ensure that this is detailed in further submissions reference the clear date on the NOR front page.
Deemed date of service should have been 3rd Sept BTW which makes the CC far too early.
Be prepared for an adjudicator to deem it irrelevant and simply an administrative muck up.
Stand your ground if that happens, early service of a CC is specifically detailed as a major error within TMA 2004 Appeals regs and although this is not under TMA, it would be unfair (in a legal sense) for differing standards to be applied simply because the London Act does not specify it.


I am less sanguine about your arguments on signage.
I suspect (but you need to confirm) that the CCTV footage will show you crossing the line between the No Motor vehicle signs.

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 15:53
Post #1518441

Having had no answer via e-mail I called London Tribunals to see why I could not access my appeal. It turns out that, in the light of the appeal, the Verification Code has been removed from the system in order to change the Notice of Rejection date. The NOC date was changed to 29th September and upon further review has now changed to the 30th September. (Kudos PMB who has already said this is the correct date).

Redbridge have been informed of the change of NOC and this has resulted in them revoking the Charge Certificate (CC). The Redbridge website currently shows the outstanding amount as £130.00 and the Status, Appeal Lodged. Yesterday it showed £190.00 and CC issued.

Can an appeal succeed on the basis of an illegally issued CC if the CC is revoked prior to the appeal hearing?


My opinion is. It seems that the NOC date was a genuine mistake, rather than a deliberate ploy. I therefore have an answer to the question that was the reason for my initial posting. The mistake has been corrected as soon as it was pointed out. The result of the mistake, an incorrect issue of a CC has also been corrected. Let the appeal run on incorrect signage, which I think I will win as Redbridge never turn up on this particular location.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 16:30
Post #1518448

Sometimes doing nothing is the beast option in this case doing as we said would have been only to do as we said. You have potentially weakened your corner. But we are where we are.

The council made an unlawful demand for money they cannot correct that and say are but it doesn't matter. Or you could just drive back past the signs and say ahh well it doesn't matter

please do not drag defeat from the jaws of victory by keep sending of to LT or the council to double check what we say. between us we are pretty good at this

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 17:31
Post #1518473

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 17:30) *
Sometimes doing nothing is the beast option in this case doing as we said would have been only to do as we said. You have potentially weakened your corner. But we are where we are.

The council made an unlawful demand for money they cannot correct that and say are but it doesn't matter. Or you could just drive back past the signs and say ahh well it doesn't matter

please do not drag defeat from the jaws of victory by keep sending of to LT or the council to double check what we say. between us we are pretty good at this


I am suggesting doing nothing.

I had already submitted my appeal at the time of 1st posting. My post #14 is simply an update on what has happened as a result of my submitted appeal. Please be assured that I don’t want to waste anyone’s time.

IF I get to go to a hearing then I will raise with some gusto the illegally issued CC. The question was asked submit further evidence or not, and the point made to consider carefully a draft submission. In fact the appeal file is closed so I plan not to submit any further evidence.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 17:52
Post #1518479

you can submit at anytime up to the date of hearing and it will be considered, I will draft something for you that covers all the bases. Remind me this time next week

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 18:03
Post #1518481

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 14:06) *
I am less sanguine about your arguments on signage.
I suspect (but you need to confirm) that the CCTV footage will show you crossing the line between the No Motor vehicle signs.


Redbridge don’t provide footage at this location, only 2 stills. One still shows the Registration and the other shows the vehicle located in the area between the posts. There is no line between the posts, other than one that you might imagine exits as between any 2 random objects.

There are signs that have the meaning do not pass them eg stop sign or a no entry sign. A keep left sign you have to pass on the left and a keep right sign you pass on the right. A no vehicles sign signifies that there is an area behind the sign where motor vehicles are not permitted. No such area exists behind these signs.

Posted by: spaceman Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 18:44
Post #1518485

I've just had an appeal not contested in very similar circumstances.

The Notice of Rejection was issued on 19/8/19 but the date for this in the Notice of Appeal official use box was shown as 16/8/19.

The authority then issued a charge certificate on 17th September.

I argued that this was too early and that even though it was just one day, this was enough to rule it unlawfully issued under Regulation 21 of the General Regulations.

Logged on to London Tribunals today (I had appealed on 14/9/19) to see the authority had withdrawn their evidence and DNC'd.

I will wait until it's confirmed in writing and will post my appeal reps here.


Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 19:06
Post #1518494

QUOTE (spaceman @ Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 19:44) *
Logged on to London Tribunals today (I had appealed on 14/9/19) to see the authority had withdrawn their evidence and DNC'd.


Spaceman. Thank you for the info.

Ah, the luxury of being able to log on the appeals portal and review. This has been withdrawn from me.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 20:21
Post #1518514

Be careful, this is not TMA regs and procedure, it is London Local Authorities Act therefore the previous post has no bearing.

The docs you need are the NOR and the CC, take the appeals form as back-up, but it is secondary.

The authority served a CC ultra vires (which means beyond their powers), this is objectively the case. The relevant date is the dates of those of the issue of the NOR and CC, not the appeal form which is a secondary matter.

All the key evidence is in play. If they are stupid enough to contest, then ask for a steer from the adjudicator regarding costs. Their case is hopeless.

Posted by: spaceman Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 09:08
Post #1518599

Oops, you are of course totally correct. Apologies all round.

I was in such a rush to share my good news on what was a related subject I totally forgot to check basic details.

I will post my reps in a new topic once I have written confirmation from the EA, just in case they are of any assistance to others.

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 19:05
Post #1521506

Hi, back again for further assistance BEFORE providing any further evidence to London Tribunals.

Redbridge have submitted their evidence to London Tribunals and sent me a copy. This would seem to indicate that the Hearing on 23rd October will go ahead. The current appeal is for incorrect signage and that “there was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign”. I have already submitted my appeal, evidence copied in Post #5.

Redbridge have incorrectly (illegally) issued a Charge Certificate. Copy in Post #1, and this fact should provide a win.

Redbridge’s Representation is below. It contains a copy of relevant the Traffic Management Order LBR NO 21/1998.

London Tribunals case reference 2170299038, 22nd July 2017 found:
“The signs in Kelvedeon Way indicate that motor vehicles are prohibited Monday to Friday 7.30-9.30am. The signs are on each side of the carriageway. There is also a warning sign indicating that there is CCTV enforcement of a road closure.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of motor vehicle. Traffic Management Order 21 of 1998 states that ‘no person shall cause any motor vehicle to pass through the gated road closure in Kelveden Way between the hours of 7.30a, and 9.30am Mondays to Fridays.

I am not satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention prohibited by the Traffic Management Order. The Traffic Management Order creates a contravention of failing to comply with a gated road closure. The road was not closed on 19th May.

I allow this appeal. I note that the Penalty Charge Notice has been settled. This sum should be refunded to Mr Dakov.”


I think I should now draft an additional evidence submission prior to the Hearing, outlining both of these additional representations. The other option would be raise them only at the Hearing. What do you suggest?


https://ibb.co/ZS1Q1YH
https://ibb.co/JvJQWFs
https://ibb.co/6vX96V1

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 15:52
Post #1521857

DRAFT

I am submitting further grounds for appeal and further evidence in this case. I am doing this after lodging the appeal, in the light of further correspondence received from Redbridge and in the light of Redbridge Evidence submission dated 1st October 2019, which I received via post. This additional evidence is sent via this e-mail as the electronic case file is closed due to the removal of the verification code, as per London tribunals e-mail to me 26th September 2019.

1) I have received the below Charge Certificate dated 23rd September 2019 increasing the penalty charge to £195.00 and threatening court action to recover the increased amount if not paid within 14 days. I further appeal on the basis that the penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case.

Redbridge’s Notice of Rejection is dated 30th August 2019 and their Charge Certificate and increased penalty charge, dated 23rd September, is issued within the 28 days allowed for an appeal. The early issue of the Charge Notice is not in accordance with the London tribunals procedures and is an unlawful demand for money.

I cite the 2 relevant cases where a Charge Certificate was issued early.

Case ref 2160539769 - London Borough of Southwark v Cleophas Okwarji - Decision Date 26th January 2017
Case ref 2050339777 – City of Westminster v Somru Miah –Decision Date 5th Nov 2005.

In both cases, the appeal was allowed and the following was stated in the Reasons.

“The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.”

2) The contravention of Failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles) did not occur, as there is no Traffic Management Order (TMO) that prohibits traffic on the road.

Redbridge’s, Summary of Council’s Representation attaches a copy of the Traffic Management Order, LBR No. 21/1998. The TMO states “no person shall cause any motor vehicle to pass through the gated road closure in Kelveden Way between the hours of 7.30am and 9.30am Mondays to Fridays”. The gates were not closed, in which case there cannot be an offence. If the gates were closed then it would be an offence to open the gates and pass through, however that offence would not fall for Civil Enforcement.

The erection of no motor vehicle signs at the location of the gate does not itself create a prohibition of certain types of motor vehicles and no evidence has been provided that any such prohibition exits.

In support, I cite the case and Reasons.

Case reference 2170299038 – London Borough of Redbridge v Tsvetan Dakov – Decision Date 22nd July 2017.

“The signs in Kelvedeon Way indicate that motor vehicles are prohibited Monday to Friday 7.30-9.30am. The signs are on each side of the carriageway. There is also a warning sign indicating that there is CCTV enforcement of a road closure.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of motor vehicle. Traffic Management Order 21 of 1998 states that ‘no person shall cause any motor vehicle to pass through the gated road closure in Kelveden Way between the hours of 7.30a, and 9.30am Mondays to Fridays.

I am not satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention prohibited by the Traffic Management Order. The Traffic Management Order creates a contravention of failing to comply with a gated road closure. The road was not closed on 19th May.

I allow this appeal. I note that the Penalty Charge Notice has been settled. This sum should be refunded to Mr Dakov.”



In view of the above I ask that the PCN is cancelled.

Posted by: NaughtyBoy12 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 14:29
Post #1524762

I won on the basis of incorrectly issued Charge Certificate.

Thanks to all who provided their help.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 16:39
Post #1524800

That'll do nicely.
Nice one.

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