PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Oxford Road (Nelson Street to Hathersage Road), Bus Lane Contravention
Pessa
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 11:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



Hi guys,
I need your help with this. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right forum but I did try to post in the correct forum and it brought me here instead.

My case is this: I was on admission at MRI in March for a transplant so my husband was driving my car. On the day he was recorded using Oxford Road, I believe I was going through a difficult time in the hospital but I was out of it all. He was recorded driving on the alleged bus lane on Oxford Road about 16.44 on the 10/3/18. I received the notice on 27/3/18 (written (26/3/18)
I appealed on 27/3/18 because the car is registered in my name. I cited my reasons as; the insufficient signage on the road and not having used that road in about 15 years since we live outside the area, we hardly ever come towards that particular area. So any new signage, my husband wouldn't be aware of, driving down that road.

We didn't get a reply from them till 9/7/18 (I'm not sure if there is a regulation about late replies after appeal), This is almost 4 months after appeal. They refused the appeal saying that there were sufficient signage and we can't use the excuse that we live outside of the area and hardly come there so didn't know about the change in the area.

They have said they have reduced the fee to £30 if we pay within a certain period but I think that's unfair. I want to take it further because this is really wrong. I looked at the footage and the picture they sent but there are really NO clear signage indicating that my husband was on a bus lane. The aforementioned signage is on the bicycle lane on the left and both sides of it, which I think is warning people off the bike lane.

Please, I really need your help to appeal this before the adjudicator and any proforma letter will be really appreciated. I have attached the picture of the alleged contravention sent by the council.
The system isn't allowing me upload any of the documents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 11:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 13:49
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



It seems like a boilerplate rejection to me. @Pessa, you need to show us your formal representations.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:05
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (Pessa @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 12:55) *
Some quick questions and points (sorry if I sound terse!)

1) Date of hearing? - personal or postal or telephone?

2) please post copy of your submission.

3) From the Council Evidence Pack (that's what you've got) please post

a) The 2-3 page summary of the Council's case
b) the CEO notes

The experts here can then say what additional points need making.
If there is time, you can submit additional points before the hearing: you can also make notes to raise them at personal/telephone hearing.


Hi John UK, thanks so much. I don't think you don't sound terse :-)
1. I have no hearing date yet. This is just a response to the submissions the council made
2. I have posted 2 of it and on the rest submissions. I'm just answering your post
3.All that is coming in my next post including the CEO notes

Apparently, I can't use the reply button so I'm just adding the evidence to my reply

Here's another document. It was too large so I compressed it

Attached File(s)
Attached File  MCC_Submission.compressed.pdf ( 848.15K ) Number of downloads: 114
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:23
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:49) *
It seems like a boilerplate rejection to me. @Pessa, you need to show us your formal representations.


OK. Here it is and the last submission from the council. The other submissions are the camera and video photos you saw before

My submission to the adjudicator based on the advice I received from all of you. Thank you

On 27th March 2018, I received a PCN letter dated 26th March 2018. I’m appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
I’m disputing the council’s rejection because the signage intended to warn motorists of the restriction was inadequate and unclear. After looking at the video and picture evidences sent by the council, my husband was never in the bus lane marked out on the left hand side of the road
The notice of rejection came late, almost 4 months after I put in the appeal (appealed 28th March 2018, received rejection letter 11th July 2018), I thought that my appeal had been accepted.
(Please see attached letter of rejection)
I had explained to the council that we never come to Oxford road so any changes, we wouldn’t have been aware of, since my husband and I work well away from that area. I also indicated that besides the signage hadn’t been clear enough for my husband to understand that the whole Oxford road was now a bus gate.
He took that road on his way to Manchester Royal Infirmary (MRI) where I was seriously ill, in danger of my body rejecting a transplanted organ. It was only as a result of my admission at MRI that he would have taken the road as he had done years ago.
I also pointed out that there was no signage to tell him that this is now a bus lane and therefore cannot use it. Again the CCTV footage sent to me, from the road that leads into Oxford Road, there is no sign to inform motorists they were entering a prohibited bus lane neither were there signs on the road showing it was a bus gate or lane.
The signs indicated by the council were unclear and confusing. The signs at the beginning of the alleged are on the left side of the wide road, with the other side sign located on the far side of the cycle lane, well away from the road; and separated from it by the cycle lane and outside kerb with another sign on the kerb. The sign indicates that the restriction applies to the bicycle lane and the extended bus stop area on the nearside, which had a red line with yellow short lines on it.
My question is why wasn’t "bus lane/gate" painted on the road like on other roads across the city? There are also buses on each side which looks like an extended bus lane (a yellow bus in front on the left and a first Manchester Bus on the right.
At no time did my car enter the bus stop lane or go over any of the lines painted on the road. My husband kept to the middle of the road like he would do on any normal road.
The prohibition according to the signage in the video is confusing and anybody will think that it only applies to the bicycle lane and the bus stop lane.
Furthermore, looking at the video evidence sent by the council, it shows 2 other cars before and behind my car entering the “bus gate” so that means the bus on the far right bus lane? might also be obscuring any sign they might claim they have in place and so they couldn’t see it.
This means they both were not also aware that the road is a bus gate. The car behind my car, is a private hire taxi which is supposedly prohibited to use the alleged “bus gate” as only hackney cabs were allowed, according to their letter.
The signs in place certainly give the impression that motor vehicles are prohibited from the cycle lane. That is the logical interpretation from the video, not that the car had entered a bus only street
In my view, I believe in order to avoid these issues, the council should build a traffic island and clearly show it as a gate, albeit part time until they can put something more permanent in place.
Therefore, I will like to appeal to your office to grant me compensation for the stress, upset and time caused me by the council.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:30
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To be honest you don't need to say much else, most adjudicators seem to agree with you that the signs are confusing and only appear to refer to the cycle lane on the left. I'm sure people will make other suggestions and quote a couple of cases but I would suggest you base your appeal on your formal representations.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (Pessa @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:23) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:49) *
It seems like a boilerplate rejection to me. @Pessa, you need to show us your formal representations.


OK. Here it is and the last submission from the council. The other submissions are the camera and video photos you saw before

My submission to the adjudicator based on the advice I received from all of you. Thank you

On 27th March 2018, I received a PCN letter dated 26th March 2018. I’m appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
I’m disputing the council’s rejection because the signage intended to warn motorists of the restriction was inadequate and unclear. After looking at the video and picture evidences sent by the council, my husband was never in the bus lane marked out on the left hand side of the road
The notice of rejection came late, almost 4 months after I put in the appeal (appealed 28th March 2018, received rejection letter 11th July 2018), I thought that my appeal had been accepted.
(Please see attached letter of rejection)
I had explained to the council that we never come to Oxford road so any changes, we wouldn’t have been aware of, since my husband and I work well away from that area. I also indicated that besides the signage hadn’t been clear enough for my husband to understand that the whole Oxford road was now a bus gate.
He took that road on his way to Manchester Royal Infirmary (MRI) where I was seriously ill, in danger of my body rejecting a transplanted organ. It was only as a result of my admission at MRI that he would have taken the road as he had done years ago.
I also pointed out that there was no signage to tell him that this is now a bus lane and therefore cannot use it. Again the CCTV footage sent to me, from the road that leads into Oxford Road, there is no sign to inform motorists they were entering a prohibited bus lane neither were there signs on the road showing it was a bus gate or lane.
The signs indicated by the council were unclear and confusing. The signs at the beginning of the alleged are on the left side of the wide road, with the other side sign located on the far side of the cycle lane, well away from the road; and separated from it by the cycle lane and outside kerb with another sign on the kerb. The sign indicates that the restriction applies to the bicycle lane and the extended bus stop area on the nearside, which had a red line with yellow short lines on it.
My question is why wasn’t "bus lane/gate" painted on the road like on other roads across the city? There are also buses on each side which looks like an extended bus lane (a yellow bus in front on the left and a first Manchester Bus on the right.
At no time did my car enter the bus stop lane or go over any of the lines painted on the road. My husband kept to the middle of the road like he would do on any normal road.
The prohibition according to the signage in the video is confusing and anybody will think that it only applies to the bicycle lane and the bus stop lane.
Furthermore, looking at the video evidence sent by the council, it shows 2 other cars before and behind my car entering the “bus gate” so that means the bus on the far right bus lane? might also be obscuring any sign they might claim they have in place and so they couldn’t see it.
This means they both were not also aware that the road is a bus gate. The car behind my car, is a private hire taxi which is supposedly prohibited to use the alleged “bus gate” as only hackney cabs were allowed, according to their letter.
The signs in place certainly give the impression that motor vehicles are prohibited from the cycle lane. That is the logical interpretation from the video, not that the car had entered a bus only street
In my view, I believe in order to avoid these issues, the council should build a traffic island and clearly show it as a gate, albeit part time until they can put something more permanent in place.
Therefore, I will like to appeal to your office to grant me compensation for the stress, upset and time caused me by the council.


Further evidence. The file upload wouldn't work with the compressed document so I used imgur

https://imgur.com/a/9uxWoCT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:49
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Are you planning a personal hearing, a telephone hearing, or a postal decision?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The councils issue is that the bus lane is lawful, and that signage is adequate and correct. Yes it is authorised to be used but no it is not adequate. This has been the view of quite a few adjudicators so might just get the adjudicators back up

Perhaps have case reference numbers on standby


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:09
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (Pessa @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:35) *
QUOTE (Pessa @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:23) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 14:49) *
It seems like a boilerplate rejection to me. @Pessa, you need to show us your formal representations.


OK. Here it is and the last submission from the council. The other submissions are the camera and video photos you saw before

My submission to the adjudicator based on the advice I received from all of you. Thank you

On 27th March 2018, I received a PCN letter dated 26th March 2018. I’m appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
I’m disputing the council’s rejection because the signage intended to warn motorists of the restriction was inadequate and unclear. After looking at the video and picture evidences sent by the council, my husband was never in the bus lane marked out on the left hand side of the road
The notice of rejection came late, almost 4 months after I put in the appeal (appealed 28th March 2018, received rejection letter 11th July 2018), I thought that my appeal had been accepted.
(Please see attached letter of rejection)
I had explained to the council that we never come to Oxford road so any changes, we wouldn’t have been aware of, since my husband and I work well away from that area. I also indicated that besides the signage hadn’t been clear enough for my husband to understand that the whole Oxford road was now a bus gate.
He took that road on his way to Manchester Royal Infirmary (MRI) where I was seriously ill, in danger of my body rejecting a transplanted organ. It was only as a result of my admission at MRI that he would have taken the road as he had done years ago.
I also pointed out that there was no signage to tell him that this is now a bus lane and therefore cannot use it. Again the CCTV footage sent to me, from the road that leads into Oxford Road, there is no sign to inform motorists they were entering a prohibited bus lane neither were there signs on the road showing it was a bus gate or lane.
The signs indicated by the council were unclear and confusing. The signs at the beginning of the alleged are on the left side of the wide road, with the other side sign located on the far side of the cycle lane, well away from the road; and separated from it by the cycle lane and outside kerb with another sign on the kerb. The sign indicates that the restriction applies to the bicycle lane and the extended bus stop area on the nearside, which had a red line with yellow short lines on it.
My question is why wasn’t "bus lane/gate" painted on the road like on other roads across the city? There are also buses on each side which looks like an extended bus lane (a yellow bus in front on the left and a first Manchester Bus on the right.
At no time did my car enter the bus stop lane or go over any of the lines painted on the road. My husband kept to the middle of the road like he would do on any normal road.
The prohibition according to the signage in the video is confusing and anybody will think that it only applies to the bicycle lane and the bus stop lane.
Furthermore, looking at the video evidence sent by the council, it shows 2 other cars before and behind my car entering the “bus gate” so that means the bus on the far right bus lane? might also be obscuring any sign they might claim they have in place and so they couldn’t see it.
This means they both were not also aware that the road is a bus gate. The car behind my car, is a private hire taxi which is supposedly prohibited to use the alleged “bus gate” as only hackney cabs were allowed, according to their letter.
The signs in place certainly give the impression that motor vehicles are prohibited from the cycle lane. That is the logical interpretation from the video, not that the car had entered a bus only street
In my view, I believe in order to avoid these issues, the council should build a traffic island and clearly show it as a gate, albeit part time until they can put something more permanent in place.
Therefore, I will like to appeal to your office to grant me compensation for the stress, upset and time caused me by the council.


Further evidence. The file upload wouldn't work with the compressed document so I used imgur

https://imgur.com/a/9uxWoCT


I'm trying to upload the ticket history uploaded as well but I've been struggling with it on the forum because it's saying the file is larger than the space available. I couldn't download it because they protected it from downloading on to my system. I'm using imghur instead. Here it is:

https://imgur.com/a/IKjBgD1



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:26
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:49) *
Are you planning a personal hearing, a telephone hearing, or a postal decision?

I was considering a telephone hearing. Is it any different or a personal hearing is better? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:49
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would attach the following cases to your appeal.

MC00014-1801: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753271/D...on-MC00014-1801
MC00729-1711: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753270/M...on-MC00729-1711

(You can download the PDFs from that site and then attach them to the appeal).

I would also quote case MC8545971A, I don't have a PDF for it yet but this is the text:

I have decided this appeal without a hearing. The parties did not ask for a hearing.
The Council have produced footage from an approved camera device which shows Mr A's vehicle driving southbound along Oxford Street after its junction with Nelson Street.
The whole of Oxford Street at that point in that direction of travel is a bus lane from 6am to 9pm. During those times buses, taxis and permit holders’ vehicles are the only motor vehicles permitted to proceed along Oxford Road beyond its junction with Nelson Street.
Mr A explains in his that he was planning to park on Denmark Road following a route down Grafton Street left on to Oxford Road and then right on to Denmark Road. In fact, this route took him on to Oxford Road before the start of the bus lane and then into the bus lane, the turn for Denmark Road being past the start of the bus lane
Mr A appeals on the basis the signage did not indicate he could not take that route and was unclear and confusing. He said, in particular, the signs at the beginning of the restriction are on either side of a wide road, with the near side sign located on the far side of a cycle lane, well away from the carriageway and separated from it by the cycle lane and nearside kerb. He argues the sign indicated to him that the restriction applies to the extended bus stop area on the nearside.
Mr A is right that there is a long bus stop on the left hand side of the road, indicated by a yellow dashed marking on a red-coloured road surface, immediately after the start of the bus lane. Although this is, in fact, only a bus stop rather than the bus lane, Mr A is not alone in misunderstanding the sign on the near side of the start of the bus lane as applying to simply the left hand side of the road, where there is a long bus stop, as opposed to the whole of the road. Nor is he alone in evidently not noticing the equivalent sign on the far side of the road, because the road is so wide that it is remote from the side of the carriageway to which it relates.
The decisions of other adjudicators in appeals concerning this bus lane have highlighted that other motorists have interpreted the signage in exactly the same way as Mr A, that is as identifying a bus lane as being what is, in fact, the bus stop on the left hand side of the road with an unrestricted lane next to it.
A number of adjudicators have considered the question of whether the signage for this bus lane is adequate, in the context of appeals from motorists, like Mr A, who appealed because they were simply unaware they had entered a bus lane at all. In three cases - MC00729-1711; MC00816-1712 and MC00752-1712, the adjudicators decided the signage was not adequate and allowed the appeal. In each case they gave detailed reasons for their decision. Indeed, Mr A has quoted from the reasons in a further decision with the same outcome – MC00014-1801.
I am not bound by any of those decisions but find them persuasive, particularly in the context of Mr A’s evidence that he misunderstood which part of the road the restriction on the sign at the start of the bus lane applied to. Consequently, I agree with the decisions of these adjudicators that the signage for this bus lane is unclear and inadequate, and adopt their reasons for so deciding.
Because the signage is not adequate, the restriction is not enforceable against Mr Ai. I allow his appeal on the ground the alleged contravention did not occur. He has nothing to pay.


This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:49


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 21:20
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 16:49) *
I would attach the following cases to your appeal.

MC00014-1801: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753271/D...on-MC00014-1801
MC00729-1711: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753270/M...on-MC00729-1711

(You can download the PDFs from that site and then attach them to the appeal).

I would also quote case MC8545971A, I don't have a PDF for it yet but this is the text:

I have decided this appeal without a hearing. The parties did not ask for a hearing.
The Council have produced footage from an approved camera device which shows Mr A's vehicle driving southbound along Oxford Street after its junction with Nelson Street.
The whole of Oxford Street at that point in that direction of travel is a bus lane from 6am to 9pm. During those times buses, taxis and permit holders’ vehicles are the only motor vehicles permitted to proceed along Oxford Road beyond its junction with Nelson Street.
Mr A explains in his that he was planning to park on Denmark Road following a route down Grafton Street left on to Oxford Road and then right on to Denmark Road. In fact, this route took him on to Oxford Road before the start of the bus lane and then into the bus lane, the turn for Denmark Road being past the start of the bus lane
Mr A appeals on the basis the signage did not indicate he could not take that route and was unclear and confusing. He said, in particular, the signs at the beginning of the restriction are on either side of a wide road, with the near side sign located on the far side of a cycle lane, well away from the carriageway and separated from it by the cycle lane and nearside kerb. He argues the sign indicated to him that the restriction applies to the extended bus stop area on the nearside.
Mr A is right that there is a long bus stop on the left hand side of the road, indicated by a yellow dashed marking on a red-coloured road surface, immediately after the start of the bus lane. Although this is, in fact, only a bus stop rather than the bus lane, Mr A is not alone in misunderstanding the sign on the near side of the start of the bus lane as applying to simply the left hand side of the road, where there is a long bus stop, as opposed to the whole of the road. Nor is he alone in evidently not noticing the equivalent sign on the far side of the road, because the road is so wide that it is remote from the side of the carriageway to which it relates.
The decisions of other adjudicators in appeals concerning this bus lane have highlighted that other motorists have interpreted the signage in exactly the same way as Mr A, that is as identifying a bus lane as being what is, in fact, the bus stop on the left hand side of the road with an unrestricted lane next to it.
A number of adjudicators have considered the question of whether the signage for this bus lane is adequate, in the context of appeals from motorists, like Mr A, who appealed because they were simply unaware they had entered a bus lane at all. In three cases - MC00729-1711; MC00816-1712 and MC00752-1712, the adjudicators decided the signage was not adequate and allowed the appeal. In each case they gave detailed reasons for their decision. Indeed, Mr A has quoted from the reasons in a further decision with the same outcome – MC00014-1801.
I am not bound by any of those decisions but find them persuasive, particularly in the context of Mr A’s evidence that he misunderstood which part of the road the restriction on the sign at the start of the bus lane applied to. Consequently, I agree with the decisions of these adjudicators that the signage for this bus lane is unclear and inadequate, and adopt their reasons for so deciding.
Because the signage is not adequate, the restriction is not enforceable against Mr Ai. I allow his appeal on the ground the alleged contravention did not occur. He has nothing to pay.


Thank you so much. I will do just that
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pessa
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:57
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 9 Aug 2017
From: Manchester
Member No.: 93,446



Good day everyone,
it's a good day because I opened my email from the adjudicator's office and it's good news. See link below

https://imgur.com/a/FOO0uxL

I can't thank you guys enough. I'm so happy because I haven't been too well and this was contributing to my stress. i'm feeling much better for this.

Pessa biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:05
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well done and here's the judgment which makes it very clear how misleading this one still is.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 20:06
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



NIce to see another win, but when are the council going to do anything to make it clearer ? Answer - they are going to do nothing at all and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators. Why ? Because 90+% of people just pay up. So they continue to make shedloads of money. There is nothing in law to prevent them continuing like this ad infinitum. That is why I am so disgusted at councils and their amoral officials. When, oh when are we going to see prosecutions for malfeasance. People really do need to go to jail for this sort of thing.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 20:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 20:28
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:06) *
NIce to see another win, but when are the council going to do anything to make it clearer ? Answer - they are going to do nothing at all and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators. Why ? Because 90+% of people just pay up. So they continue to make shedloads of money. There is nothing in law to prevent them continuing like this ad infinitum. That is why I am so disgusted at councils and their amoral officials. When, oh when are we going to see prosecutions for malfeasance. People really do need to go to jail for this sort of thing.

The problem here is intent. If they mistakenly but honestly believe the restrictions are enforceable and they are acting in pursuance of the legitimate interests of the council, you cannot prove malfeasance.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:01
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:28) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:06) *
NIce to see another win, but when are the council going to do anything to make it clearer ? Answer - they are going to do nothing at all and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators. Why ? Because 90+% of people just pay up. So they continue to make shedloads of money. There is nothing in law to prevent them continuing like this ad infinitum. That is why I am so disgusted at councils and their amoral officials. When, oh when are we going to see prosecutions for malfeasance. People really do need to go to jail for this sort of thing.

The problem here is intent. If they mistakenly but honestly believe the restrictions are enforceable and they are acting in pursuance of the legitimate interests of the council, you cannot prove malfeasance.

But surely the adjudications prove they are not enforceable ! From what you say, they can act with impunity and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators and not get even a gently slap on the wrist. The legislation and those using it to enforce is a huge pile of horsesh*t IMHO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:18
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 22:01) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:28) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 21:06) *
NIce to see another win, but when are the council going to do anything to make it clearer ? Answer - they are going to do nothing at all and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators. Why ? Because 90+% of people just pay up. So they continue to make shedloads of money. There is nothing in law to prevent them continuing like this ad infinitum. That is why I am so disgusted at councils and their amoral officials. When, oh when are we going to see prosecutions for malfeasance. People really do need to go to jail for this sort of thing.

The problem here is intent. If they mistakenly but honestly believe the restrictions are enforceable and they are acting in pursuance of the legitimate interests of the council, you cannot prove malfeasance.

But surely the adjudications prove they are not enforceable ! From what you say, they can act with impunity and continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators and not get even a gently slap on the wrist. The legislation and those using it to enforce is a huge pile of horsesh*t IMHO

As I understand it Manchester has an elected mayor. It's up to the people of Manchester to take it up with him, or elect a different mayor. As you know adjudicators only decide on individual cases, to get the restrictions declared unenforceable in general you'd need to bring a judicial review, but it's hard to see who would have standing to bring one.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:56
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here