Very specific question re Congestion Charge tribunal grounds Options

[mummylonglegs]

TFL congestion charge. PCN correctly issued etc, I don't dispute that I was there & am liable to pay.

However there was a valid reason why I could not pay within the 3 days. Made representation. Reps rejected.

However when reps rejected, TFL misrepresented my reps & made out I was asking for the whole PCN to be cancelled, which I was not. I had clearly admitted liability & was only asking for the fine to be put back to the 3 day £17.50.

Would I have any grounds for appeal w Tribunal? - I know that adjudicators cannot accept an appeal based on mitigation... But could they do so on the basis that TFL failed to address my appeal point, indeed misquoted/misrepresented it?

[Advertisement]

[mummylonglegs]

I registered the appeal, with grounds to follow.

@hcandersen Yes it is true that some people get it very mildly, I know someone who barely knew they had it! But that is not always the case and I was really knocked for six. I did say in my reps that I was happy to make a statutory declaration or equivalent, and to let me know if they would like me to do that.
But they did not request further information, just sent a bog standard rejection.

[cp8759]

mummylonglegs's case (details have been shared with me privately) amounts to overwhelming mitigation, it's a real shame it was not put in the representations as TFL may well have cancelled. Still, it might be accepted as reasons beyond the appellant's control, so we might as well try. Regardless of the outcome, this should serve as a warning to others that if you have very compelling mitigating circumstances, don't hold back in your representations. With any postal PCN you only really get one shot at mitigation.

mummylonglegs, I suggest you make an application to the tribunal for the case to be heard in private, I can draft something to that effect. Have you been given a hearing date yet?

[mummylonglegs]

Thank you CP. Very good point about not being shy/holding back in the informal reps.

How does one ask for a tribunal to be private please?

[Neil B]

A tad harsh IMO. Prima facie the payment wasn't made. By their own admission the OP diid not make a 'Covid' case well or possibly at all in their reps.

Most Covid-positive people are asymptomatic and perfectly able to conduct their affairs. My wife experienced a mild temperature and tiredness, others whom I know have, thankfully, had nothing worse.

You never manage to quite stop and consider your words do you.
Well lucky old you. Does that give you the right to judge other' experiences?

I've lost a friend and her Granddaughter was hospitalised for several weeks.

TfL needed to be more aware or at least, as has been said, ask for more details.

[hcandersen]

@Neil B, I'm trying to deal with facts, I'm sorry if this doesn't suit. Do you think my time was easy, this was my wife. In hindsight I know she escaped unscathed, but at the time.....

So rather than admonish me....

Anyway, by their own admission the OP did not make a compelling Covid case, perhaps thinking that by simply mentioning the words the issue would be resolved. It wasn't.

I see nothing to be gained by dancing around this.

If they were totally unable whether physically or psychologically then say so and produce evidence e.g. positive Covid test etc. I've had 3 periods of self-isolation in the last 12 months but none prevented me from conducting my affairs. For all the OP knows, the adjudicator might have had a similar experience. The OP is at the last chance saloon and must make their case by tapping in to whatever sympathetic seam the adj might have, but they'll need more than a simple statement to the effect that they couldn't pay.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 - 22:51

[cp8759]

How does one ask for a tribunal to be private please?

Like this (you'll have to email this to the tribunal):

------------------

This is an application for the hearing to be held in private. Paragraph 8(2) of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 provides that the adjudicator may direct that the whole or any part of a hearing be held in private if he is satisfied that by reason of the likelihood of disclosure of intimate personal or financial circumstances it is just and reasonable for him so to do. The tribunal is invited to make such a direction for a private hearing. In the present context, this would mean refusing any request from members of the public to take part in the telephone hearing as observers.

Furthermore regulation 5 provides that, subject to the provisions of the Schedule, an adjudicator may regulate his own procedure. The tribunal is invited to direct that any part of the tribunal's ruling that would disclose sensitive personal and medical details be kept in a closed annex to the decision and be kept out of the public register.

The appellant's full grounds of appeal cannot be put forward without disclosing personal and intimate medical matters that the appellant would simply find too embarrassing to go into if the hearing were held in public, or if there were a possibility that those details might be published in the public register.

It is submitted that it is therefore in the interest of justice for the tribunal to make the directions sought.

[cp8759]

So apparently the tribunal can consider a collateral challenge, but it was simply not made out in this case, see Karine Reinton v Transport for London (9210096671, 18 June 2021) https://bit.ly/3iSLdHn

I don't really agree, but I can't say it's a definitely a decision he wasn't entitled to make.

[PASTMYBEST]

So apparently the tribunal can consider a collateral challenge, but it was simply not made out in this case, see Karine Reinton v Transport for London (9210096671, 18 June 2021) https://bit.ly/3iSLdHn

I don't really agree, but I can't say it's a definitely a decision he wasn't entitled to make.

We see it often, "We have considered " ids enough for some adjudicators whilst others expect an explanation within the NOR. What is good apart from the acceptance of the collateral challenge is the reasoning. We have a better understanding of how to frame appeals

I for one would now feel happier advising people that they have grounds and a chance of winning which in the main was not the case before

Although the case was lost well done. The battle lost but now there are some weapons available to win the war