One council enforcing another council's pcn |
One council enforcing another council's pcn |
Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 01:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
I got a TMA 2004 PCN from a council claiming to enforce another council's parking restriction.
I am going to sue the council B for DPA breach. Do any members know of a TPT decision on his practice? Thanks. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 9 Apr 2020 - 01:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 17:03
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
You misunderstand what I meant about procedural impropriety via a collateral challenge. I do understand what the TMA defines but a procedural impropriety can relate to any decision as defined by statute not just the TMA. But the High Court has ruled that you cannot bring a collateral challenge against a TMA 2004 PCN, because by introducing the procedural impropriety ground, Parliament has displaced the ability to bring a collateral challenge. What is the maximum number of TMA EAs for the same car park? 1 2 3 4 5 Pick a number, then give reasons. I say its 1. The enforcing authority is the order making authority. That is settled law. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 17:09
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The enforcing authority is the order making authority. That is settled law. Are you referring to Schedule 8 of the TMA? QUOTE References in this Part of this Act to the enforcement authority in relation to such contraventions are to the authority by whom the parking place in question was designated or provided. What is there that prevents another authority (whether it is itself an enforcement authority or not) from acting as the agent of "the" enforcement authority? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 17:19
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
The enforcing authority is the order making authority. That is settled law. Are you referring to Schedule 8 of the TMA? QUOTE References in this Part of this Act to the enforcement authority in relation to such contraventions are to the authority by whom the parking place in question was designated or provided. What is there that prevents another authority (whether it is itself an enforcement authority or not) from acting as the agent of "the" enforcement authority? So, what is the maximum number? Unlimited? Does the agent have to be and EA in its own right? If the order making authority makes me the agent, what name goes on top of the PCN - mine? Where do statutory powers come from? |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 18:18
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The enforcing authority is the order making authority. That is settled law. Are you referring to Schedule 8 of the TMA? QUOTE References in this Part of this Act to the enforcement authority in relation to such contraventions are to the authority by whom the parking place in question was designated or provided. What is there that prevents another authority (whether it is itself an enforcement authority or not) from acting as the agent of "the" enforcement authority? So, what is the maximum number? Unlimited? Does the agent have to be and EA in its own right? If the order making authority makes me the agent, what name goes on top of the PCN - mine? Where do statutory powers come from? You tell me. I asked you a question an all you’ve done is pose more questions. Try answering some. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 20:40
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
The EA is the order making authority. That is schedule 8 TMA. Who provided the car park? The order making authority (who also owns the land but not relevant). That is small council.
Only the EA can enforce, however EA can employ a co. like NSL to provide CEOs (in EA uniform) and do simple back office work like posting out PCNS and NTOS. Fosbeary is basically correct. Only council officers can deal with informal challenge and formal representations. Enforcement powers are STATUTORY powers. A local authority cannot give enforcement powers. Local authorities are corporations, and are therefore creatures of statute. A council cannot give me police powers. These are statutory powers under PACE etc. ' If you park in a criminalized area car park and breach the small council TRO, who will prosecute, small council or big council on 'behalf' of small council? Big council has not standing in Mags court. So summons will be printed and served by small council and prosecution will be in small council name. There is only one EA because the law demands it. If there was more than one EA there would be double-ticketing. The EA which served me was wearing big council uniform. Big council also did replied to formal reps. The whole scheme is unlawful. Small council does not recieve a penny of penalty charge money. Ask yourself this: can Camden council CEOs in Camden uniforms enforce on behalf of Westminster on/off street when there are no Camden TMOs in force? I say no because Camden is not the EA. What if the pcn says 'Camden of behalf of Westminster? You think that will fly legally? I don't.
Attached File(s)
Eric_Fosbeary_v_Gloucestershire_County_Council__GD_05067G__08_July_2014_.pdf ( 151.91K )
Number of downloads: 66
|
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 21:36
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I am still with Camden V BFS Group t/a First for Food Services when it comes to collateral challenges. A narrow interpretation limiting an adjudicators consideration to the statutory scheme is incorrect. How else would an adjudicator be able to consider issues like disability legislation or Article 6 unfairness? I hope you've informed the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, The Rt Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon, that his decision in paras 38 to 52 of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) is "incorrect" -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 21:45
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
I am still with Camden V BFS Group t/a First for Food Services when it comes to collateral challenges. A narrow interpretation limiting an adjudicators consideration to the statutory scheme is incorrect. How else would an adjudicator be able to consider issues like disability legislation or Article 6 unfairness? I hope you've informed the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, The Rt Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon, that his decision in paras 38 to 52 of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) is "incorrect" To be clear, saying that the PCN was not served by the EA is not a collateral challenge. If you receive a NoR from the 'agent' EA you cannot technically appeal because you have not recd. an NOR from the RELEVANT EA. However, TPT will accept appeal (daft). I have quoted both Camden cases in my skelly. They are both correct, Camden 2 is a bit of a mess, though. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 21:57
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
If you park in a criminalized area car park and breach the small council TRO, who will prosecute, small council or big council on 'behalf' of small council? Either council could. If you committed such an offence and for some bizarre reason the small council gave me the evidence, I could prosecute you myself, there's no need for either council to be involved. As for your assertions that one council cannot act on behalf of another, please explain why section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 doesn't apply. I have quoted both Camden cases in my skelly. They are both correct, Camden 2 is a bit of a mess, though. Well please do post the decision when you get it, though I fear that there are only two likely outcomes: 1) We'll never see the court's decision (because you've lost), or 2) We'll see it together with a rant as to how the judge was biased and thee courts are "corrupt" (again because you've lost) I really hope you prove me wrong, but we'll have to wait and see. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 22:02
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
If you park in a criminalized area car park and breach the small council TRO, who will prosecute, small council or big council on 'behalf' of small council? Either council could. If you committed such an offence and for some bizarre reason the small council gave me the evidence, I could prosecute you myself, there's no need for either council to be involved. As for your assertions that one council cannot act on behalf of another, please explain why section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 doesn't apply. Sorry, wrong. Breaching a TRO is an offence dealt with by the relevant authority initiating legal proceedings, if you laid an information the Mags court would not issue it because you have no standing. The offence can only be prosecuted by the authority which provided the parking place or provided under a letting arrangement. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 22:06
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Breaching a TRO is an offence dealt with by the relevant authority initiating legal proceedings, if you laid an information the Mags court would not issue it because you have no standing. I don't need standing, at common law anyone can prosecute any offence unless there's a statutory exception (a limited number of offences can only be prosecuted by the DPP, the attorney general or some other specified public prosecutor). I suggest you read the Supreme Court case of Gujra, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] UKSC 52. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 22:12
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
Breaching a TRO is an offence dealt with by the relevant authority initiating legal proceedings, if you laid an information the Mags court would not issue it because you have no standing. I don't need standing, at common law anyone can prosecute any offence unless there's a statutory exception (a limited number of offences can only be prosecuted by the DPP, the attorney general or some other specified public prosecutor). I suggest you read the Supreme Court case of Gujra, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] UKSC 52. Councils issue and serve their own parking summonses under statute, you would have to lay an information and the court would refuse to issue the summons. For obvious reasons. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 22:15
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Councils issue and serve their own parking summonses under statute, you would have to lay an information and the court would refuse to issue the summons. For obvious reasons. Can you cite the statute to which you refer? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 1 May 2020 - 22:21
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Councils issue and serve their own parking summonses under statute, you would have to lay an information and the court would refuse to issue the summons. For obvious reasons. What statute? And what reasons? According to Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn [1979] 1 WLR 933 you're wrong. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:16 |