Suspended bay again, Suspension applied without notice or suitably placed. Options

[dadant]

Hello forum, I have a feeling I'm grasping at straws a little but would appreciate any guidance or advice on whether I have any grounds for an appeal.

I reside in a CPZ in a London borough where a large single unmarked bay straddles both the front of mine and my neighbour's properties (1), the bay was suspended for around three weeks while roadworks were completed and the notice for that works was placed on post (2) as it is the nearest available. Once the suspension was over and thinking the roadworks were completed I parked in the bay where I left the car for around 24 hrs when I noticed the PCN on my vehicle, I then realised another suspension notice had been reapplied and fitted to the no entry sign to the right of the bay (3). Do I have any case at all as I was given no notice of the bay suspension and the sign wasn't placed I feel on an appropriate site/sign nor is it on the post nearest to the bay concerned. Thanks in advance.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.



This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 13:59

[Advertisement]

[dadant]

The provisions about suspending parking spaces are not in the amendment order, it is reasonable to assume they would be found in the principal order, i.e. The Hillingdon (Uxbridge South) (Zone U5) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007.

So where is The Hillingdon (Uxbridge South) (Zone U5) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007?

There is no specific order about suspended parking bays in any of the documentation I have received. As for the review request do I just send/email to the tribunal as is?

This post has been edited by dadant: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 23:01

[cp8759]

There is no specific order about suspended parking bays in any of the documentation I have received. As for the review request do I just send/email to the tribunal as is?

The specific provision about suspending parking bays will be in The Hillingdon (Uxbridge South) (Zone U5) (On Street Parking Places) Order 2007, which the council has not provided.

You can send the application for review exactly as I drafted it, I assume you can simply email but if you want to be sure just call the tribunal helpline and ask them how you should send it.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:21

[dadant]

You can send the application for review exactly as I drafted it, I assume you can simply email but if you want to be sure just call the tribunal helpline and ask them how you should send it.

Should I just insert what you've written because..."The interests of justice require a review"?


https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/your...n-what-can-i-do

This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 - 12:46

[cp8759]

No, that template relates to congestion charge cases. Just send what I've written to the tribunal as it is.

[hcandersen]

I missed this earlier.

Scandalous decision.

As per cp, if there is no lawful authority in the evidence, then how could an adjudicator, acting properly, find that the suspension was lawful as the ONLY basis for lawful suspension IS the traffic order.

You do not need to go to law school or be a qualified solicitor to know this.

[cp8759]

I missed this earlier.

Scandalous decision.

As per cp, if there is no lawful authority in the evidence, then how could an adjudicator, acting properly, find that the suspension was lawful as the ONLY basis for lawful suspension IS the traffic order.

You do not need to go to law school or be a qualified solicitor to know this.

To your credit you spotted this hole in the council's evidence in the first place.

[dadant]

Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Henry Michael Greenslade, has directed that there are no grounds for there to be a review of this case.
Adjudicator Mr Greenslade found:

1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original Adjudicator or the law. The question is whether the original Adjudicator was entitled to come to the conclusions that he or she did and that they are reasonable when looked at by reference to the law and the facts.

2. Unless the original Adjudicator can be shown to have taken into account some immaterial matter or to have overlooked or misapprehended some material matter that undermines his or her decision, or that decision was perverse in the sense that no reasonable Adjudicator could have reached it, or it was plainly wrong as a matter of law about which there is no alternative view or interpretation, his/her decision is final and cannot be reviewed.

3. One Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact of another unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence. In this case, they plainly are compatible with the evidence and are findings the Adjudicator was entitled to make. New evidence can only be considered if it is shown to have become available since the decision was made and the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen.

4. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the vehicle was in contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including observations of the vehicle by the civil enforcement officer and the images produced. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded

5. The original Adjudicator set out that Regulation 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 ('the Appeal Regulations') provides that "procedural impropriety" means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, by the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 or by these Appeal Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular (a) the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than (i) in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or (ii) at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required by the General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken; and (b) in a case where an enforcement authority is seeking to recover an unpaid charge, the purported service of a charge certificate under regulation 21 of the General Regulations before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it by those Regulations. The original Adjudicator considered the issues raised, noted that the previous decisions submitted dealt with different situations and determined that in this present matter no such procedural impropriety had occurred in this case. The original Adjudicator was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence.

6. The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law. The Court of Appeal has affirmed that the Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description.

7. The latest representations made by the applicant are essentially no more than a disagreement with the original findings of the Adjudicator and a repetition of the submissions made before. There is no reason to determine that the original Adjudicator did not consider all the evidence submitted and all matters raised in the original representations.

8. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the evidence submitted. The fact that the applicant considers that the original Adjudicator has reached the wrong decision does not constitute a ground for review under any of the criteria set out in the Appeal Regulations. Accordingly, the original decision must stand.

Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%.

This post has been edited by dadant: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 15:22

[cp8759]

I doubt you'll want to but I think you should take this further.

[dadant]

I doubt you'll want to but I think you should take this further.

I'd need to be convinced, why do you think our appeals have so far been rejected and is there any precedent in taking our reason for appeal any further i.e a lack of a specific TMO?

This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 03:08

[cp8759]

Well the allegation is that you breached the Traffic Management Order, as parking bays are controlled by TMO. Without the order, it's just a bit of white paint with no legal significance. The finding by the adjudicator that the allegation occurred is irrational because there was no evidential basis for him to find that the TMO had been breached. The next step would be a judicial review pre-action protocol letter, however this cannot be emailed you must send it in the post. If you want to give it a go let me know and I'll draft something.

[dadant]

If you want to give it a go let me know and I'll draft something.

I have until 4th September to pay the fine before I assume it will be escalated, if there are no cost implications in applying for a judicial review and you are willing to draft the protocol letter for me to send then I have nothing to lose? Please go ahead if that is the case, personal message or email me the letter so I can act immediately. Thanks.

[cp8759]

You'll need to pay the penalty regardless (there isn't time to overturn the decision before the deadline), but if the decision is overturned the council will issue a refund. Bump the thread this evening and I'll prepare a draft.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 12:15

[dadant]

You'll need to pay the penalty regardless (there isn't time to overturn the decision before the deadline), but if the decision is overturned the council will issue a refund. Bump the thread this evening and I'll prepare a draft.

Bump...apologies for lateness.

[cp8759]

You'll need to pay the penalty regardless (there isn't time to overturn the decision before the deadline), but if the decision is overturned the council will issue a refund. Bump the thread this evening and I'll prepare a draft.

Bump...apologies for lateness.

I've put this in my diary for tomorrow afternoon, unfortunately it's not a quick one.