PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CAMROSE AVE - harrow council PCN x2, 33E - bus lane
Ncookie
post Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 8 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,212



Dear All,
Fantastic forum resulting in some positive successful outcomes :-)

Sadly received two fines same places twice in a week
Letter has been sent to owner of the car (a male) but I was driving it (female)
I haven't requested others pics or any video yet
I have only received a letter each for both fines
I will try to include these and start requesting more info

I've never done this or not very clued up with appealing so pls bear with me - I may need a dummy/idiots guide

Thank you all for your generosity in time effort and general kindness
Regards Nisha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 47)
Advertisement
post Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 11:19
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,650
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 09:12) *
They could issue no earlier than 31 July which would presume service on 2 Aug, day 29 of the 28-day period beginning on 5 July which was the presumed date of service for NORs dated 3 July.

In any event, they've shot themselves in the foot. You cannot lose if you follow procedure.

Issuing a CC prematurely is NOT just procedurally improper and incompetent, it is an act which usurps to power of the adjudicator, and they don't like their powers being usurped. This arises because once a CC is issued lawfully only the courts may deal with the matter.


+1 does anyone have a link to the case that makes this point. Though as the other points re the fail to consider and the flaws in the NOR are almost complete I intend to add them. Though I intend to put this CC issue front and centre



2050339777

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 12:41


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 14:17
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,169
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 09:12) *
They could issue no earlier than 31 July which would presume service on 2 Aug, day 29 of the 28-day period beginning on 5 July which was the presumed date of service for NORs dated 3 July.

In any event, they've shot themselves in the foot. You cannot lose if you follow procedure.

Issuing a CC prematurely is NOT just procedurally improper and incompetent, it is an act which usurps to power of the adjudicator, and they don't like their powers being usurped. This arises because once a CC is issued lawfully only the courts may deal with the matter.

I'm not sure that's correct, as the adjudicator has a power to accept an out-of-time appeal, the adjudicator's power is no extinguished at the point where a CC is served.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jul 2019 - 21:11
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,650
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Have a read through fill in your details and its ready to go

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVtzcb60bKrnnWTd55


Some might say that it is a bit long winded and the first point alone is enough, but the others where ready, just needed bringing together so I have put them all in Take the views of others on board and look to send tomorrow night


--------------------
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
Ncookie
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 08:14
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 8 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,212




1/11
Appeal against the imposition of PCN number HR8 and HR9
Vehicle registration mark

Current address details

(Precious address - )

I make this appeal under schedule 1 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

the appeal is made under 6 limbs, 5 of these being by way of collateral challenge under the statutory ground at 1(4)(e) of the regulations:- That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case This being because the council fail in the duties imposed upon them by the regulations, thus rendering enforcement a nullity.


1:- That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

I made representations against this PCN on the 28th of May 2019. The council duly responded on the 3rd of July 2019 in the normal course of service this notice of rejection was received by me on the 5th of July 2019.

Regulation 4(1) of schedule 1 allows that a person having received a notice of rejection may make an appeal to a traffic adjudicator against the decision of the authority, before

(a) The end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or

(b) Such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow,

The person could of course also make payment within the time period at (a)

given the date of service of the notice of rejection an appeal must be registered with the proper officer of the tribunal by the 1st of August 2019.

Should a person fail to make an appeal or make payment by this date the regulations at 5(1) of schedule1empower the council to act as per this regulation

Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

The time period for the service of this charge certificate is set out at 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 this being

Where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires.

This being set out at 4(1) quoted above (28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice). This date as stated would be the 1st of August 2019

The council did issue a Charge certificate dated the 25th of July 2019. Service deemed to be made on the 29th of July 2019. Some 3 days before a person would be required to register an appeal or
2/11
make payment and some 3 days before the regulations allow that a charge certificate may be served.

This premature service of a charge certificate is an unlawful demand for an amount in excess of the penalty that might be due, and in making this demand the council usurp the authority of the tribunal. No appeal being allowed against a charge certificate, though the PCN is still within the appeal period

I would refer the adjudicator to the findings of then chief adjudicator Mr Martin Wood in case number 2050339777

The Appellant has produced to me a Charge Certificate that was issued to him on 10 October. At that time this appeal was pending. The Charge Certificate informs the Appellant that the penalty is now £150, threatens enforcement action through the courts if it is not paid, and states that it is now too late to challenge the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.



Issued as it was whilst the appeal was pending, this is an entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the threat of court action. For a public authority to issue such a document is utterly unacceptable. But this is not an isolated case. I am aware of other instances of this happening that have occurred over a period of time. My understanding is that such unlawful Charge Certificates are being issued because of a problem with the local authority's computer system. That may be the explanation, but it does not make it any the less unacceptable. Nor does it seem that in the meantime the local authority has put in place steps for a manual scrutiny of the documents it issues to intercept any unlawful Charge Certificates to prevent them being despatched.



That the local authority continues to issue such documents, knowing full well that it is happening and that they are unlawful, and that this has persisted for some time, appears to suggest a lack of appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness of the situation and a lack of urgency in resolving it.



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 allow this appeal.



I am drawing this decision to the attention of the local authority's Parking Manager.

I ask the adjudicator to follow the reasoning of Mr Wood and allow this appeal for the reasons stated above

---------------------------
3/11

Points 2,3 and 4 are the representations to the council

2:- That there was no contravention of a prescribed order.

I was surprised to receive this PCN, so undertook some research, and have found that the signage at the location is inadequate. The only advance warning in place is to warn of a width restriction, and then when arriving at the restriction, with no time to act to avoid the restriction you are faced with section 36 bus gate sign (953). Throughout London these signs are placed to direct buses through the center lane and a restricted width lane allows other traffic whereas this one is the opposite of the norm. One of the bus gate signs (953) is completely missing, and I was not warned of the restriction with enough time to act upon it and continued in what would in the normal course be the correct direction, following the car in front

The signage in situ fails in the duty under regulation 18 of The local authorities traffic orders (procedures) regulations 1996 and as such no contravention occurs

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

3:-That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

The PCN fails in that it conveys the wrong date by which the authority may serve a Charge certificate. It states it as 28 days beginning with date of notice; the regulations at schedule 1(5)(2)(a) require that it be served 28 days from date of service. This would be some two days later. As the service of a CC proscribes representations I am thus deprived of these two days the regulations allow me to make a decision as to my actions

I ask the adjudicator to consider the finding of adjudicator Andrew Harman in case number 2180378221

Upon the appellant appearing before me on 03-11-18 he making submissions in accordance with those set out in writing I reserved my decision to allow for full consideration of the issues raised.
Upon the appellant raising the point.
This PCN was issued on 23-08-18 and would I infer applying the normal rules of service be served on 25-08-18.
I calculate that the 28 day period from date of issue of the PCN for payment of the charge expired on 19-08-18 the council stating that a charge certificate may be served if no payment is made.
That I find effectively reduces the 28 day period from date of service of the PCN for the making of representations and I am accordingly satisfied that this PCN is not compliant with the legal requirements.
I make no finding as to any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings but enforcement may not for the reason given be pursued.

adjudicator Carl Teper in 2170469036 and adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade in 217048098A have all found that the wording of the PCN is not compliant and that a PCN cannot be upheld in this circumstance

I submit that the PCN issued in this case contains the same fault and is equally flawed as regards compliance with the regulations and should be cancelled because of this.
4/11

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

4:- That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

The authority cites a contravention of using a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only). This description setting out a prohibition.

The sign used to convey this is the sign (953) a blue circle with a white boarder and white diagram. This sign is a section 36 traffic sign and indicates a positive instruction that you must not pass the sign.

The regulations, The London local authorities and transport for London act 2003 Regulation 4(5) sets out the reasons an authority may issue a penalty charge notice.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle—

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign

Subsection 6 imposes a caveat on section 5 as follows.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where—

(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or

(b) the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).

This PCN alleges a breach of a prescribed order under 5(a) but in order that this contravention can occur a motorist must first be in breach of 5(b) failing to comply with a s36 traffic sign.

As per subsection 6 no penalty can thus be demanded for the breach of 5(a)

I found through research that there are differing views amongst adjudicators as to this regulation and its meaning.

On the 21st of March of 2017 adjudicator Hugh Cooper heard case 2170058483. He allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention should have been against the sign, not the TMO. He made the point that all other blue s36 signs have contravention descriptions that specify that the contravention is against the sign. “ Must pass to the left or right of the sign” or must proceed in the direction of the arrow on the blue sign” He making the point that the contravention description as is, does not convey what must be the only contravention for which a penalty may be demanded.

On the 16th of August 2017 adjudicator Anthony Chan heard case number 2170323030. He found
5/11
no merit in the argument that the regulation proscribes the council from demanding a penalty, his view being that the clause is in place only to prevent double jeopardy. A review was sought and granted, on the 25th of October of that year adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade conducted this review, finding that , the contravention must be against the s36 traffic sign and not the order, in order that subsection 6 is complied with.

On the 4th of July of 2018 adjudicator Michael Oliver adjudicated case 2180213276. He refused this appeal finding that the intent of the subsection 6 is to prevent double jeopardy. He quotes from TMA 2004 schedule 7 part 4

8 (1)A moving traffic contravention is—

(a) An offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) of failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign that is subject to civil enforcement (see paragraph 9), or

(b )An offence of failing to comply with a traffic order in so far as it makes provision for a requirement, restriction or prohibition that is conveyed by a traffic sign subject to civil enforcement.

(4 )If in any other case the same conduct is a moving traffic contravention under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b), a penalty charge may be imposed on either basis but not both.

His finding being that the 2003 act sought to achieve the same objective as the 2004 act. I contend that whilst this may be so, the earlier act seeks to prevent this double jeopardy in a different way.

In making this contention I look to the 1996 act allowing the civil enforcement of bus lanes. As originally drafted, the mechanism to prevent double jeopardy was by way of a statutory appeal ground that The police were also taking action. This became redundant through revision after the police power to enforce was removed. Although I venture t suggest that the police could cite a motorist for driving without due care, and a valid appeal might well succeed.

The 2004 act is simple in its drafting a PCN may be served for either or but not both contraventions. The 2003 act differs. It requires that if both a s36 sign and a TMO are breached then only the breach of the s36 sign can incur a penalty. I would suggest this being to maintain the right and proper primacy of the act of parliament that creates the RTA 1988 over the TMO, which is no more than a local bye-law.

The authority can alleviate this dichotomy relatively simply by changing the sign in place to the no motor vehicle sign (619) along with the necessary authorised exemption plates. Or as suggested by adjudicator Cooper London councils could change the contravention description to something more akin to the other blue s36 signs.

There is precedent for this. As I am sure the tribunal are aware on the implementation of TSRGD 2016 the No entry sign (616) was omitted from the s36 signs this required a change to the contravention wording to reflect that the contravention could only be against a valid TMO. That once the error was corrected then the wording may have to revert.

Draft of the London council circular

Good morning

The new updated TSRGD 2016 has thrown up an issue regarding contravention code 51 ‘Failing to comply with a no entry sign’.
6/11

The latest version includes an error where the specific no entry sign (number 616) has been excluded as a section 36 sign under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This in effect means that the contravention description in failing to comply with the sign is incorrect, as the failure to include this sign in section 36 means enforcement is only applicable for contravention of a traffic order.

For details please see Part 2 paragraph 4(5) of the LLA and TfL Act 2003 attached

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/part/2/enacted

In light of this I have amended the description in the revised contravention code list above (version 6.7.4) to the following.

51 Failing to comply with a no entry restriction

Please ensure that you amend you description to this contravention code otherwise you will potentially have enforcement issues. This error is in the public domain.

DfT have stated that they will be rectifying the issue in due course, but this may take a couple of months. As soon as we have been made aware of the amendment then we can review the code again (if required) accordingly.



I ask the adjudicator to follow the findings of Hugh Cooper in 2170058483 and Henry Michael Greenslade in the review of case 2170323030


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

Points 5 and 6 relate to failings within the Notice of rejection

5:-That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case


schedule 1(7) requires that It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph

a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

That the council served a notice of rejection is self evident. On reading this notice it is also evident that whilst the representations made 3 points the council gave consideration to only the first one of these points.

In order to inform a person of the reasons that a representation is not accepted the council are required to consider all points, failing this a person would not be able to make an informed decision as to making payment of appealing. This is particularly important in a case such as this where the council re offer the opportunity to pay the discounted rate
7/11

Once again I would look for support in this contention via the findings of adjudicator Ian Brownhill in case number 2180035473

This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Appellant relies on four grounds to make his appeal:
The contravention did not occur.
The box junction in question is non-compliant.
The Local Authority misled knowingly or unknowingly the Appellant during the enforcement process.
The Local Authority acted unfairly.
I shall take each in turn:
Ground one:
The Appellant submits in the first instance that when he entered the yellow box he had a clear exit route. However, he was not able to use the second lane because of a cyclist approaching from the rear. In particular, he seeks to apply the decision in Varsani v Barnet 2160310225. Of course, I am not bound by the decision in that case but am mindful of the principles contained therein.
I have viewed the CCTV footage in the present case. I agree that there were two lanes after the junction (illustrated by the Royal Mail van). I am also clear that there was a cyclist coming from the rear. My difficulty in the present case is that, I am not clear that is why the Appellant did not use the left lane. I have not heard the Appellant in person and therefore am not convinced of this. Likewise, I am not assisted by the small image I have of the CCTV. Indeed, on first glance I was not sure that the Appellant had actually stopped at all. However, on reviewing the CCTV with the photographs I am satisfied he did indeed stop in the yellow box junction, likewise, I am satisfied that when he entered the yellow box junction his exit was not clear and he stopped due to stationery traffic. The Appellant’s road positioning precludes any sustainable argument that he was going to drive into the left lane and was prevented by the cyclist. Indeed, this argument is undermined by his initial correspondence with the Respondent where he described using the other lane as a, ‘technical’ possibility.
Ground two:
The Appellant submits that the road markings are not compliant with the statutory framework, in particular he states ‘the requirements as set out in Schedule 9 part 7(11)(6)’, although he does not say what of. The simpler way of putting the point, is that the markings have been extended well beyond the boundaries of the junction and therefore a driver may be misled as to the extent of the junction.
Considering the photographs which the Appellant has provided, this point is much more persuasive than the previous ground. The Respondent says that the requirements as to yellow box junctions have been relaxed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, although, again, they do not specify which part thereof.
I am not clear (as the Respondent suggests) that the Appellant was making reference to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, in particular regulation 7 of schedule 19. If he was, then he must understand that this was repealed on 22 April 2016.
However, I have spent some time looking at the various legislation involved and did refer again to the Traffic Signs Manual and to the sign table in schedule 9 part 6 of the updated regulations. In particular referring to diagram 1043.
After spending a great deal of time looking at the legal detail, I do take the point made by the
8/11
Appellant as to whether or not the junction is truly complaint. As too, do I take the point that it is certainly of an unusual length.
Yet, even if it is incorrect in some respect (and I am not certain it is), the true question for me is whether it is substantially compliant or misleading. I think I must conclude it is substantially compliant as one could see the markings clearly and it is in place in a junction. Likewise, I do not believe that a motorist would be misled.
Ground three:
This is the Appellant’s most unattractive submission. The argument appears to be that the date provided for when the appeal ought to be lodged was not correctly stated. Even if that is so, then I cannot see any prejudice to the Appellant whatsoever.
Ground four:
This is in fact the Appellant’s most attractive submission. I agree that paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires the Respondent to properly consider representations made by the Appellant. I agree that the notice of rejection dated 9 January 2018 appears generic and not case specific at all. Even if I disagree with the Appellant’s point about the cyclist, the Respondent was duty bound to consider it and reply thereto.
They did not do so. They were duty bound to do so.
The contravention did occur, but I agree that the appeal ought to be allowed on the basis of procedural impropriety.

I submit that the finding of Mr Brownhill that the council failed in its duty to consider representations is the correct one and invite the adjudicator in this case to follow this finding
6:- That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

Finally the notice of rejection defines service as (delivered) This is prejudicial as there is no clarity as to when the date of service is

Once again I rely on a previous finding of an adjudicator in this case Mr Jack Walsh in case number
218033612A

I have edited the decision as it is lengthy but quote the relevant parts below. It should be noted that this was a case heard under the parking regulations, but the 2003 regs require the same details as those considered by Mr Walsh

I turn then to consider the alleged procedural impropriety. The powers of the adjudicator to direct that the PCN and/or Notice to Owner are cancelled are limited to those contained in Regulation 7(2) of the 2007 Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (“the Representations and Appeals Regulations”). If I refer to a Regulation hereafter it can be assumed I am referring to those Regulations unless the contrary is stated. Regulation 7(2) limits the adjudicator’s powers to the grounds upon which an EA may uphold representations against a Notice to Owner pursuant to Regulation 4(4).
A procedural impropriety is defined in Regulation 4(5), as far as is relevant, as:
“… a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 [Traffic Management] Act, by the General Regulations or by these 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
9/11
(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…”
Regulation 6 reads as follows:
“6. Rejection of representations against notice to owner
(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an adjudicator's power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.
(2) A notice of rejection served in accordance with paragraph (1) may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.”
Regulation 7 reads, as far as is relevant, as follows:
“7. Appeals to an adjudicator in relation to decisions under regulation 5
(1) Where an authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b) in relation to representations made under regulation 4, the person who made those representations may appeal to an adjudicator against the authority's decision
(a) before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection; or
(b) within such longer period as an adjudicator may allow…”
The Notice of Rejection in this case, dated 13 August 2018, reads, as far as is relevant for this appeal, and with my underlining, as follows:
“Therefore, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date that this letter was served (the date it was delivered), you must either pay the penalty charge amount as stated above or appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators.
[details of how to appeal are provided]
If you do not pay or appeal before the end of the 28 day period, the penalty charge may increase by 50% to £120.00 and we may serve a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At that stage, you may have missed the opportunity to appeal. If the increased charge is not then paid within a further 14 days, we may apply to the county court to recover the charge as if it were a debt payable under a county court order…”
Mrs Sinclair’s case is that the Notice to Owner in her case was deficient in two respects.
First, she says, the reference to delivery above is incorrect because the concept of delivery is distinct from the concept of service. It is the date of service that is relevant for the purposes of Regulation 7(1)(a) and, hence, 6(1)(a). She relies on the decision of an adjudicator in a different tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, on the significance of a similarly-worded provision in a local authority’s Notice to Owner, issued pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (“the General Regulations”). Unfortunately, Mrs Sinclair has erased the name of the appellant in that case (the details of, including the identity
10/11
of parties to, traffic tribunals are matters of public record) but the respondent was the Kent County Council, the case was decided on 17 August 2010 and the case reference is KP05045K. The adjudicator in that case held that the Notice to Owner was defective in part because the use of the word ‘delivered’ was inconsistent with the provisions as to the deeming of ‘service’ in Article 3 of the General Regulations. Strictly, the decision in that case could be distinguished because a Notice of Rejection is, unlike a Notice to Owner, not a notice that is served under the General Regulations. Regulation 3 of the General Regulations does not, therefore apply. Nor does the similarly worded provision as to service in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Representations and Appeals Regulations apply, because, at the point the Notice of Rejection is sent, there are no adjudication proceedings and no parties to an appeal. There do not seem to be any provisions within the two sets of Regulations specifying when such a notice is deemed served. It seems to me, therefore, that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies. The general point made in the Kent County Council case does, however, remain. The recipient of a Notice of Rejection must be able to work out precisely when payment must be made or an appeal made, by reference to the concept of ‘service’ and when service is deemed to have been effected. The use of the term ‘delivered’, even if intended to be helpful, muddles the issue and is inconsistent with the strict requirements of Regulation 6(1)(a).
The second alleged deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation 7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period, in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude, however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my view, an important component of the appellate process and a power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21 June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr. Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit. He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance with Regulation 6(1)©. For the reasons I have given I agree with that decision which I consider highly persuasive.
In the above two respects the mandatory requirements of Regulation 6(1) have not been complied with in this case. The departures from the regulatory scheme are not so trivial that the Notice of Rejection can nonetheless be deemed effectively, or substantially, compliant with the statutory scheme. I find that there has been a failure by the EA to observe a requirement of the Regulations made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and, thus, a procedural impropriety within the meaning of regulation 4(5).
The appeal is allowed on that basis.

The two points found upon being that the Term (delivered) confuses the legally defined date of service. And that the adjudicators power to extend the appeal period need be stated

I thank the adjudicator for their time in considering this lengthy appeal and ask that for any one or all of the points made the appeal should be allowed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 13:18
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,650
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Ncookie

Re your PM this is an appeal to the adjudicators at London tribunals NOT the council use the portal here create a new appeal any issues ask

https://londontribunals.org.uk/


convert my link to PDF and attach you want to keep the formatting and also attach copies of the charge certificates

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 13:39


--------------------
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
Ncookie
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 14:44
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 8 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,212



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 14:18) *
Ncookie

Re your PM this is an appeal to the adjudicators at London tribunals NOT the council use the portal here create a new appeal any issues ask

https://londontribunals.org.uk/


convert my link to PDF and attach you want to keep the formatting and also attach copies of the charge certificates


I've got myself on that website now is the appeal a bus lane contravention or perhaps moving traffic contravention?
I will attach your link as PDF with pcn letters
Do I need to include the recent charge of certificates (which were issued before I got the chance to appeal!)
Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 15:04
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,650
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ncookie @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 15:44) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 14:18) *
Ncookie

Re your PM this is an appeal to the adjudicators at London tribunals NOT the council use the portal here create a new appeal any issues ask

https://londontribunals.org.uk/


convert my link to PDF and attach you want to keep the formatting and also attach copies of the charge certificates


I've got myself on that website now is the appeal a bus lane contravention or perhaps moving traffic contravention?
I will attach your link as PDF with pcn letters
Do I need to include the recent charge of certificates (which were issued before I got the chance to appeal!)
Regards


Yes it is moving traffic. and yes also attach the charge certificates. When you have finished make sure you get confirmation if not phone and check


--------------------
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
Ncookie
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:34
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 8 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,212



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 16:04) *
QUOTE (Ncookie @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 15:44) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 14:18) *
Ncookie

Re your PM this is an appeal to the adjudicators at London tribunals NOT the council use the portal here create a new appeal any issues ask

https://londontribunals.org.uk/


convert my link to PDF and attach you want to keep the formatting and also attach copies of the charge certificates


I've got myself on that website now is the appeal a bus lane contravention or perhaps moving traffic contravention?
I will attach your link as PDF with pcn letters
Do I need to include the recent charge of certificates (which were issued before I got the chance to appeal!)
Regards


Yes it is moving traffic. and yes also attach the charge certificates. When you have finished make sure you get confirmation if not phone and check


Email received today stating the below -

"The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.

The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.

If you have appealed against any other Penalty Charge Notice(s) not listed above, then your appeal against those Penalty Charge Notices will proceed, as previously notified.

Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any queries about this.
Case Management Team "

Kind regards



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Tuesday, 17th September 2019 - 17:21
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.