Council PCN - Isle Of Dogs again |
Council PCN - Isle Of Dogs again |
Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 14:55
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
Hi again Gentlemen,
I have a new gift from my local council Prior to this I have done an informal challenge indicating that contravention did not occur, but maybe some rules have changed since my last ticket for the same contravention was ruled in my favour at the tribunal. Best regards -------------------- |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 14:55
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 11:01
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
So in my previous appeal I have attended the hearing not she - the registered keeper and no one has noticed that including the adjudicator (and the appeal was allowed)?
-------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 11:38
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
So in my previous appeal I have attended the hearing not she - the registered keeper and no one has noticed that including the adjudicator (and the appeal was allowed)? They could also have asked what authority you had to act on behalf of the keeper and been bl00dy minded about it. Send the letter CP suggested. |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 13:34
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
So in my previous appeal I have attended the hearing not she - the registered keeper and no one has noticed that including the adjudicator (and the appeal was allowed)? They could also have asked what authority you had to act on behalf of the keeper and been bl00dy minded about it. Send the letter CP suggested. I understand but I don't remember them asking me this. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 13:48
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I understand but I don't remember them asking me this. Right, so in the previous case there was an oversight and nobody noticed. But because you're now looking to challenge the tribunal's decision at the High Court (and the tribunal is in the somewhat embarrassing position of having no substantive defence), you're not going to get away with procedural irregularities like this. She (not you) must now send the letter as I suggested, for the sake of speed I suggest it is printed, signed, scanned and sent by email, with the paper copy to follow in the post. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 13:50 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 17:05
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
I understand but I don't remember them asking me this. Right, so in the previous case there was an oversight and nobody noticed. But because you're now looking to challenge the tribunal's decision at the High Court (and the tribunal is in the somewhat embarrassing position of having no substantive defence), you're not going to get away with procedural irregularities like this. She (not you) must now send the letter as I suggested, for the sake of speed I suggest it is printed, signed, scanned and sent by email, with the paper copy to follow in the post. What if in the meantime the RK has changed, I am the RK and I am not sure if she is available and wishes to get involved in something that relates to past circumstances. She was not driving at the time and is not taking the responsibility. The problem is this whole procedure goes onto the RK regardless. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 17:32
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
I understand but I don't remember them asking me this. Right, so in the previous case there was an oversight and nobody noticed. But because you're now looking to challenge the tribunal's decision at the High Court (and the tribunal is in the somewhat embarrassing position of having no substantive defence), you're not going to get away with procedural irregularities like this. She (not you) must now send the letter as I suggested, for the sake of speed I suggest it is printed, signed, scanned and sent by email, with the paper copy to follow in the post. But what if RK has changed in the meantime? I am the new RK. Does it mean I cannot seek justice because only RK at the time can pursue this? This is over 8 months now since the ticket was put on the car and first 4 months was a waste of time ping ponging with the council. They want to wear people off and this is done by way this procedure is designed. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 17:46
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I understand but I don't remember them asking me this. Right, so in the previous case there was an oversight and nobody noticed. But because you're now looking to challenge the tribunal's decision at the High Court (and the tribunal is in the somewhat embarrassing position of having no substantive defence), you're not going to get away with procedural irregularities like this. She (not you) must now send the letter as I suggested, for the sake of speed I suggest it is printed, signed, scanned and sent by email, with the paper copy to follow in the post. But what if RK has changed in the meantime? I am the new RK. Does it mean I cannot seek justice because only RK at the time can pursue this? It's the RK at the time who counts (otherwise when you buy a car, you'd inherit any outstanding PCNs from the previous owner). You cannot seek anything because the Notice to Owner wasn't addressed to you and you were not liable to pay the penalty (if you paid the penalty, you've effectively made a gift to the RK by paying the penalty for her). So the key issue is, is the RK willing to cooperate or not? If she's not interested, frankly there's nothing you can do (though if you coughed up the money, it would seem a bit mean-spirited to tell you she doesn't want to know). This is over 8 months now since the ticket was put on the car and first 4 months was a waste of time ping ponging with the council. They want to wear people off and this is done by way this procedure is designed. Not really, the procedure for a judicial review is nothing to do with the council. So, is the RK going to send this letter or not? I would point out that you've got this far, it would seem a waste to give up now. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:38
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
Hi again cp8759
The letter has been sent to them yesterday. It has been sent via email as well, but they do bounce back that they do not accept attachments this way. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:41
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Hi again cp8759 The letter has been sent to them yesterday. It has been sent via email as well, but they do bounce back that they do not accept attachments this way. I would get the RK to send them contents of the letter by email (from her email address), confirming the signed copy is in the post. If you don't hear anything back by 24 June I would issue the claim. This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:42 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 22:06
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 5 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,055 |
We got 2 letters in PDF sent via email from the tribunal:
QUOTE Further to your pre-action letter, received at the tribunal on 28 th May 2019 and your letter of authority dated 2 nd June, the adjudicator Mr Stanton-Dunne has directed as follows: "The decision entered in this appeal incorrectly refers to the registered keeper of the vehicle as Mr Y. Mr Y is the authorised representative of Ms X who is the registered keeper. The decision is amended to reflect this error. Mr Y has also raised a point of law concerning the statement in my decision that: "In any event, the purpose for which the footway is dropped is not relevant". I believe it is clear that this statement is made in the context of the nature of the vehicular access for which the footway was dropped, there being an issue in relation to this. For the sake of clarity, however, the word "purpose" is amended to "access." QUOTE Adjudicator's Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. The alleged contravention occurred in Strafford Street at 8.36am on 30 September 2018. I have looked at the CEO's photographs and they show that Ms Kardela’s car was parked next to a dropped footway which gave access for fire emergency purposes. Mr Michael Kardell, on behalf of Ms Kardela, says that the dropped footway gave access only for refuse collection but the images show the fire access signs. In any event, the access for which the footway is dropped is not relevant. There is no exemption allowing a vehicle to be parked next to a dropped footway where the purpose of the dropped footway is only to provide access for refuse collection. Sean Stanton-Dunne Adjudicator 14th March 2019 -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 23:44
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I normally have a lot of respect for adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne but in this instance, the words clutching at straws come to mind. It's obvious they've not given any proper consideration to the points of law raised.
Of course there is no exemption allowing a vehicle parked next to a dropped footway where the purpose of the dropped footway is only to provide access for refuse collection, that is because there is no contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped footway where the purpose of the dropped footway is only to provide access for refuse collection, and if there's no contravention there's no need for an exemption. At this point, I take the view that the registered keeper should apply to the High Court for permission to to bring a judicial review claim. The court fee is £154 but you'll get this back if you win or the tribunal backs down, which IMO are the only likely outcomes. I'm more than happy to help draft the court documents. Obviously while I would take this all the way, it's the registered keeper who must decide whether to issue the claim. -------------------- 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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:45 |