PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

File of cases to assist arguments, listed under various headings
Hippocrates
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I am offering this list of cases to help people find cases quickly in order to support their arguments. It also saves me time in cross-referring to my other browser!

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Please feel free to add. If you do so, please indicate at the start of your post the type of case your chosen decision(s) e.g. legitimate expectation.

Charge Certificate: premature issue

2130230240 and 2050339777. 213021691A. 213040742A 2140034850 2130622819 2140065151
2130296792, 2140068375.

Evidence not served in time

2110144328, 2130131442, 2120451094, 2130259672.


Will/may cases

2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316, 2130516990, 2140068320, 2140026692, 2140006797, 2140046893, 2110029250

Legitimate expectation

2120130716, 2120134353 , 2110055104,. 2130190430, 2120088937, 2130288681, 213031735A

Mandatory info missing from Reg. 10 PCN

The PCN does not contain mandatory information re viewing the evidence. Case Nos.: 2120293222, 2130089798, 2130149029, 2130034162, 2130397290, 2130011644, 2130430807, 2140026692, 2140006797, 2140068320. 213009616A, 2120473279

Regulation 3(4) opening statement and 3(5) and (6) in their entirety. The adjudicator in the first case cites the legislation in her decision.

Representations treated as requests

2120488345, 2100587978, 2120408958, 2110494261.

Multiple choice decision: Code 12

2120562288

Failure to consider

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...ly%2520case.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...0discretion.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

Fettered discretion: I am unable to cancel

2130316200, 2130521902, 2130497615.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 12 May 2014 - 20:47


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20  
Start new topic
Replies (380 - 383)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Schofeldt
post Wed, 29 Nov 2023 - 16:13
Post #381


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 14 Apr 2022
Member No.: 116,298



Costs v Havering:

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=13xqeZ23037N...-7z-F3YN6utZc63

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...iew=getlastpost

This post has been edited by Schofeldt: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 - 16:14


--------------------
People, we come and go Memories, they ebb and flow. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

People, we can be kind True love is hard to find. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

Animals, we kill to eat For many, it’s just a treat. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance. As this is the Dance of Life.

Our Earth is our Heavenly home God-given to freely roam. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance As this is the Dance of Life.

One day, we will all be judged This simple truth cannot be fudged. When we carry on so blindly We do not act all so kindly. As this is the Dance of Life.

As Above, and so Below A simple truth to help us grow. When we put aside our egotism We will really find altruism. As this is the Dance of Life.

The Divine lives in all things Manifested in music’s rings. The planets are a testament To the everlasting firmament. As this is the Dance of Life.


It's all in the wrist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 19 Dec 2023 - 14:00
Post #382


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,260
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



QUOTE (astralite @ Mon, 26 Jun 2023 - 08:23) *
Red Route parking bays.


www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf

London Tribunals panel decision that the regulations do not allow TfL to enforce contraventions of red route parking bays by sending a PCN based on a record produced by an approved device/CCTV. Such contraventions can only be enforced ‘on the ground’ by CEO’s. If the CEO is unable to effect service of the PCN, for example the motorist drives away, the PCN may be sent by post.


At Judicial Review the High Court decided the Panel decision was wrong and that TfL can serve PCNs by post based on a record produced by an approved device/CCTV.
See London Tribunal Key Cases
R(Transport for London) v Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
17 November 2023
Case no:2023 EWHC 2889 (Admin)
Subject:Power to Review; Red Route Bays

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...%28Admin%29.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Schofeldt
post Sun, 21 Jan 2024 - 12:46
Post #383


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 14 Apr 2022
Member No.: 116,298



Greenwich TMO bolleaux:

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2230408907
Appellant Wale Omiyale
Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM YP18KEK
PCN Details
PCN GR12156705
Contravention date 13 Mar 2023
Contravention time 15:36:00
Contravention location Kemsing Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked for longer than permitted
Referral date
Decision Date 18 Jan 2024
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
The effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 is that, other than in the following two sets of circumstances, a PCN can only be issued in respect of a contravention relating to a parking place where that contravention is of a traffic management order (TMO). The first set of circumstances is that the vehicle has been left beyond the period of parking that has been paid for. Those circumstances do not apply here because no period of parking was paid for. The second set of circumstances arise when a parking charge is payable and yet no parking charge has been paid. It is hard to imagine a parking charge being payable other than as required by a TMO but, in any event, those circumstances also do not arise because it is not suggested that any parking charge was payable in respect of the parking place in which the vehicle was parked. The sign adjacent to the parking place would suggest that, during the hours stated, the parking place was designated for holders of 'W' zone permits or, alternatively, vehicles may park there (without charge or a permit) for up to two hours provided the vehicle, once it has left, does not return within 3 hours.

The sign in question is not a sign specified by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and so a motorist cannot park in contravention of the sign, as such. Rather, for a PCN to be payable under the 2004 Act, the enforcement authority (EA) must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms of a TMO.

The TMO that has been provided in this case is one of the lengthiest and most convoluted TMOs I have ever seen. It is virtually impossible to comprehend and amounts, in effect, to a mass of logical conundrums or puzzles. Perhaps mercifully, only 41 of its 86 pages have been provided. I note that the EA has adopted the practice, instead of stating the locations that are subject to the terms of the TMO on a schedule containing identifiable streets and stretches or streets, of using 'map tiles' and 'map based schedules'. This practice can make it very difficult to identify precisely the restrictions that apply to a particular location, and is prone to error as I observed in Aggarwal v. LB Tower Hamlets (2220558051). Indeed the 'designation of parking places' in this TMO, by virtue of Articles 4(1) and 5 and the definition of "map based schedule" in Article 3(1) is highly unsatisfactory and, ultimately, virtually incomprehensible.

I have concluded that the TMO that has been provided is probably the incorrect TMO for the parking place in question and that that it is a different TMO that applies to it. In any event, the EA has failed to identify, let alone prove, which of the provisions of the TMO that it has provided has been breached.

I conclude that the TMO is probably the wrong TMO for two reasons. First, the 'map tile', AX25, which is within Schedule 2 to the TMO, seems to suggest that the parking places which it designates are within 'Zone CT'. I conclude that on the basis of the text box that is very unhelpfully placed on the 'map tile' above 203-207 Woolwich Road. That text would appear (although it is far from clear) to all the parking places within the map shown on the document, which might possibly include number 26 Kemsing Road, where the vehicle was parked. However, the sign that is near that address instead refers to 'W' permit holders. There is no reference to 'W' permit holders on 'map tile' AX25. Most significantly, the TMO defines 'parking places' in Article 3(1) in a limited way and confines the definition to metered parking places, a pay and display parking place, a shared use parking place,a permit holder parking place, a doctor parking place or a car club parking place. The only types of parking place that might possibly apply, based on the restrictions indicted on the sign, are a 'permit holder parking place' and a 'shared use parking place'. Whether the place is a 'permit holder parking place' in turn depends on whether it is in a certain 'controlled parking zone'. The 'controlled parking zones' are specified in Schedule 3 to the TMO, which has not been provided. I observe that the restrictions that would appear to apply to 'Charlton C' and 'East Greenwich EG' controlled parking zones match those that appear on the sign, but there is no evidence that the location in question is within either of those zones and, indeed, the sign refers not to 'C' or 'EG' zones but to 'W'. A shared use parking place refers again to the (undefined) controlled parking zones and to parking places in respect of which payment must be made, so I am unable to find that the location is a 'shared use' parking place for the same reason that I am unable to find that the location is a 'permit holder parking place' that is subject to restrictions imposed by the TMO.

The PCN was issued for 'parking for longer than permitted'. It is incumbent on an EA when seeking to prove a contravention of a TMO to identify the restrictions or prohibitions applying, by virtue of the TMO, to the location in which the vehicle was parked. The EA has failed to do that in this case. In particular, it has failed to prove that a TMO has created a restriction in the particular parking place in which the appellant's vehicle was parked to the effect that it may only park for a specified period of time.

In any event, this TMO either needs very substantial amendment so as to make it comprensible to a lawyer, let alone a member of the public OR the case summary must guide the reader expressly through the terms of the TMO that are said to have been breached and why.


--------------------
People, we come and go Memories, they ebb and flow. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

People, we can be kind True love is hard to find. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

Animals, we kill to eat For many, it’s just a treat. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance. As this is the Dance of Life.

Our Earth is our Heavenly home God-given to freely roam. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance As this is the Dance of Life.

One day, we will all be judged This simple truth cannot be fudged. When we carry on so blindly We do not act all so kindly. As this is the Dance of Life.

As Above, and so Below A simple truth to help us grow. When we put aside our egotism We will really find altruism. As this is the Dance of Life.

The Divine lives in all things Manifested in music’s rings. The planets are a testament To the everlasting firmament. As this is the Dance of Life.


It's all in the wrist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Schofeldt
post Sun, 21 Jan 2024 - 13:28
Post #384


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 14 Apr 2022
Member No.: 116,298



Service to the wrong address and collateral challenge in terms of procedural impropriety, courtesy of cp 8759:



ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph
21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as
applicable
Case Details
Case
reference
2190347315
Appellant Natalia Skorosz
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM GV03OCY
PCN Details
PCN BU90539622
Contravention
date
21 Jun 2019
Contravention
time
12:51:00
Contravention
location
Ripple Road
Penalty
amount
GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date
Decision Date 12 Oct 2019
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal
decision
Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Miss Skorosz appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged moving traffic contravention.
There is no dispute that the alleged contravention occurred. Indeed, Miss Skorosz does not dispute liability. In her
ground of appeal Miss Skorosz complained that she was unable to take up the enforcement authority (EA)’s offer,
made in its Notice of Rejection, to accept the reduced penalty amount, notwithstanding its rejection of her
representations, because the EA sent it to an old address.
WHETHER TO ADJOURN FURTHER
I have adjourned this case twice to allow the EA to consider its position. In the first adjournment notice I wrote:
“It is clear from the Notice of Rejection that the enforcement authority intended to extend, in an exercise of discretion,
the period during which the reduced amount was payable. Whereas the PCN itself was sent to the appellant's old
address, in her representations the appellant clearly provided her updated address to the EA. The Notice of rejection
was then, inexplicably, sent to the old address. For that reason the EA was unable to give effect to its intention that
the reduced amount was still acceptable because the appellant did not receive the NoR until well after the period
had elapsed.”
There was no response to that adjournment notice and I adjourned again, this time suggesting that I might require
the attendance of the EA’s appeals officer. I further stated:
“I am keen to understand the statutory basis for the EA's apparent policy of not sending notices of rejection to
updated addresses in the absence of evidence of the address change from the DVLA.”
There has, again, been no response from the EA. There is no reason to think it did not receive the adjournment
notices.
The adjudicator’s power under paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003 and Regulation 19 of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and
Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 to require the attendance of witnesses is akin to the power to summons a
witness to Court. It is designed to procure the attendance of witnesses and/or the provision of documents in their
control. In reality, the EA’s appeals officer is not a witness. I am not sure that the power to require the attendance of
witnesses extends to the power to require the attendance of officers of the EA so that they can explain the decisions
of the EA. Further, I am not satisfied it would be proportionate to adjourn the case again. I propose to deal with it
today. The EA has had ample opportunity to set out its position; I have invited its representations on the point.
Paragraph 5 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 reads, as far as is relevant:
“(2) The adjudicator may invite a party to deliver to the proper officer representations dealing with any matter relating
to an appeal within such time and in such a manner as may be specified.
(3) Where a party fails to respond to an invitation under paragraph (2), the adjudicator may (without prejudice to any
other powers he may have) draw such inferences as appear to him proper.”
It is a proper inference to draw – and I do draw the inference – that the EA does not have an adequate explanation
that will withhold scrutiny for its decision (apparently based on a policy) not to send formal notices to addresses
provided by recipients of PCNs in the absence of documentary evidence from the DVLA to corroborate the change
of address.
THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Sections 2(2) and (3) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 reads:
“(2) Subject to paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 1 to this Act [not relevant], the owner of a vehicle for the purposes of this
Act, shall be taken to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept.
(3) Subject to the said paragraph 1(8), in determining, for the purposes of this Act, who was the owner of a vehicle at
any time, it shall be presumed that the owner was the person in whose name the vehicle was at that time registered
under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).”
Section 4 reads (as far as is relevant):
“(2) … the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice
(a)in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be
the owner of the vehicle; …”
Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 specifies:
“(7) 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.”
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act provides:
“9 Service by post
Any charge certificate, or notice under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act or this
Schedule–
(a) may be served by post;”
THE CHRONOLOGY
Miss Skorosz accepts she received the PCN albeit she had missed the 14 day period for payment of the reduced
amount. That was in part because it had been sent to her at her old address, which was the address at which the
vehicle was registered in her name.
Miss Skorosz made representations against the PCN in accordance with Section 4(8)(a)(vii) and (b) of, and
paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. She did so at
11.00.35 on 21 July 2019. These were received because the EA exhibited the e-mail in its evidential bundle for this
hearing. The representations said:
“The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
To whom it may concern,
I agree that the contravention occurred and I have no problem with paying it, however I am new to the borough and
the notification of penalty charge has arrived to my old address 74 Mintern Close N13 5SY ,when I have been living
under new address Flat 19 Brook Court ,510 Ripple Road IG11 9JU for a week.
Also I have been on holidays during the 2 week period and I have missed the deadline for the penalty to be reduced
by 50% to £65.
Therefore for those reasons I appeal for the fine to be lowered to £65.”
The EA replied to the above representations the following day. In its letter it said:
“As a goodwill gesture, we are willing to reoffer this £65.00 discount until the end of the period of 14 days beginning
with the date of service of this letter. If payment is not received within this period then the full amount of £130.00 will
be due.”
This gesture is to be commended. Inexplicably, however, the EA did not send the Notice of Rejection to the address
it had been provided the day before, but to the address it had been told was an old address.
Miss Skorosz received the Notice of Rejection but, again, missed the 14 day period because it had gone to the
wrong address.
THE EA’S POSITION
In its case summary the EA says:
“The Enforcement Authority finds that DVLA have provided the appellants details as being the DVLA registered
keepers address. The Enforcement Authority finds the appellant has not provided any documentary evidence to
support their claim, therefore the address could not be changed. The Enforcement Authority also finds that the
discount was offered when the Rejection letter was served to the appellant.”
As I have indicated, I invited the EA to provide a justification for its stance that it will not recognise a change of
address without corroboration from the DVLA. It has not done so and I have drawn the inference to which I have
referred.
THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION TO SEND THE NOR TO THE WRONG ADDRESS
Miss Skorosz can have no complaints that the PCN was sent to her old address. The EA complied with the statutory
scheme in that respect because the person appearing to be the owner was the person the DVLA informed the EA.
The DVLA also informed the EA of the address of the appellant, as it understood it to be. The best evidence the EA
had of the appellant’s address at that point was that provided by the DVLA.
Thereafter, the EA received from the vehicle’s registered keeper and owner yet better evidence of her address. She
told the EA directly what her address was.
Sub-paragraph (7)(b) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act requires the notice to be served on the ‘the
person’ who made the representations. In this case it was the vehicle’s owner. Nowhere in the statute is the EA
required or indeed permitted to send an NOR to an address provided by the DVLA. The address of ‘the person’ had
been provided by ‘the person’. The EA appears to have decided, without justification, to ignore it. The 2003 Act
envisages that notices are sent to ‘the person’ at the best known address for 'the person'.
In the event, the decision to send the NOR to the wrong address did not prevent it ultimately being received and,
thus, formally served. That is because the appellant obtained it from the new residents of her old address. But that
was despite, and not because, of the decision of the EA to send it to the wrong address. It had no reason to believe
that Miss Skorosz would ultimately receive the NOR, although in the event she did. The almost inevitable
consequence was that the 14 day period had lapsed.
I take the view the EA’s failure to serve an NOR to what it knew to be the appellant’s address and, conversely, to
send it to what it knew to be an old address, amounts to a procedural impropriety, within the meaning of Council of
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374. It was quite deliberate, unjustified, and could
well have precluded effective service of the NOR altogether.
An allegation of a procedural impropriety is, in effect, a collateral challenge to the enforceability of the penalty, i.e. a
challenge that does not fall within the parameters of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act. The decision of
Mr. Gary Hickinbottom (as he was then) in Davis v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (case 1970198981)
at page 51, is authority that an adjudicator does have a residual power to allow an appeal on the basis of a collateral
challenge. In terms of expressing the reason for allowing any appeal, that must be done in the terms of paragraph
1(4). The best way of expressing the position in those terms is to say, if the collateral challenge is made out, that the
penalty exceeds the amount applicable. That is because, in effect, the adjudicator has found that the EA, by virtue of
the procedural impropriety, is not entitled to collect the penalty at all.
I do find that the procedural impropriety in this case, as described above, renders the penalty unenforceable. That is
to say, the recoverable amount in respect of that PCN is nil. The appeal is allowed.

This post has been edited by Schofeldt: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 - 13:30


--------------------
People, we come and go Memories, they ebb and flow. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

People, we can be kind True love is hard to find. When we fill our lives with emptiness This does not create true happiness. As this is the Dance of Life.

Animals, we kill to eat For many, it’s just a treat. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance. As this is the Dance of Life.

Our Earth is our Heavenly home God-given to freely roam. When we fill our lives with arrogance We create a huge imbalance As this is the Dance of Life.

One day, we will all be judged This simple truth cannot be fudged. When we carry on so blindly We do not act all so kindly. As this is the Dance of Life.

As Above, and so Below A simple truth to help us grow. When we put aside our egotism We will really find altruism. As this is the Dance of Life.

The Divine lives in all things Manifested in music’s rings. The planets are a testament To the everlasting firmament. As this is the Dance of Life.


It's all in the wrist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:45
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here