PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Appealing a ruling by London Tribunals (Moving vehicle contravention), I promise, this one is different.
SDWA
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:32
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,387



angry.gif

I promise, this one is a bit different. It isn't what you probably think.
It refers only to a Council Decriminalised Notice and its hearing, so this forum may be the right place, else I think it might be your Flame Pit (if so, please move it there, thank you).

More than a year ago, my partner opened my post and informed me I'd got a Penalty Notice for an Offence (moving vehicle contravention, actually).

I knew immediately what it was about, because the event had happened just a couple of days earlier, and I'd wondered if I'd get one but thought no, the enforcing authority, a council, simply could not possibly be that negligent or silly to raise it; it was clear what had happened on that day.

But they were that negligent or silly.

I knew I was not guilty of the contravention and the video should prove it.

So I requested footage, and an inadequate / deficient video was supplied. IMO it had been deliberately cut (so had it started say 30-45 seconds earlier, all would have been clear, and in fact I'd have been complimented for being so diligent and law-abiding) and just maybe had even been cropped (a little more angle of view would have removed any doubts, but probably the L.A. had no control over that).

I protested about the video to the Council, among London's greediest for this type of contravention - but they insisted that footage is all they could get. That's ridiculous re the cut part from just earlier, as their video recording is continuous.

They then turned down both the informal and formal appeals citing nonsense which showed they hadn't read or understood the appeal; to me, it appeared they had blind/thick/greedy/lazy people deciding.

So I appealed to the tribunal, re-stating my case and by the way repeating my request for at least the earlier footage, and suggesting if the council wouldn't provide it a reason would be inferred. Though they had every opportunity - I asked yet again with a week to go, thinking that if they looked at the footage they'd understand their error and drop the case in advance, but the Council did not do provide this.

I'd never been to or appealed to the tribunal or PATAS before.

I got there early, with no idea which adjudicator I'd get - or who they were. I spoke to other waiting victims, including one who worked for a large distribution chain and who mentioned pepipoo,who said he was there every month if not more often, with a batch. I got the impression I'd had very bad luck, because several said "my" adjudicator was the most biased, unfair and often downright rude of them all.

"My" adjudicator sure lived up to all of that. He didn't act like a judge at all, but as a prosecutor and agent for the (absent, as always?) L.A.

He started off sweetly asking me to talk about myself. I did so, truthfully and matter of fact, while correctly suspecting his motive, which was to then say something very close to "See, you are obviously clever enough to come up with a pack of fabrications, and as you worked in finance so you'll do anything to save money, so you probably did so, and will do anything to wriggle out of paying". I didn't take the bait or lose my temper, but instead smilingly said by that token, a heterosexual averagely-strong male (who therefore had the required biological equipment) alone with an attractive lady, he was probably guilty of rape (the ""logic"" being if you can do something, you probably did it). I also pointed out that my work for the previous two years was all unpaid, and I'm not that money-motivated, else I'd have just paid up as I value my time at rather more than £10 an hour that was at stake here. I don't tell lies.

For this particular moving vehicle contravention to occur, one or both of two things had to have occurred. The first definitely hadn't, and the unfortunate camera angle ruled out an absolute verdict on the second. The preceding footage the council had from the outset steadfastly refused to provide would have settled the issue of the second either beyond any reasonable doubt or at the very least, on the balance of likelihood.

This cut and thrust continued, with him repeating incorrect assumptions (as if he could hear a non-existent audio track, or see from a head-on camera angle whether my window was fully up, or know what was in my mind, or in the mind of two other motorists) and me unemotionally saying he was wrong, and why. An example - why did you not have the windows up, it was a hot day wasn't it? Err, the car's more than 10 years old, the AC needs a recharge, and still does. Not that whether the window was fully up or not was at all that relevant to anything.

Then the blighter said I was too fancy and cautious a driver for someone with as much driving experience as I had, the rough and tumble of London driving merited a much tougher approach, I'm unsuited to it because being this careful is wrong, and I'm guilty. So eager was he that he even used the word "offence" which I jumped on and reminded him no offence was being discussed, only a contravention of a decriminalised reg. That went down badly.

In my opinion this was all way out of line, but I kept cool, as I always do, and pointed out the police might not agree with him on the matter of erring on the side of safety, and further would see me as being reasonably considerate to other road users. Why would he not focus at all on relevant breaking of regulations - and probably commission of a criminal offence - clearly visible in the video footage, by someone else, when that bore direct relevance to my own driving several seconds later?

I did not use any technical argument - there was at least one (I thought minor) irregularity with the PCN. Instead, I stuck to simple common sense. The contravention did not occur because the first part didn't occur and the second part didn't occur.

It went on and on like this, with him recirculating the same arguments after they'd been refuted, perhaps to see if I deviated in my responses. Oh well, I thought, he is like an interrogator, but he's just trying to be sure I'm not hoodwinking him. He seemed to be getting angrier, or maybe feigning anger, I thought, to better get at the truth. I also thought some of his choice of words and intonation was neither judicial nor judicious, and it wasn't because his English wasn't perfect either.

We'd well overrun the estimated time when, having failed to make any headway, he suddenly announced this was not a simple case and he wanted to weigh up what had been said and some other things. I said something like "of course, I'll wait" and downright sharply he said something like "Yes you will - and not here. Outside." "Now?" "Yes, right now!"

So I left and waited. About 15 mins later I was summoned back by a clerk. On re-entering the cubicle I began to sit on the chair I'd vacated and he snapped "I did not tell you to sit down. You will remain standing."

He evidently wanted to be treated like a Judge in court, but behaved more like a highway robber. How can one respect such a twerp?

He then announced that while it was a close thing, and he'd heard all my representations clearly - here there was sarcasm / scepticism aplenty in his tone - he couldn't be sure that the contravention had occurred, so my appeal was allowed.

I said "Thank you" which he did not acknowledge, so I added "You made the right decision." so as to wind him up (he'd done worse for nearly an hour). He snarled "Leave!"; I left.

I wasn't surprised, what had been surprising was the extent to which this gent had gone to trip me up, discourage and insult me.

I checked with the desk clerk who confirmed the decision had been recorded in my favour on their computer system, the Council would be notified and I need do nothing else.

I went home with a nasty taste in my mouth, had a good wash to get his stink off me, and put the matter out of my mind (for over a year). I've structured my life so I don't need to interact with wankers; he reminded me why.

I now realise there should have been another letter formally informing me of the result and decision, but probably my partner (who already knew I'd won) opened it and chucked it with the other junkmail, of which I still get loads (30 a day).

Friday night, I met a former mate/colleague who told me he was preparing for a traffic tribunal case and, while checking the "Statutory Register" for help and precedent, had idly searched for a few people he knew. He said he'd found me. I wasn't fussed, saying "Yes, one case, and I won.".

He said I better look at it, because I wasn't going to be happy at what was there on public view.

I did look and he was bl**dy well right! I was furious.

The so-called reasoning was highly insulting, an order of magnitude worse than the adjudicator's oral diarrhoea I'd already experienced, and gave a clear impression - in plain words that can have no other meaning - that I was a clever liar who had managed to bamboozle a favourable result.

The adjudicator does, though, have to justify why I nonetheless won, but does this in the most mealy-mouthed way possible, referring to "some other factors" (unmentioned) as his reason for grudgingly giving me the benefit of the doubt. He also gets key facts wrong (that he'd have known were wrong, as he'd accepted he couldn't possibly tell when in the third iteration of his arguing with me), and omits explicit mention of the two reasons I did win, and of the council's refusal to give the preceding footage from the same camera and viewpoint, which they must have possessed.

It is as if he carefully assessed what's the worst he could write about me that still supported my appeal succeeding (had it failed, I'd have appealed to the Chief Adjudicator in a trice or asked for judicial review),

I'm evidently no lawyer but have had the dubious distinction of having won, on the steps of the High Court, not one but two actions for defamation, once as an L.I.P., once only with a solicitor (by remote) - one as appellant, the other as defendant. I know a little about the law in this area.

If not protected by crown immunity or absolute privilege (assuming this had the status of court or quasi-judicial proceedings) I'd know what to do, and if he was personally liable (oh joy! oh bliss!) and so idiotic as not to pay a fair whack into Court as soon as the writ arrived, or make me an open offer on receipt of the NBA, I'd cost him a pretty penny mainly in costs that would wipe the smile off his face for a very long time indeed.

I've never had any CCJs or any criminal record of any sort ever except for several of the most "minor" speeding violations (of the sort of 3 points + £60) from the 1980s, and anyone who states I'm lying better have cover.

This afternoon, I've spoken to a barrister friend, not a libel specialist, and he agrees the words are defamatory but says this is only in the £10K-£20K range because search engines don't pick it up 0 but further that he's almost certain the statutory defence of privilege will apply. (If defamation can somehow fly, I'll go for them and preferably also him, and yes, I do have the money to do so. I've retained all the evidence pack I'd made up).

Money aside, I'm absolutely furious at the injustice. In my opinion, the man's a disgrace, IMO a frustrated (for a solicitor to end up or be doing this indicates a few things to me), coward and bully, maybe motivated by revenge, hiding behind his piddly little-Hitler position and abusing the trust we're forced to place in him. And he's not far short of cunningly twisting the truth since the other explanation (stupid) obviously doesn't apply to him.

What remedies are available to me? Who do I write to (Chief Adjudicator), and what do I ask for? Is a Judicial Review possible

I've been careful to write nothing above to identify him other than it is a him, not a her.
If you like, do guess which London adjudicator is the perp (INITIALS ONLY for the time being).

This post has been edited by SDWA: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 49)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SDWA
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 19:12
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,387



Predictable.

No, you aren't being trolled....

I have only told the truth, perhaps with a small pinch of artistic licence for a good reason (see below).

Too many people in pepipoo are too quick to be judgmental or jump to wrong conclusions - and many of the usual suspects, starting with the top gun, never above a bit of IP-snooping, are to be seen in this thread.

This said, pepipoo remains a unique and useful resource, and no doubt under attack or threat from the establishment over PCOJ or something, so I make allowances for the paranoia and understandable scepticism.

++

Five (yes!) times in pepipoo in a row I've been told in I stood no chance in a motoring case (civil or crim).

Two of these were on behalf of friends.

But each and every time "I" won, either at the formal representation stage with the EA or at PATAS/TPT/Tribunal.

(N__l, often needing help with 'rithmetic, that's 100%.)

So, pepipoo (as a whole - at least one individual wasn't, each time) was wrong.

But it was useful - pepipoo did reveal potential avenues of attack by the EA or adjudicators. And they do read pepipoo, and, happily for me, repeat its mistakes.

++

The obvious explanation for my reticence apparently been missed by all?

Even if I don't supply a link or PCN number or (..), if I supply enough from the said statement by Mr or Mrs or Ms Adjudicator, someone will trawl through the decisions and find it, and find my identity.

Perhaps I don't want that to happen?

Maybe I just value my privacy, and resent the London Stat. Register? (TPT doesn't have this for alleged rural contraventions).

Or perhaps I'm a well-known or public figure, who doesn't seek that publicity?

Maybe I'm a relative of Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe (or not), or work for an organisation which doesn't want its employees to be in the public eye?

So - back to the drawing board, folks. Poor inferential skills here, judging by the recent offerings. Cops and ex-cops the worst of all, but that's understandable.


++

Go back to believing your version, if you like. And I did work out the "Dave" reference before another poster put up the piccy of I-1*B-1*M-1's all-seeing eye.

Odds are I'll take it up with the Chief Adj, though it's out of time.

This one I may not "win"; 50-50 is my guess that I'll get a rewording. Whether that will be satisfactory or not is another thing.

++

Where's my m8 "Hippo"? Last post from him was in September. He, and a few other regulars like bama and hca, were far from twerps and wouldn't make the blunders the duffers do.

My rage at the ***** adjudicator is genuine. Nasty, sociopathic biased third-raters like him are the rotten apples in the basket. Would have thought more here wouldn't be hero-worshipping these prats, but hey-ho.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 19:27
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Still no link...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SDWA
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 19:38
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,387



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 19:27) *
Still no link...

Et tu, Brut?

But - correct.
There won't be one supplied - at least not until the adjudicator's bile is sufficiently reworded, if indeed it ever is.
WhyTF should I publish defamation against myself??

Had it not been for the immunity - which was confirmed here by sp - I'd have sued for defamation, and I've two such actions under my belt already. Since one cannot search the register by adj, it took me quite some time to trawl through about 100 of this perp's "judgments" (PATAS + London Tribs), either upholding or rejecting appeals.

While almost 20% of them are insulting, and some of these are IMO unacceptably rude, his one for me is the only one that strays into defamation (save for the immunity).

He just didn't like being outmanoeuvred, as he viewed it. Give a ***** a position, be sure he'll abuse it. He needs a couch (complete with shrink) and not a quasi-judicial office and desk to hide in or behind.


This post has been edited by SDWA: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 19:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:03
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



To be defamed you have to have a reputation worth defending. I'd say the jury's out on that, especially while you're busy defaming an adjudicator as mentally ill with no evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SDWA
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:12
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,387



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:03) *
To be defamed you have to have a reputation worth defending.

I most certainly do.
And you're confused about what's needed to establish defamation.
In common parlance, you can defame a *****'s sexual reputation.

QUOTE
you're busy defaming an adjudicator as mentally ill

Can't swing a cat here without hitting a ****.
You missing something.
He named me in his publication.
I haven't identified him.
Despite all the intelligent requests that I do so.

QUOTE
with no evidence.

Boing. Three or four errors in one post. Par for the course for pepipoo.
There's evidence, from at least one qualified person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:18
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



12 posts. I bow to your wider knowledge, oh great one!


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SDWA
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:32
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,387



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:18) *
12 posts. I bow to your wider knowledge, oh great one!

No problem, pal.

The forum's really not what it used to be, which is a reason why so many oldtimers quit.

Given pepipoo's form, all the put-downs I've got in this thread has slightly increased my confidence I'll get this injustice corrected.

That's because pepipoo's often wrong nowadays, telling people they're gonna fail in this lottery we call a legal system, when they're probably not.

But thanks, sp, for the confirmation re immunity, making my 90+% sure into a 100%.

Probably time to leave now, as Fredd's Fragile E mightn't stand for more provocation, might it?

I'm glad pepipoo is there, but do try not to be such ******* **** ****** *** and **** *** *****, okey?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:44
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (SDWA @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:32) *
.....Probably time to leave now, as Fredd's Fragile E mightn't stand for more provocation, might it?
.......


Close the door on your way out please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosysparkle
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 11:23
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 29 Sep 2011
Member No.: 50,009



Do you feel better now you've got it out of your system?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 23:26
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (SDWA @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 22:32) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:18) *
12 posts. I bow to your wider knowledge, oh great one!

No problem, pal.

The forum's really not what it used to be, which is a reason why so many oldtimers quit.

Given pepipoo's form, all the put-downs I've got in this thread has slightly increased my confidence I'll get this injustice corrected.

That's because pepipoo's often wrong nowadays, telling people they're gonna fail in this lottery we call a legal system, when they're probably not.

But thanks, sp, for the confirmation re immunity, making my 90+% sure into a 100%.

Probably time to leave now, as Fredd's Fragile E mightn't stand for more provocation, might it?

I'm glad pepipoo is there, but do try not to be such ******* **** ****** *** and **** *** *****, okey?



**** wink.gif
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:29
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