PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

I put the wrong reg number in...
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 15:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



Hi guys,

First time poster here who was linked over from MSE so I'll do a bit of a copy n' paste.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice. I recently parked in a council car park and recieved a ticket for not "displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket". Turns out that I entered my reg number wrong on the machine.

Instead of: XXXX XYZ, I entered XXXX XZY.

While technically they've got me, do you think it's worth an appeal? I fear that I may be on to plums.

Also, why does it say 'Parking Charge Notice' on the bag but 'Penalty Charge Notice' inside on the printed paper? Is this a technically to go on? Stretching I know, but...

Cheers.


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 77)
Advertisement
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 15:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 12:07
Post #61


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Here's a draft on the surcharge of 1.9%. Have to be ultra careful not to raise hackles by quoting English law:-

With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection.

This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 12:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 12:48
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 12:07) *
Here's a draft on the surcharge of 1.9%. Have to be ultra careful not to raise hackles by quoting English law:-

With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection.

This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount.

Mick


Similarly with the will/may.

schedule 6(4)(a) of the regulations allow that the enforcement authority MAY serve a charge certificate and that a notice of rejection must state this.

The notice of rejection in this case states the authority WILL serve a charge certificate.

The word WILL has a different connotation to the word MAY as such the correct meaning of the regulation is not conveyed.

I respectfully ask that the adjudicator, when making a finding this point give consideration to parking adjudicators of the London tribunals in the following

Belinda pearce 216022028A She found as follows

The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.

And also adjudicator's

John Lane 2160211959 Sean stanton-Dunn 2160210490 Christopher Rayner 2160211926

Michael Lawrence 2160422149 Joanne Oxlade 2150379790 and Neeti haria 2150479729





--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 14:34
Post #63


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@PMB

As noted above we don't want to spoon feed them English appeals. These largely rely on a ground of procedural impropriety which the 1991 Act doesn't have.

I would simply use the first part of your draft and indicate a collateral challenge is made on the basis that the Council has fettered its discretion with the will/may glitch which gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 15:20
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 14:34) *
@PMB

As noted above we don't want to spoon feed them English appeals. These largely rely on a ground of procedural impropriety which the 1991 Act doesn't have.

I would simply use the first part of your draft and indicate a collateral challenge is made on the basis that the Council has fettered its discretion with the will/may glitch which gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial.

Mick


not got a problem with that. Use only this part to explain your point

"the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."


--------------------
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
SaucyWeeTart
post Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 10:53
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 12:07) *
With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection.

This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount.


So, would this be what I write in the 'Details of Appeal' section? Any additional text? Sorry guys, going to need to be spoon fed here like a tiny clueless baby. I don't understand what to put down, the legalese you guys are using is beyond me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 15:19
Post #66


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Let me go through everything again and see what you have to include.

The above is OK for the credit card surcharge and the following should be OK for the will/may issue but let's pull all the issues together and draft you something comprehensive.

Will/May

I also wish to tender a further collateral challenge since the Council state that it "will" issue a Charge Certificate rather than "may". Since Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act states 1(2)(d) "that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable"

The wording to be adopted by the Council is therefore set down in statutory regulations and any variation from it must both amount to an error since "the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility. The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Council is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."

By its failure to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 1991 Act the Council has fettered its discretion.This failure gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial to the extent that the associated document becomes a nullity which negates the Councils demands.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 17:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 07:43
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



QUOTE
With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection. This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount.

I also wish to tender a further collateral challenge since the Council state that it "will" issue a Charge Certificate rather than "may". Since Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act states 1(2)(d) "that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable".

The wording to be adopted by the Council is therefore set down in statutory regulations and any variation from it must both amount to an error since "the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility. The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Council is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."

By its failure to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 1991 Act the Council has fettered its discretion. This failure gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial to the extent that the associated document becomes a nullity which negates the Councils demands.


Thank you. Something like this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 11:14
Post #68


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Who was the Notice of Rejection sent to --you or your mother?

Here's a draft appeal--others might wish to dissect/contribute:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 83: Parked in a Pay and Display Car Park without displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket

Appeal to the Adjudication Service

This appeal sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made by East Dumbartonshire Council. Each of the points listed below represent substantive issues which impact on the appeal and which can each stand alone in refutation of the Council’s case.

Circumstances

The car park concerned allows two hours free parking. Although the Noticeboard (photo attached) does not specify the need for a VRM to be displayed on a parking ticket, the ticket machine does.

On the day in question there was a queue for the ticket machine and in obtaining my ticket (photo attached) I transcribed two numbers of my VRM. I am slightly dyslexic and suffer from GAD (General Anxiety Disorder) therefore having a queue of people form behind me whilst I was entering my details into the ticket machine made the situation quite tense.

The ticket (photo attached) covered the period of free parking in which the PCN was issued and was fully displayed on the dashboard. As pictured, the VRM entry has a slight mistake.


1) The Contravention did not occur.

This contravention is all about the validity of my ticket. However since the Noticeboard, which purports to detail the provisions of the Parking Places Orders makes no mention of VRM input how can non compliance with such Orders be established if the driver is unaware of this key provision?

I would contend that this makes the Orders unenforceable since the sign is clearly defective.

No mischief has occurred which the Orders seek to prevent since a ticket was obtained for my vehicle, displayed on my vehicle and such ticket was not time expired when the PCN was served.

Given that the only purposive interpretation of any requirement to display a ticket is to demonstrate that the permitted period of parking, whether the free 2 hours or paid-for, has not been exceeded then the fact that two of the characters in the VRM had been entered in reverse order is, frankly, not grounds for a PCN. The ticket was clearly displayed and any assessment on the balance of probabilities must be that this ticket belonged to the car in which it was placed and that a simple mistake had been made. As mentioned before, the only purposive interpretation of a requirement to display a ticket with a correct VRM is to determine that the vehicle was entitled to a relevant benefit under the order. The authority must apply no higher standard to this test than would an adjudicator, that is to say the balance of probabilities. And in this case it is clear that I was entitled to park, not having exceeded the 2-hour limit.


2) The Contravention did not occur

In the interests of justice the Council have an overriding duty to act fairly. They accept that a ticket was on display, that it had not expired and that VRM numbers were transposed. There has been no allegation that the ticket display was procured for any other vehicle than my own and yet the Council have neither exercised the discretion they have as a public body nor once considered the triviality of the matter as de minimis non curat.

This lack of proportionality in my view fetters the Council’s discretion. When an authority is given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.

In common law terms there is unfairness in the Council’s actions in this case and the contravention cannot be sustained for that reason.


3) Collateral Challenge

With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection. This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount. Indeed I would further contend that, because of this illegality, the Notice of Rejection becomes a nullity.


4) Collateral Challenge

I also wish to tender a further collateral challenge since the Council state that it "will" issue a Charge Certificate rather than "may" in its documents dated 3 November 2017 and 21 February 2018. Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act states 1(2)(d) "that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable".

The wording to be adopted by the Council is therefore set down in statutory regulations and any variation from it must both amount to an error since "the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility. The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Council is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."

By its failure to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 1991 Act the Council has fettered its discretion. This failure gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial to the extent that the associated document becomes a nullity which negates the Councils demands.

Therefore given the above grounds I ask that the penalty charge be cancelled.

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 11:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 12:22
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 11:14) *
Who was the Notice of Rejection sent to --you or your mother?

Here's a draft appeal--others might wish to dissect/contribute:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 83: Parked in a Pay and Display Car Park without displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket

Appeal to the Adjudication Service

This appeal sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made by East Dumbartonshire Council. Each of the points listed below represent substantive issues which impact on the appeal and which can each stand alone in refutation of the Council’s case.

Circumstances

The car park concerned allows two hours free parking. Although the Noticeboard (photo attached) does not specify the need for a VRM to be displayed on a parking ticket, the ticket machine does.

On the day in question there was a queue for the ticket machine and in obtaining my ticket (photo attached) I transcribed two numbers of my VRM. I am slightly dyslexic and suffer from GAD (General Anxiety Disorder) therefore having a queue of people form behind me whilst I was entering my details into the ticket machine made the situation quite tense.

The ticket (photo attached) covered the period of free parking in which the PCN was issued and was fully displayed on the dashboard. As pictured, the VRM entry has a slight mistake.


1) The Contravention did not occur.

This contravention is all about the validity of my ticket. However since the Noticeboard, which purports to detail the provisions of the Parking Places Orders makes no mention of VRM input how can non compliance with such Orders be established if the driver is unaware of this key provision?

I would contend that this makes the Orders unenforceable since the sign is clearly defective.

No mischief has occurred which the Orders seek to prevent since a ticket was obtained for my vehicle, displayed on my vehicle and such ticket was not time expired when the PCN was served.

Given that the only purposive interpretation of any requirement to display a ticket is to demonstrate that the permitted period of parking, whether the free 2 hours or paid-for, has not been exceeded then the fact that two of the characters in the VRM had been entered in reverse order is, frankly, not grounds for a PCN. The ticket was clearly displayed and any assessment on the balance of probabilities must be that this ticket belonged to the car in which it was placed and that a simple mistake had been made. As mentioned before, the only purposive interpretation of a requirement to display a ticket with a correct VRM is to determine that the vehicle was entitled to a relevant benefit under the order. The authority must apply no higher standard to this test than would an adjudicator, that is to say the balance of probabilities. And in this case it is clear that I was entitled to park, not having exceeded the 2-hour limit.


2) The Contravention did not occur

In the interests of justice the Council have an overriding duty to act fairly. They accept that a ticket was on display, that it had not expired and that VRM numbers were transposed. There has been no allegation that the ticket display was procured for any other vehicle than my own and yet the Council have neither exercised the discretion they have as a public body nor once considered the triviality of the matter as de minimis non curat.

This lack of proportionality in my view fetters the Council’s discretion. When an authority is given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.

In common law terms there is unfairness in the Council’s actions in this case and the contravention cannot be sustained for that reason.


3) Collateral Challenge

With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection. This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount. Indeed I would further contend that, because of this illegality, the Notice of Rejection becomes a nullity.


4) Collateral Challenge

I also wish to tender a further collateral challenge since the Council state that it "will" issue a Charge Certificate rather than "may" in its documents dated 3 November 2017 and 21 February 2018. Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act states 1(2)(d) "that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable".

The wording to be adopted by the Council is therefore set down in statutory regulations and any variation from it must both amount to an error since "the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility. The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Council is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."

By its failure to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 1991 Act the Council has fettered its discretion. This failure gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial to the extent that the associated document becomes a nullity which negates the Councils demands.

Therefore given the above grounds I ask that the penalty charge be cancelled.


Bloody hell, that's fantastic. Thank you.

And, the NOR was to my mother. Only after I received the first ticket did I change the registered keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 12:40
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



Here's my final letter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 12:49
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 12:14) *
Who was the Notice of Rejection sent to --you or your mother?

Here's a draft appeal--others might wish to dissect/contribute:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 83: Parked in a Pay and Display Car Park without displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket

Appeal to the Adjudication Service

This appeal sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made by East Dumbartonshire Council. Each of the points listed below represent substantive issues which impact on the appeal and which can each stand alone in refutation of the Council’s case.

Circumstances

The car park concerned allows two hours free parking. Although the Noticeboard (photo attached) does not specify the need for a VRM to be displayed on a parking ticket, the ticket machine does.

On the day in question there was a queue for the ticket machine and in obtaining my ticket (photo attached) I transcribed two numbers of my VRM. I am slightly dyslexic and suffer from GAD (General Anxiety Disorder) therefore having a queue of people form behind me whilst I was entering my details into the ticket machine made the situation quite tense.

The ticket (photo attached) covered the period of free parking in which the PCN was issued and was fully displayed on the dashboard. As pictured, the VRM entry has a slight mistake.


1) The Contravention did not occur.

This contravention is all about the validity of my ticket. However since the Noticeboard, which purports to detail the provisions of the Parking Places Orders makes no mention of VRM input how can non compliance with such Orders be established if the driver is unaware of this key provision?

I would contend that this makes the Orders unenforceable since the sign is clearly defective.

No mischief has occurred which the Orders seek to prevent since a ticket was obtained for my vehicle, displayed on my vehicle and such ticket was not time expired when the PCN was served.

Given that the only purposive interpretation of any requirement to display a ticket is to demonstrate that the permitted period of parking, whether the free 2 hours or paid-for, has not been exceeded then the fact that two of the characters in the VRM had been entered in reverse order is, frankly, not grounds for a PCN. The ticket was clearly displayed and any assessment on the balance of probabilities must be that this ticket belonged to the car in which it was placed and that a simple mistake had been made. As mentioned before, the only purposive interpretation of a requirement to display a ticket with a correct VRM is to determine that the vehicle was entitled to a relevant benefit under the order. The authority must apply no higher standard to this test than would an adjudicator, that is to say the balance of probabilities. And in this case it is clear that I was entitled to park, not having exceeded the 2-hour limit.


2) The Contravention did not occur

In the interests of justice the Council have an overriding duty to act fairly. They accept that a ticket was on display, that it had not expired and that VRM numbers were transposed. There has been no allegation that the ticket display was procured for any other vehicle than my own and yet the Council have neither exercised the discretion they have as a public body nor once considered the triviality of the matter as de minimis non curat.

This lack of proportionality in my view fetters the Council’s discretion. When an authority is given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case.

In common law terms there is unfairness in the Council’s actions in this case and the contravention cannot be sustained for that reason.


3) Collateral Challenge

With the utmost respect, I wish to tender a collateral challenge against the imposition of a credit charge surcharge of 1.9% as detailed in the second page of the Notice of Rejection. This is prejudicial or has the capacity to cause prejudice in that the penalty is increased beyond the statutory level.

An example of this ultra vires situation can be found in:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Since that judgement was partially based on the Road Traffic Act 1991 I respectfully ask that my collateral challenge be predicated on the same basis---that the Council have no power to impose the charge and thus in doing so were acting ultra vires and thereby the penalty exceeds the legally required amount. Indeed I would further contend that, because of this illegality, the Notice of Rejection becomes a nullity.


4) Collateral Challenge

I also wish to tender a further collateral challenge since the Council state that it "will" issue a Charge Certificate rather than "may" in its documents dated 3 November 2017 and 21 February 2018. Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act states 1(2)(d) "that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable".

The wording to be adopted by the Council is therefore set down in statutory regulations and any variation from it must both amount to an error since "the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility. The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Council is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion."

By its failure to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 1991 Act the Council has fettered its discretion. This failure gives rise to common law unfairness and is thus prejudicial to the extent that the associated document becomes a nullity which negates the Councils demands.

Therefore given the above grounds I ask that the penalty charge be cancelled.


notworthy.gif


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 14:14
Post #72


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---make sure the appeal is from your mother or send written permission that you can deal with this on her behalf.

Regardless of changing the ownership of the vehicle the alleged contravention took place when your mother was the owner so she's the appellant.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 14:34
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



I've done just that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 19:25
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



Ok, that's it off. I'll be sure to update to when I receive a response... Can't thank you guys enough for the help so, thanks.

Here's a question I've been wanting to ask since this thread started - how in the hell do some of you get so well versed in these issues? Some of the responses I've had are some next level lawyer stuff.

Just passionate about various forms of injustice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 17:31
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (SaucyWeeTart @ Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 20:25) *
Here's a question I've been wanting to ask since this thread started - how in the hell do some of you get so well versed in these issues? Some of the responses I've had are some next level lawyer stuff.

Just passionate about various forms of injustice?

Some people on here have been involved in legal "stuff" in some official capacity at some point, but in this day an age most (but admittedly not all) laws are published on legislation.gov.uk, most cases from the High Court and above are available free of charge on bailii.org and all London adjudications are available from londontribunals.org.uk, so given enough time you can become an expert in most areas of law if you do enough reading. Some people spend their evenings watching x-factor, others read biology journals and yet others spend their evenings reading court judgments and parking regulations, none of these require attendance at law school.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 08:42
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 17:31) *
QUOTE (SaucyWeeTart @ Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 20:25) *
Here's a question I've been wanting to ask since this thread started - how in the hell do some of you get so well versed in these issues? Some of the responses I've had are some next level lawyer stuff.

Just passionate about various forms of injustice?

Some people on here have been involved in legal "stuff" in some official capacity at some point, but in this day an age most (but admittedly not all) laws are published on legislation.gov.uk, most cases from the High Court and above are available free of charge on bailii.org and all London adjudications are available from londontribunals.org.uk, so given enough time you can become an expert in most areas of law if you do enough reading. Some people spend their evenings watching x-factor, others read biology journals and yet others spend their evenings reading court judgments and parking regulations, none of these require attendance at law school.

I agree that self-education is a viable strategy with the overwhelming amount of information we all have access to. I guess that I just wasn't expecting this level of expertise when I got initially got linked over from the MSE forums.

I'm very impressed, that's all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaucyWeeTart
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 17:43
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,593



Well guys, after all that help you've gave me it turns out that I have f*cked it up in the stupidest way possible.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

Goddamit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:38
Post #78


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Did you keep the envelope which contained the NOR--if so how is it postmarked? If for instance it arrived on Monday 26 February you might still be in time.

Otherwise we will have to explore the reasons for a late appeal and have the adjudicator reconsider.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:12
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