PCN 52m Browning Road Newham (with summaries of other pepi threads), Includes all other forum posts for the same contravention inside |
PCN 52m Browning Road Newham (with summaries of other pepi threads), Includes all other forum posts for the same contravention inside |
Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 14:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
Penalty Charge Notice
The very last link from August (the day of my contravention coincidentally) looks to be the smoking gun here! What do you all suggest? I've done some reading on this forum and below are all of the relevant posts and replies I could find for the same contravention (in ascending date order). Warning letter, no demand for payment http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1545427 27 Jan 2020 Apparently NOT a 6 month order but wording on link is interesting http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1558116 19 Mar 2020 6 month experimental period, permit holders only? http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1560017 28 Mar 2020 Minor flaws in NoR - not sure if it applies to mine http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1570387 10 Jun 2020 Possible "will/may" flaw on the Notice of Rejection http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1576072 20 Jul 2020 Case won on late council response http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1576157 21 Jul 2020 Case won based on experimental order time period **** http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=135514 22 Aug 2020 Link to notice in official public record - can't make out the wording on the 6 months here https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3347560 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 14:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 13:41
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well the only points you can argue is that the delay has been unfair, and the Notice of Rejection doesn't tell you the tribunal can consider a late appeal. I'm sorry to say it's likely you'll lose, but those are the only arguments you have. What about the fact that the council hasn't provided evidence of the extension of the experimental order? This point alone won another case that I linked in the original post. Unless I've missed that document, they have not provided evidence to me either. If the order isn't in evidence at all, you can simply claim there is no contravention because there is no traffic order in the evidence pack. If the order is in the evidence back then I'm afraid there is no need for a time extension, as the order is valid for 18 months. In the case where the appellant won on that point, the adjudicator simply got the law wrong, and you can't realistically rely on the adjudicator making a silly mistake like that. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 - 19:09
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
I will collect some of the ideas in this thread and try and build an appeal. I'll post a draft here next week hopefully.
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Mar 2021 - 20:46
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
So these are all of the points that have been raised in the thread:
- Try and push them on the point of whether TMO is valid for 18 months by default, cases have been won on this point and hopefully the adjudicator makes the same "mistake" - Failure to consider as suggested by cp8759, as they have made statements in their notice of rejection that did not pertain to my case. "Signs were not visible", when I did not say or contest that. - Took them 99 days to serve me the notice of rejection. Even with lockdowns, it may be seen as bordering on excessive. - Original ETO has been modified by adding additional streets that are covered for permits, therefore the restrictions have changed and the original ETO invalidated. Browning Road is in both ETOs however. - NoR does not state that I can make an out-of-time appeal And for convenience, here is the link again to the evidence they have provided: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1621624 And their NoR (relevant to the last point): https://postimg.cc/gallery/08N141k |
|
|
Tue, 23 Mar 2021 - 14:26
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
^
Hey all, any thoughts on this ^ (I need to stop posting in the evenings!) |
|
|
Tue, 23 Mar 2021 - 19:14
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I posted an Ealing case that might help you, in this thread this morning >>
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=138512 There are also Lewisham cases for Manor Lane that are similar I believe. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2021 - 17:10
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
I posted an Ealing case that might help you, in this thread this morning >> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=138512 There are also Lewisham cases for Manor Lane that are similar I believe. Great news for that poster that the case won! Unfortunately, in my case I did not turn out of a side road into Browning Road. I drove straight through so I'm not sure if I can make the claim about the inadequate signage? |
|
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2021 - 17:26
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Sorry, I thought you said somewhere that you approached along Rectory Rd?
-------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 25 Mar 2021 - 14:36
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
Sorry, I thought you said somewhere that you approached along Rectory Rd? No, I had driven straight down into the road I hadn't made a turn. The confusion is from here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1610664 where they claimed that I had done that (which might be a reason to use the "failure to consider" argument) |
|
|
Sat, 27 Mar 2021 - 11:57
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
Hearing today by John Hamilton, probably won't rule in my favour:
- Try and push them on the point of whether TMO is valid for 18 months by default, cases have been won on this point and hopefully the adjudicator makes the same "mistake" --> Established that in my case this was not an experimental traffic order that the enforcing authority were using and so the "6 month" limit does not have any effect - Took 99 days to serve NoR --> 56 day rule does not apply to moving traffic orders, so not unlawful - Original ETO modified to include additional streets --> Section only applies to experimental traffic orders - NoR does not state that I can make an out-of-time appeal --> Heard but no comments made. - Failure to consider --> Heard but no comments made |
|
|
Sat, 27 Mar 2021 - 14:13
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---so your case was heard but the adjudicator has reserved judgement??
Mick |
|
|
Sat, 27 Mar 2021 - 15:56
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 26 Jan 2019 Member No.: 102,120 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:07 |