PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow Box Junction - Peckham
rosturra
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:13
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Hi; This request is on behalf of my sister; who was caught in a YBJ by Peckham Bus Garage.




This is handled by TfL - whose website doesn't have a video facility.

It seems to me that she has too much car in the YBJ to justify a de-minimus argument.



My sister's is the red car. Not the idiot trying to drive down a cycle lane!

However the photo seems to show that she was unfortunate. There is clearly room for three cars in the roadway ahead of the YBJ.
There are three cars in the right hand lane, and the left hand lane - my sister's lane - is slightly longer, being on the diagonal!

But for some reason the lead car pulled up short of the stop line, leaving my sister stranded.

Yellow boxes GSV

Is there any mileage in a challenge based on reasonable expectation of clearing the box junction? Lead car's action being inexplicable?

This post has been edited by rosturra: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 51)
Advertisement
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 15:17
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 15:09) *
Well I've written it anyway now, these are the documents she needs to submit with her application:

Application for Review: http://bit.ly/2Fj28P9
London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2EYc4gN
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N

As I said, it costs nothing to give it a go.


Even if she has paid its worth a shot, if the review allows on the point then she would be refunded


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 16:37
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



It’s not right at all in my view that where a layperson uses an incorrect label or references the wrong regulation that that is the end of the matter, and it is not the first time this has happened:

2180102912
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...18037&st=40


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 18:41
Post #43


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 16:37) *
It’s not right at all in my view that where a layperson uses an incorrect label or references the wrong regulation that that is the end of the matter, and it is not the first time this has happened:

2180102912
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...18037&st=40

Layperson or not is irrelevant, it's long been held that a litigant in person is not entitled to any more favourable treatment than a represented party. The real issue is an adjudicator should not make this sort of rookie mistake in the first place.


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 09:28
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Hi; Sorry for the delay in replying. I was just convincing my sister to have another shot at this!

Her reply:

" I am not sure where to send it, presumably back to the adjudicator even though it says the adjudication is final."

Can someone confirm how to review a decision.

Is it simply writing to Adjudicators - using CP's text. Or is there a process to follow?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 09:45
Post #45


Member


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



From the tribunal web site

If you wish to apply for review, you should write to the Head of Support Services at the address given on your decision letter within 14 days of the decision being sent to you or handed to you at the hearing centre.
You must:
Set out in full your grounds for asking for a review; and
Say which of the cases one to four above you claim applies and why; and
If you are writing outside the 14 days, explain why. The adjudicator will not accept an application out of time unless there is good reason for the delay
Request a personal hearing of your application if you want one – if you do not, the application will be decided on the papers only.
Unless you attend a personal hearing, the decision will be posted to you.
Please note that London Tribunals will not inform the enforcement authority of your application unless it is successful - you may wish to inform the enforcement authority of the application yourself.


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 12:22
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 18:41) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 16:37) *
It’s not right at all in my view that where a layperson uses an incorrect label or references the wrong regulation that that is the end of the matter, and it is not the first time this has happened:

2180102912
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...18037&st=40

Layperson or not is irrelevant, it's long been held that a litigant in person is not entitled to any more favourable treatment than a represented party. The real issue is an adjudicator should not make this sort of rookie mistake in the first place.

I never intentionally made the claim you have attributed to my post about a lay party having entitlement to more favourable treatment than a represented party, save for having a level playing field regarding their most fundamental entitlement to be heard, and the problem seen here lies with the system in my view, not with the litigant. I was merely attempting to agree with you regarding the representations put forward that, “that is not the end of the matter”, which are your own words in your proposed application for review.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 21:50
Post #47


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 12:22) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 18:41) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 16:37) *
It’s not right at all in my view that where a layperson party to the proceedings uses an incorrect label or references the wrong regulation that that is the end of the matter, and it is not the first time this has happened:

2180102912
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...18037&st=40

Layperson or not is irrelevant, it's long been held that a litigant in person is not entitled to any more favourable treatment than a represented party. The real issue is an adjudicator should not make this sort of rookie mistake in the first place.

I never intentionally made the claim you have attributed to my post about a lay party having entitlement to more favourable treatment than a represented party...

I take your point, I just wanted to dispel the notion that being a litigant in person has any relevance, as that has been ruled to be of little to no relevance. Let me suggest the amendment in red above, which I hope we can agree upon.


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 16:02
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Just to confirm that my sister applied for a review. Will update when I hear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 13:57
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Timothy Thorne, has directed that there are no grounds for there to be a review of this case.

Your correspondence has been considered as an application for review by the Adjudicator, Mr. Timothy Thorne. He has set out the reasons below:
Reasons
1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original Adjudicator or the law.
2. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the evidence submitted. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the applicant's vehicle was in contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including the observations of the applicant's vehicle. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding.
3. The original Adjudicator also made findings that even if there was a procedural impropriety (and he did not find that there was) this was not a valid ground of appeal.
4. In addition, I conclude that the applicant has not established that the Authority did not act in accordance with the statutory scheme and there are no grounds for considering that the penalty charge exceeded the amount properly due under law."

Your application for review is therefore rejected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 18:44
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



bumping for information of CP & PMB who advised on appeal and review.



IF the above wasn't clear ; this is the rejection of the application for review.

This post has been edited by rosturra: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 18:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:22
Post #51


Member


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



Mr Timothy Thorne seems to be the alternative man from del monte, He say No, all the time I cannot really see a case for a second review so it would be the high court with potential costs into the 0000's so not really an option


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:44
Post #52


Member


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



QUOTE (rosturra @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:44) *
bumping for information of CP & PMB who advised on appeal and review.



IF the above wasn't clear ; this is the rejection of the application for review.

Your only further avenue of challenge is a judicial review, but the court fee alone is around £1k with a chance of adverse costs.


--------------------
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

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 - 14:14
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