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  « < 12 13 14 15 16 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (260 - 279)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 11:29
Post #261


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 12:19) *
PCN flaw databse: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...dit?usp=sharing

Literally just started this, but it makes sense to have a quick lookup guide so you can quickly check if a PCN has certain known issues. I'll give write access to any long-standing members who ask.



That's a very useful document CP, Wonder if it might be an idea to ask fredd to create its own sticky, so it doesn't get lost in the middle of a thread over time


--------------------
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, 16 Oct 2018 - 07:28
Post #262


Member


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



White Disabled Badge Issued by Council Doesn't fully substitute for Blue Badge

(In another case the appellant states she has a BB but they get stolen in Lambeth! that's why the Council issues the white one)

2180318660

I have heard the appellant in person. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.

The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines.

The appellant states that she was not aware that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines. She states she was displaying her white disabled badge.

I find as fact that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines. I accept the evidence of the Enforcement Authority in the form of the civil enforcement officer’s notes and photographs. Double yellow lines mean that parking is not permitted at any time. The restriction is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no requirement for signage to accompany double yellow lines. There is an exemption to park for up to 3 hours if a disabled badge and clock are displayed. I find that the appellant was displaying neither a blue badge nor clock.

I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that there is no available exemption. I refuse the appeal.
-------------------------------
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:57
Post #263


Member


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



https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/p...bqQpV4wxYSwkvig




TFL TMO incorrect allege NRT but TMO a prohibition on vehicles

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:58


--------------------
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 Mustard
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:37
Post #264


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



The link does not work. A case number would suffice, thanks


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:40
Post #265


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 18:37) *
The link does not work. A case number would suffice, thanks


link worked fine for me but here you go

2180363199


--------------------
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 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 15:56
Post #266


Member


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



Scottish Traffic Orders

Similar to the TPT Library (don't be fooled by the link wording, it covers parking places etc)

https://tro.appealparkingorbuslanefine.gov.scot

There appears to be a Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland which centralises appeals to adjudicators:-

https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/parkin...bunal-scotland/

How this works is a mystery to me since each Enforcement Authority had legislation appointing its own adjudicators. Ergo can you mix and match?

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 16:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 12:15
Post #267


Member


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



Lambeth----Ticket Machine "would not accept the currency of the realm"

2180377943

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay in Iveley Road at 10.44am on 14 May 2018 without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

I have looked at the CEO's photographs and these show that Mr King's car was parked in a bay which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only or for pay and display parking during the restricted hours of 8.30am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays. It is not in dispute that there was no valid permit or pay and display ticket on display in the windscreen of the vehicle.

I am, however, allowing the appeal. The signage instructed motorists to pay at the machine. Mr King attempted to pay for parking at the machine by inserting pound coins which he carries in the car. The machine would not accept the coins because it had not been adapted to accept the new £1 coins. The Council does not dispute that the machine accepted only the old £1 coins. Mr King was, therefore, prevented from making payment for parking because the machine would not accept the currency of the realm and I find for that reason that the alleged contravention did not occur.
________________________________________________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 12:39
Post #268


Member


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



City of London ---Cornhill---Wrong Contravention

2180414890

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles in Cornhill at 9.05am on 20 August 2018.

A prohibition on motor vehicles is required to be signed by a no entry to motor vehicles sign. I have seen no evidence of any such signage in place in Cornhill. The images from the Council show the signage of a route restricted to buses and cycles only during the hours of 7am to 7pm Mondays to Fridays. The PCN was issued for the wrong alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for that reason.
_____________________________

I like the reasoning but any appeal needs to be of the longer variety (See other Bank Junction cases)

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 12:52
Post #269


Member


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



CEO Taking Photographs Is Not Prima Facie Evidence Of Beginning Of The Preparation Of The PCN

This is a "drive away" case:-

2180416229 (Extract)

Mr. Praou’s account, which has been consistent throughout and I accept, was that he never saw a CEO. He did not see a PCN either. He denies that the CEO had begun to prepare the PCN when he drove off and that he in any way prevented its service.

The terms of the postal PCN refer to both Regulation 10 (1)(b) and ©. The EA’s case now, according to its notice of rejection and case summary, relies on sub-paragraph © only, namely that the CEO had begun to prepare the PCN but that the vehicle had been driven off before it was completed and/or served. It is hard to conceive of circumstances in which such a sequence of events could occur without the CEO seeing the driver return and drive off after he had begun to prepare the PCN. It would mean that the CEO had turned or walked away at the crucial moments and had missed events occurring in respect of the very car upon which he had begun to prepare – and was about to serve - a PCN. That is inherently unlikely.

The EA asserts that the CEO had begun to prepare the PCN when Mr. Praou returned and drove off without any evidence to support that assertion. Without any evidence as to how, if at all, the CEO’s camera and hand-held device interact, I am not prepared to find that the taking of photographs is something that occurs after the beginning of the preparation of the PCN. Rather, it appears to me to be part of the observation of the suspected contravention, within the meaning of Regulation 10(2). The very sparse contemporaneous notes made by the CEO make no mention of the sequence of events now relied upon by the EA; I would have expected the CEO to note that he had begun to prepare the PCN when the driver returned and drove off if that is what occurred. In fact, the CEO’s notes are consistent with Mr. Praou’s account. In answer to the question ‘Driver seen/conversation’ the answer given is ‘no’. I find, therefore, that the CEO did not see the driver, and vice-versa. For the reasons given above, it is very unlikely that the sequence of events asserted and relied upon by the EA occurred without the CEO seeing the driver. I reject the assertion made by the EA. Indeed, it is not an assertion that should have been made on the evidence available.

Accordingly, Regulation 10(1)© is not satisfied and the EA was not entitled to serve a PCN by post. There was a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal on that basis also.
------------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 13:07
Post #270


Member


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



Box Junction Contravention-----Interesting Interpretation of "True Copy" of PCN

Barking and Dagenham

2180424227

Upon the appellant appearing before me today I was not persuaded that any of the submissions he made raised an exemption to this alleged contravention.

Upon his raising the point however.

The appellant provided a copy of the PCN he had received.

This differed from the copy PCN provided by the council to the tribunal.

The PCN received by the appellant displayed two images whereas the PCN supplied to the tribunal did not.

I was satisfied that the PCN provided by the council to the tribunal was not as required a true copy of the PCN issued in these proceedings that omission amounting I found to a breach of the Regulations.

Enforcement may not accordingly be pursued.

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

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 10:07
Post #271


Member


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



Not Owner----- even if Appellant is the Registered Keeper

2180399480 (Extract)

Mr Okpuru is appealing that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. Section 66(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 imposes liability on the owner of the vehicle.
Section 82(2) of the 1991 Act states that the keeper of the vehicle at that time will be taken to be the owner and Section 82(3) of the 1991 Act states that the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention is presumed to be the owner of the vehicle.
As stated, the Parking legislation imposes liability upon a vehicle's owner and not the driver.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence before me and that decision must be based on a balance of probabilities.
In the Court of Appeal Case R v Parking Adjudicator, ex p. Wandsworth it was held that the starting point for ownership is will be the registered keeper. There are three ways that the presumption of ownership can be rebutted:
Although the appellant is recorded as the registered keeper he/she never owned the vehicle-there was some error involved in registration;
That he/she ceased to be the owner before the date of contravention-there must have been a disposition of the vehicle to another person, who should be and in due course will be the registered owner;
That he/she became the owner after the date of the contravention-there must have been an acquisition of the vehicle from another after the date of contravention. By the time the local authority checks the registered keeper details the recipient is the registered keeper but at the time of the contravention the person from whom the recipient acquired the vehicle was the owner of the vehicle.
The evidence shows that at the time of the contravention the appellant was recorded as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Ownership, for the purpose of these proceedings, can be transferred from a vehicle hire firm to a hirer if at the time of contravention a valid hire agreement were in place.
According to Section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in order for liability to be transferred from the owner hire company to the hirer, a Hiring Agreement must be for less than six months and the hirer must have signed a statement of liability for any penalty charges incurred during the currency of the Hiring Agreement. The Agreement must also be constructed in accordance with the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000: the particulars of the person signing the statement of liability-their full name, date of birth and permanent address and their driving licence details: the country where issued (if not UK); serial number or driver’s number; date of expiry and also specific details of the Agreement such as the registration mark, make and model of the car; the time and date of commencement and expected expiry of the Agreement and of any extensions and the time and date that the vehicle was returned.
Alternatively the hire agreement should be for such a period to be a sufficient disposition to bestow a degree of permanence of control or possession upon the hirers so that the hirers are deemed to be the owners of the vehicle.
the evidence received from the appellant at the Tribunal on 23rd October 2018 persuades me that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle on the relevant date.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-------------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 10:20
Post #272


Member


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



Camden CEOs and Suspension Signs ----over zealous

We have had several cases where this has occurred and they ignore the 10 minute exemption.

218042379A (Extract)

The Enforcement Authority assert that the facility to park had been temporarily removed, and that the said vehicle was so parked during the operative period of the suspension.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in his written representations, supported by photographic capture, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and (contemporaneous) notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: still frames revealing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended, and the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's evidential record was entered subsequently, not made contemporaneously; the Penalty Charge Notice records an observation of one minute at 8.31 a.m. yet the photographic evidence establishes that it is already printed, bagged, and affixed to the said vehicle and 5 photographs taken of the same at 8.31 a.m.

The Appellant stated that he left his nearby home premises in sufficient time to arrive at the said vehicle by 8.30 a.m. to drive it away; upon attendance at what he perceived to be 8.30 a.m. the Penalty Charge Notice was already attached to the windscreen and the Civil Enforcement Officer was taking photographs.

Indeed the Appellant is visible in one of the Enforcement Authority's own images.

The Appellant described the sequence of events, including his verbal challenge of the Civil Enforcement Officer's pre-emptive action, and during this conversation the Appellant noticed another Civil Enforcement Officer sticking a notice over the suspension sign; the Appellant immediately took an image and submitted it to the Enforcement Authority.

I had the benefit of assessing and questioning the Appellant at the Hearing; I found the Appellant's oral evidence to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety.

I accept that the Civil Enforcement Officer's action was pre-emptive and over zealous in commencing the Penalty Charge Notice issuing process at the same time as the signs indicating that the suspension was redundant were being applied.

The Civil Enforcement Officer issued the Penalty Charge Notice prematurely in this instance; I import the principle of de minimis and it may well be that in light of the circumstances The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 applies, prescribing that no Penalty Charge Notice is payable for a contravention where a vehicle has been left for a period not exceeding 10 minutes beyond the permitted parking period.

A permitted parking period is defined as either a period of parking that has been paid for as duly authorised (by a Traffic Management Order), OR a period of parking for which no charge is payable as duly authorised (by a Traffic Management Order), in the present instance the said vehicle was permitted to be so parked until 8.30 a.m.

Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
--------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 11:28
Post #273


Member


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



Traffic Penalty Tribunal decision on will / may; plus failure to understand representations, pdf link: https://www.scribd.com/document/395140820/A...bridge-Wells-BC

Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810)

1. This appeal relates to a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to Mr Hall for a bus lane
contravention alleged to have occurred on 14 October 2018.

2. Mr Hall has submitted his appeal on the ground that the penalty demanded exceeds the
amount payable. This is not on the usual basis that the penalty charge is excessive or
exceeds the sum the council are authorised to charge, but that the council have failed to
follow that statutory scheme for enforcement of the PCN so the only penalty which may be
demanded is zero. He puts forward 2 reasons which I summarise as follows: -

1. That the penalty charge notice was not worded in accordance with Regulation 8(5)
of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)
(England) Regulations 2005 and

2. That the council did not properly consider the representations he put forward in
response to the PCN.

3. The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 (the regulations) set out the procedure to be adopted in the
enforcement of PCNs issued for alleged bus lane contraventions.

4. Regulation 8(5) states:
(5) A penalty charge notice must state—
(k) that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(i) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid, the authority may increase the penalty
charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so
increased;


5. Regulation 10 states:
10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9
and they are made within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;
(b) in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on
the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as
to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.


6. The PCN

a) The PCN served by the council includes the following wording: -
If full payment has not been received or you have not made representations to the
Council, then after the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on
which the Penalty Charge Notice was served the charge will be increased by 50% to
£90 and a Charge Certificate may be sent to you.


b) Mr Hall contends that this wording is not compliant with Regulation 8(5)(k) quoted
above because it says that the charge will be increased rather than may be increased
as specified in the regulation. He submits that this wording means that the increase is
a foregone conclusion and that the council’s discretion has effectively been fettered.

c) Mr Hall relies on various previous tribunal decisions and a decision of the High Court.
The decisions all relate to alleged parking contraventions, but the issues dealt with in
each case are relevant to the issues raised by Mr Hall. The tribunal decisions are not
binding on me, but they are persuasive.

d) In response the council submitted that the previous decisions were different to the
current case because in each of the cases referred to the council had said in their
documentation that a charge certificate would be sent, in addition to the charge being
increased, whereas their PCN clearly said that a charge certificate ‘may’ be sent. They
went on to submit that this meant that they were not fettering their discretionary power
and that the PCN, when read as a whole, conveyed the meaning intended.

e) The council went on to say that, in practice, their IT system works by applying a
‘progression’ at specific points. The relevant progression here would be ‘Charge
Certificate Produced’ which would result in the production of the charge certificate and
increase in the sum payable at the same time.

f) The wording of regulation 8 is that the PCN ‘must state that’ and I take this to mean
that the precise words are not mandatory, but that the wording used in the PCN must
accurately convey the information set out in the regulation.

g) The wording of the regulation makes it clear that the word ‘may’ applies both to the
increase in the penalty charge and to the taking of further steps in enforcement,
however, the PCN sent by the council does not reflect this and I therefore find that the
wording used does not correctly convey the meaning of the regulation.

h) I note that the council system means that the charge does not in fact increase until
the point when the charge certificate is issued, but, whilst this may mean that no
prejudice results, it does not alter the fact that the recipients of the notice are likely to
understand that the increase is automatic once the 28 days have passed.

i)Mr Justice Jackson, in the case of R (on the application of the London Borough of
Barnet Council) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin), made it clear
that this is not relevant at paragraph 41:
Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect,
nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I
do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be
established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking
control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties
when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions
are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.

That case dealt with the law under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, but the principles are
the same and my view is that prejudice is irrelevant in this case.

j)In the same case, at paragraph 38, Mr Justice Jackson said:
The statutory requirements are simple and clear. Compliance is not difficult.
My view is that the regulations set out in similar, simple terms what the council are
required to say in their PCN’s, and I reach the same conclusion, there is no excuse
for a failure to comply.

k)As mentioned above, the cases referred to by Mr Hall all refer to parking
contraventions and the tribunal cases were dealt with under the parking
contravention regulations which give procedural impropriety, ie a failure to comply
with the regulations, as a ground of appeal. Such a ground does not exist under the
bus lane enforcement regulations. However, the Barnet case pre-dates those
regulations and the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on the basis that the PCN
was not valid and could not be enforced. That decision was upheld by the High Court.

l) For the reasons given, I find that the PCN issued by the council in this case was
invalid.

7. The notice of rejection

a) In his representations to the council, Mr Hall set out the issue he raises in his appeal
with regard to the wording of the PCN and submitted that, as a result the amount
which the council could demand was nil. He set this out clearly and briefly, referring to
the wording in the notice and to one of the tribunal decisions he referred to in his
appeal.

b) In reply, the council said:
You have stated that the amount charged by the council exceeds the amount that we
are allowed to charge.
The penalty amount has been set at £60 and is reduced to £30 if paid in 14 days
from the date that the PCN was served. These charges have been set and published in
line with the requirements of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges,
Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and approved by the
Secretary of State.
If you would like to refer to the previous correspondence we sent you posted
18/10/2018, it clearly states “A reduced charge ( discounted by 50% ) of £30.00 is
payable if it is received not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning
with the date on which this notice was served. This Notice will be taken to have been
served on the second working day after the date of posting.”


This clearly demonstrates that the writer did not understand the issue raised by Mr
Hall. I appreciate that the members of the council staff who deal with representations
are unlikely to be legally trained and that the point raised by Mr Hall is of a technical
nature. However, my view is that the essence of the issue should have been
understood if the representations had been considered with any care. If the writer was
unable to understand and respond to them, he should have sought advice from a
more experienced officer.

c) As the council did not deal with the issue which was actually raised, I find that they did
not comply with the requirements of Regulation 10 set out above. As already stated,
there is no ground of procedural impropriety, but the council have a public duty to act
fairly in the exercise of their statutory powers. See R v Secretary of State for the Home
Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill, ‘Where an Act of
Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be
exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances
’. In my view the Council’s
failure to properly consider Mr Hall’s representations and to explain why they were
rejected, was a breach of this common law duty to act fairly.

8. For the reasons given, I allow the appeal, which means that there is nothing for Mr Hall to
pay in respect of this PCN.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 22:09
Post #274


Member


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



City of London attempts to enforce a two year old PCN

"the appellant has been prejudiced by the extraordinary and unexplained delay in this case"


2180437750

The appellant contacted the tribunal to indicate that she could not attend but was content for the matter to proceed in her absence. The Enforcement Authority did not attend.

The appellant’s notice of appeal indicated that she was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time but acknowledged that she was liable. She stated that she had received the Penalty Charge Notice two years after it was issued and could not afford to pay the full amount of the Penalty Charge Notice in one payment. The appellant detailed her personal and financial circumstances.

The Enforcement Authority resisted the appeal and provided a detailed chronology of events. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 15/03/2016; a Notice to Owner was issued on 14/04/2016; a Charge Certificate was issued on 23/05/2016 and a reminder was sent on 22/06/2016. The matter then lay dormant until 30/08/2018 when the Enforcement Authority registered the matter as a debt, and on 31/08/2018 an order to recover the unpaid penalty was issued. Thereafter the appellant successfully lodged a witness statement (stating that she had not received the Penalty Charge Notice or NTO) and a new notice to owner was issued. Representations were made and rejected and the matter is now before me.

The appellant made express reference to the delay in her notice of appeal yet the Enforcement Authority have failed to explain what caused the inordinate delay of over 2 years between June 2016 and August 2018.

A balance has to be struck between administrative practically and fairness. The regulations expect that matters are dealt with timeously. For example, representations must be responded to within 56 days, charge certificates are usually issued after 28 days and appeals must be lodged within 28 days. All of these time limits are designed to ensure that matters are concluded swiftly.

The appellant states she was not the driver and has lost the opportunity to gather evidence as to what the prevailing circumstances may have been at the material time. The Traffic Enforcement Centre accepted her declaration that she had not received the Penalty Charge Notice or Notice to Owner. Had the Enforcement Authority acted promptly the appellant may well have been better placed to challenge this matter. It is unlikely a motorist will be able recall what happened in March 2016.

Undoubtedly the appellant has been prejudiced by the extraordinary and unexplained delay in this case.

I am satisfied that fairness and the unique factual circumstances of this case demand that this appeal be allowed.
----------------------------

Mick

Council revokes a permit but does not inform the holder

An abuse of process.

2180435584


The PCN was issued in this case, and the vehicle removed, on the basis that the Appellant had no permit. The reason she had no permit on the date of the observation was that the permit which she had been granted by the Council, and on which she had relied on to park for virtually a whole year without difficulty, had been revoked by the Council without her knowledge. This seems on the face of it a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The Council revoked the permit on the 21st August. The reason for doing so was that the Appellant had not provided a copy of the V5 registration document. It submits that the Appellant was on notice from the conditions in the terms and conditions for parking permits that the permit could be revoked if this was not produced and that in addition notice of the revocation was sent by e-mail on the 6th August, as shown in its records provided in evidence.

In my judgement the Council having issued a motorist with a permit cannot revoke it and then penalise her for not having one unless it has given clear notice that it has done so (and thereby giving the motorist a fair opportunity to re-apply or to move the vehicle elsewhere).

The essential question in this case is therefore whether that proper notice was given. The Council’s “terms and conditions for parking permits” as follows: - “It is the responsibility of the applicant/account holder to upload the documents requested during the Camden Account application process. There is a 12- week period to provide this documentation after which a permit will be cancelled without refund”. The Council states that the V5 is one of these documents. However the Appellant submits that the web portal does not make this sufficiently clear. There is no copy of the relevant text in evidence before me and in its absence I am not be able to be satisfied that the requirement was clearly made , and hence that there was a risk of any permit that was issued being revoked if it were not provided.

Even if the requirement was made clear, and the Appellant thereby put on notice that the V5 had to be uploaded within 12 weeks, it seems to me the inordinate and unexplained delay in subsequently acting on the indication, and revoking the permit, would operate to entitle the Appellant to take it that the Council was satisfied with the documentation already provided. For the avoidance of doubt the mere fact that the Council went ahead and issued a permit without sight of the V5 would not of itself avail the Appellant. The clear indication in the terms and conditions relates to the possibility of the revocation of a permit - which of course necessitates the existence of an issued permit in existence to be revoked. However the permit having been issued on the 25th September the Council did not revoke it until the 21st August, something in the region of 8 months after the expiry of the 12 week deadline. At this stage the Appellant was entitled to assume that all was in order and very clear notice of any cancellation was required.

The Council states that a “permit validity check reminder” was sent to the Appellant by e-mail on the 6th August. However no copy of that e-mail is in evidence, and on the face of it this appears to be no more than a “reminder” to provide documents, not a notice of impending revocation. Nor is it clear that the Appellant’s e-mail address is one of those on the “subscribers of 12 week permit reminder e-mails”. The fact that the "parkmobile permit history" is headed as showing the permit valid “25/9/18 -21/08/18 does not give one much confidence in the accuracy of these records. Be that as it may it seems to me that even if some sort of notice was sent and arrived somewhere in the Appellant’s email its effect would be entirely countermanded by the issue of the renewal reminder only a few days later. This starts “We are writing to you as our records show that your resident parking permit is soon to expire” This plainly suggests that the permit is still in force, and gives no hint of a pending revocation.

I am therefore not satisfied either that the requirement to produce a V5 was made clear or that if it was, adequate notice was given of the revocation of the permit for failing to comply with such a requirement. This is therefore a case where the absence of a valid permit was caused purely by the actions of the enforcement authority itself. Allowing the Council to enforce a penalty in these unusual circumstances would amount to the equivalent of an abuse of process, and in such a case no enforceable contravention can be said to have occurred (see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905). The Appeal is therefore allowed.
____________________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 22:19
Post #275


Member


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



A prohibited turn contravention must state the direction on the PCN

2180443028 (Extract)

The PCN is in my judgement compliant on that basis save in one fatal respect. The Appellant points out that the PCN does not specify what sort of prohibited turn is relied on. It seems to me that this information is essential in order for the PCN to comply with the requirement that it set out the grounds on which a penalty is demanded. Certainly one has to take into account the photographs, if any, on the PCN but I do not regard the single photograph on the PCN in the present case as so obviously showing a right turn as to relieve the Council of the simple task of using words to that effect as most Councils do.

On that basis alone the PCN is defective. It follows that no penalty may be demanded on the basis of it and the Appeal is allowed.
------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 16:38
Post #276


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



Successful [Council DNC] appeal against Mare Street Left Turn (LB Hackney)

see
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125104
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 15:53
Post #277


Member


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



Yellow Box Contravention with exit space to accommodate a vehicle

2180461449

Mr Mills did not attend for his appeal hearing listed today. I decide the appeal on the written evidence of both parties and the CCTV footage.

Mr Mills denies the contravention.

The contravention occurs if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that all or part of the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The Enforcement Authority does not have to prove that the vehicle caused any obstruction to other road users.

The CCTV footage shows the appellant’s car drive into the box junction and stop with the front part of the car in the box. The footage shows that there is a gap between the far edge of the box and the back of the car stopped a short distance beyond the box. I find that it is unclear from the footage that this gap is insufficient to accommodate the appellant’s vehicle. I am not satisfied that the appellant’s car had to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

I allow this appeal.
___________________
+ 2180467106
Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:15
Post #278


Member


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



Phoenix Way---now Norwood Road ergo the TMO is suspect.

2180474156

Mr Hothi attended. He raises a number of issues in relation to this Penalty Charge Notice. The appellant has made detailed submissions and provided a number of photographs and other documents.

One of the issued raised is that the Traffic Management Order does not create the contravention alleged.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles. The Penalty Charge Notice alleges that the vehicle was seen in Phoenix Way Services.

The local authority provides a copy of Traffic Management Order 53 of 2015. Article 4 (9) of that Traffic Management Order states that:

No person shall cause any motor vehicle to proceed in any length of road specified in column 2 of schedule 9 …unless otherwise stated in column 3 of the schedule.

Traffic Management Order 38 of 2018 which came into operation on 5th May 2018 adds item 12 to schedule 9 of the 2015 Traffic Management Order. Column 2 refers to Phoenix Way Honslow at its junction with Norwood Road. The Traffic Management Order as an explanatory note states that it introduces prohibitions in Phoenix Way at its junction with Norwood Road.

There is a typographical error in the Traffic Management Order as it states Honslow and not Hounslow. The contravention created is to prohibit vehicles proceeding in Phoenix Way.

The CCTV footage shows the appellant’s car in Phoenix Way driving past the traffic signs into a road that is next to the M4 services.

The local authority provides an image from google maps. It shows Phoenix Way as a road turning off Cranford Lane and curving to the left. The map is annotated to show where the no motor vehicles signs are situated. The google map shows that Phoenix Way continues beyond the signs. This map does not show Norwood Road.

The local authority also provides a map that is referred to as a Highways Register map of Phoenix Way. This map has been marked to show the junction with Norwood Road at the point of restriction. This map does not show where Norwood Road is situated. Phoenix Way is marked.

Mr Hothi ( Annex 5) provides a map he obtained from the local authority’s website. It refers to the plan for restricted access. This plan does not show Norwood Road. Mr Hothi also provides a plan of the proposed location of traffic signs. (Annex 10) This was also obtained from the local authority website. This is the only map on which Norwood Road is marked. It shows that the part of Phoenix way that on the google map continues adjacent to the service station is renamed Norwood Road.

The Traffic Management Order prohibits vehicles proceeding in Phoenix Way at its junction with Norwood Road. It does not prohibit vehicles proceeding in Norwood Road at its junction with Phoenix Way.

I have seen no evidence that the service road has been renamed Norwood Road notwithstanding that the Traffic Management Order refers to Norwood Road. However as the Traffic Management Order refers to Norwood Road it would appear that part of Phoenix way has been renamed.

I allow this appeal because I find the Traffic Management Order creates a contravention in Phoenix Way but the footage shows the vehicle drive from Phoenix Way into a road which on the local authority’s evidence is now called Norwood Road.

As I allow the appeal on that basis I do not need to consider the other points raised.
-------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 16:45
Post #279


Member


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



Another "double jeopardy" rebuttal of the Sect 36 sign v TMO ground of appeal

This one will affect cases in Oldchurch Rise, Blackwall Way and Rye Lane and I strongly disagree.

2180362323

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to use a route restricted to certain vehicles.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Blackwall Way, London E14, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which clearly indicates that the route is restricted to buses and pedal cycles only.

Mrs Rosshandler’s case is that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is incorrect and that the signage is confusing.

Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that [. . .] for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle (a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

This is subject to subsection 6 which provides that no penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

The purpose of this provision is simply to prevent the possibility the motorist being in double jeopardy of paying a penalty for two aspects of the same contravention. A motorist contravening a sign cannot also be required to pay penalty for contravening the Traffic Management Order.

The vehicle in the present case was in breach both of the order and the sign indicating its effect. Only a single Penalty Charge Notice was issued demanding penalty charge. If the Enforcement Authority was demanding payment of the penalty charge for the breach of the Order then it is indeed difficult to see how it could lawfully do so in view of the plain wording of Section 4(6). However, the Penalty Charge Notice in this present case makes no reference to breach of the Traffic Management Order and simply states on its face that the ground on which it is believed a penalty is payable as ‘using a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only)’.

I find that the wording of this Penalty Charge Notice does not commit itself firmly to demanding a penalty purely on the basis of a breach of the Order and therefore does not breach Section 4(6). The remaining question is therefore whether the wording used is adequate to indicate to the motorist that there is a traffic sign that has been contravened. It seems to me that it does.

It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs.

The sign itself appears to comply with the prescription of Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant therefor and indicating a route for use by buses and pedal cycles only.

One sign is placed on each side of the carriageway and each is clear an unobstructed. Further there is a legend on the surface of the carriageway indicating that the route is for buses and cycles only.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice was valid and properly issued.

Accordingly this appeal must be refused.
---------------------------------------------------
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 21:16
Post #280


Member


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



"Fraudulent" use of a Blue Badge is not within the purview of the Adjudicator

2180470133


This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice for parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge.

In short, the Respondent says that the disabled badge was not valid due to the fact that it was not being used by a disabled person but was in fact being used by his Brother in a manner which was incorrect.

The Appellant says that the badge was being used in a correct manner and he was present with his brother.

In short, the Respondent has launched a targeted investigation into blue badge fraud in their area and determined that on this occasion the badge was being used fraudulently.

This places the Tribunal in an unusual position. The Respondent is alleging, effectively, criminality on the part of the Appellant. They say, as a result of that criminality that the blue badge (which was displayed perfectly properly from the perspective of badge and clock), was invalid because the Appellant's brother was not present and it is to him whom the blue badge relates.

The Respondent has provided some evidence to support their position in this regard and I am able to understand why they issued the PCN. However, there is no finding to a criminal standard (by a competent Court) that this is proved.

It follows there are evidential and legal difficulties with their approach. Firstly, the Respondent is bound to prove on the balance of probabilities that the blue badge was being used incorrectly. On the evidence before me, I am not so satisfied. I had witness evidence which had no declaration of truth attached to it and involved hearsay.

Also, I was obliged to (and did) warn the Appellant as to his right against self-incrimination. I take the view that it is not appropriate for me, in this Tribunal to make findings of fact as to the validity of the blue badge which would necessarily involve findings which may amount to criminality.

I have therefore looked at the circumstances in the round and determined as follows: the badge was displayed correctly in the sense that it was face up and the clock was showing. I decline to make any further findings as to the allegation that it was being misused at the material time, I do so as I am of the view that I do not have the statutory authority to do so. My authority is strictly limited by statute and I am acutely aware of the fact that the Appellant is a lay person who may be unaware of his common law and statutory rights.

I therefore allow the appeal as I am not satisfied to the civil standard that the contravention occurred. I decline to make any findings as to the allegation that the Blue Badge was being used fraudulently.

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

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 16 > » 
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 - 15:30
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