File of cases to assist arguments, listed under various headings |
File of cases to assist arguments, listed under various headings |
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" |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Member No.: 29,449 |
wording in Kingston upon Thames pcns in regard to the 28 day payment period not compliant - 214020982A referring to 2130497615. They're different contraventions too.
Blimey! appellant is TOLD by adjudicator to ask for costs because council had 2 versions of NoR!! 2140217602 This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:34 |
|
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 13:58
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
wording in Kingston upon Thames pcns in regard to the 28 day payment period not compliant - 214020982A referring to 2130497615. They're different contraventions too. Blimey! appellant is TOLD by adjudicator to ask for costs because council had 2 versions of NoR!! 2140217602 The RBK wording issue is being decided by a panel decision soon. Frankly, I think the two expressions mean the same . The NOR case warrants investigation. Appellant must have raised the issue of costs which explains the direction. This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 14:19 -------------------- 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" |
|
|
Sun, 15 Jun 2014 - 11:08
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Legitimate expectation: 2140095775
-------------------- 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" |
|
|
Sun, 15 Jun 2014 - 11:21
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Premature issue of Charge Certificate: Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable Case Reference: 214008540A Appellant: Authority: Lambeth VRM: PCN: LH57834750 Contravention Date: 29 Oct 2013 Contravention Time: 18:23 Contravention Location: Westminster Bridge Road Penalty Amount: £130.00 Contravention: Being in a bus lane Decision Date: 22 May 2014 Adjudicator: Michael Burke Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice. Reasons: The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 28.01.14 and the Notice of Appeal in this case was received by PATAS in time on 20.02.14. I am satisfied that by 06.03.14 the Local Authority would have been aware there was a live appeal before PATAS. Despite this, they issued a Charge Certificate to the Appellant on that date. The Local Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator's decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated: 'The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.' I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal. 2140192669 -------------------- 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" |
|
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 - 00:07
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Failure to serve evidence pack upon person nominated on Notice of Appeal. Courtesy of Mashkiach:
Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade 213019425A, 2130369739, 2130292270 Adjudicator Anthony Chan 2130189216, 2120075786, 2130093365 Adjudicator Andrew Harman 2130169183 Adjudicator Austin Wilkinson 2120194978 Adjudicator Mark Eldridge 2130062496 and 2130060592 Adjudicator John Lane 2130521913, 2130440662, 2130521913, 2140023617, 2140114086 Adjudicator Andrew Harman 2130169183 Adjudicator Carl Teper 2110705232 Adjudicator Belinda Pearce 2130221782, 214010820A Adjudicator Anthony Edie 213042389A Adjudicator Alastair McFarlane 2130421227, 2130603665 Adjudicator Michael Burke 2130375072 Adjudicator Jennifer Shepherd 2140126052 Adjudicator Michael Nathan 2130074043 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/ This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 - 00:55 -------------------- 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" |
|
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 - 16:30
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Member No.: 29,449 |
legitimate expectation - on advice of CEO - 2140213532
failure to consider (unable to) 2140226170 This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 - 16:32 |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jun 2014 - 23:40
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Yellow Box Junction de minimis: 2140226090
In the light of the very small amount by which the vehicle is seen to be in the entrance to the junction and the brief time it is in this position I treat this on its facts as a case where the principle of de minimis ( i.e legal insignificance) should be applied, and on that basis no contravention occurred. The Appeal is therefore allowed. Viewing evidence re Reg 10 CCTV issued PCNs: 2140232457 The case also raises the question as to whether the wording on the Council's PCN complies with the requirement of Regulation 3(4)(e) to state the effect of 3(5) and (6) - again a matter which seems on the face of it a little doubtful but which may await some future decision of the point is raised. This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 - 23:52 -------------------- 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" |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 01:16
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Continuous contravention: 2140234882
-------------------- 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" |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 19:35
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Member No.: 29,449 |
failure to consider: 2140233369
failure of authority to provide means of payment in good working order: 2140218343 |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 22:41
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
failure to consider: 2140233369 most important the Notice of Rejection contains clear and accurate reasons to explain why the Penalty Charge Notice is to be enforced.Though not as far as Makda, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudictor [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) Para 8 A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jun 2014 - 08:01
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Member No.: 29,449 |
could be of use for close together bus lane cases:
Case Reference: 2140244922 Appellant: Authority: Barnet VRM: PCN: AG80947821 Contravention Date: 25 Jul 2013 Contravention Time: 18:46 Contravention Location: The Hyde, West Hendon Broadway Penalty Amount: £130.00 Contravention: Being in a bus lane Decision Date: 28 Jun 2014 Adjudicator: Gerald Styles Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice. Reasons: The appellant has attended today at the Angel with her husband Mr F. The Council was not represented at the hearing. I am asked to overturn this penalty charge notice which the appellant emphasises was one of a pair of bearing the same time and date. Mr F tells me that he calculates there is approximately some 250 metres between what is recorded. The other penalty charge has been paid at £130 and I regard that as a closed file. Given the proximity in time and space between the two occurrences I am not persuaded to uphold Barnet's claim to the second penalty charge under appeal today. Any Council arguments that separate bus lanes have a discrete legal status and thus justify two separate penalty charges on the facts of this case appear to me artificial and I do not accept them. I consider the appellant case stronger. These considerations have resulted in me recording this appeal as allowed. |
|
|
Tue, 1 Jul 2014 - 20:39
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
will/may: 2120448511
-------------------- 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" |
|
|
Tue, 8 Jul 2014 - 15:23
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Member No.: 29,449 |
parked following instructions of CEO 2140260102
|
|
|
Tue, 8 Jul 2014 - 22:03
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,267 Joined: 10 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,352 |
2140263304 Multiple PCNs. Bus lane
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jul 2014 - 23:54
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
2140265569
signing scheme as a whole meets the criterion of providing "adequate information and this 2140250889 This post has been edited by mashkiach: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 00:05 |
|
|
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 00:09
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
Parked in bay cos broken mirror 2140252057
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 - 15:13
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
Just gone over 14/15/16 Jul cases
Case Reference: 2140167322 Regulation 3(4) (e) Case Reference: 2140278017 unable to cancel Case Reference: 2140089499 Notice of Rejection failed to deal Case Reference: 2140126744 not criminal but penal prove appropriate standard Case Reference: 2140264078 signage temporarily rendered unclear Case Reference: 2140208849 failure to comply occurred prior to that stated in PCN |
|
|
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 09:44
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,721 Joined: 14 Jan 2009 Member No.: 25,447 |
No signs or markings are required for so called dropped kerbs. Parking adjacent is a contravention anywhere in a Greater London and anywhere within a Special Enforcement Area.
Case 2110067442 concerns parking by such a dropped kerb where the area is marked by a yellow line. The presence of the line is held to "confusing and misleading" and the appeal allowed. Does anyone have any further examples? QUOTE Case Reference: 2110067442
Appellant: Authority: Westminster VRM: PCN: WM64562084 Contravention Date: 31 Oct 2010 Contravention Time: 17:52 Contravention Location: North Audley Street Penalty Amount: £120.00 Contravention: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway Decision Date: 12 Apr 2011 Adjudicator: Neeti Haria Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons: The appellant does not deny parking at the location but states that she was misled by the single yellow line marked at the location into thinking that the area was subject to the single yellow line restrictions. The Appellant states that she was misled by the single yellow line road marking alongside the dropped kerb. She states that as parking on a Sunday is permitted on the single yellow line on North Audley Street, she thought he was permitted to park at the location. The Appellant states that had the Authority marked the dropped kerb with a double yellow line as opposed to a single yellow line she would have had no doubt that parking was prohibited and would not have parked at the location. The Authority relies on the copy Penalty Charge Notice and the civil enforcement officer's contemporaneous notes and photographs. It is the Authority's case that there is no legal requirement for a dropped kerb to be signed. The Authority is of the view that as there is no legal obligation to indicate a dropped kerb with any sign or road marking the fact that they marked the area with a single yellow line is irrelevant. I adjourned the appeal with a request that the Authority provide an explanation as to why it has chosen to mark the area with a single yellow line as opposed to a double yellow line when as a result of the dropped kerb parking is prohibited at all times. The Authority has responded by simply reiterating its view that as there is no obligation on them to sign the prohibition it is irrelevant that the area is marked by a single yellow line. I accept that there is no requirement to sign the prohibition against parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal. |
|
|
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 11:28
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,267 Joined: 10 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,352 |
Location: YBJ - two or more possible locations, and not at location stated
2060381000 Inadequate information on PCN 210056419A 2120507905 2130069145 2140187691 2140111099 No YBJ at location stated on PCN (or on photos) 2140200836 Not sure whether any of the above are already in other posts - but maybe useful together. This post has been edited by astralite: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 - 22:10 |
|
|
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 11:41
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,267 Joined: 10 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,352 |
Time: YBJ
2140214193 not as stated on PCN (alleged contravention would have occurred later) And 2140201293 The PNC alleges a contravention at 10:13. One of the issues raised in representations was that any contravention occurred at 10:12 and not 10:13. The local authority did not refer to this issue at all in the Notice of Rejection. In the case summary the local authority states that the car stopped at 10:13. … the CCTV. .. shows that Mr xxx's car enters the box at 10:12:48. It stops at 10:12:56. It moves off at 10:13:36 and then exits the box. The contravention occurs if a vehicle enters and then stops in a box junction and the stopping is due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I find that the car stopped before 10:13. Therefore I am not satisfied that any contravention occurred at the time alleged. This post has been edited by astralite: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 12:04 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:13 |