PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Towing and fees, Split from hijacked thread
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:34) *
For once I have to completely disagree with Mad Mick V, Kking parked in a restricted zone outside of a marked bay so 01 is the correct contravention code, as the situation is analogous to parking in a CPZ on a yellow line.

Put it another way, the permit is irrelevant because there is no permit that would allow Kking to park where he did.

Personally I would concede the contravention but argue that the tow was disproportionate.



Where is the advantage in conceding anything if a release fee has been paid?

I would start by asking them what law they think allows them to charge a release fee.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:34) *
For once I have to completely disagree with Mad Mick V, Kking parked in a restricted zone outside of a marked bay so 01 is the correct contravention code, as the situation is analogous to parking in a CPZ on a yellow line.

Put it another way, the permit is irrelevant because there is no permit that would allow Kking to park where he did.

Personally I would concede the contravention but argue that the tow was disproportionate.



Where is the advantage in conceding anything if a release fee has been paid?

Avoid wasting (the tribunal's) time with pointless arguments for one. IMO it would be unreasonable to challenge the contravention. Appearing reasonable and willing to make reasonable concessions is a key skill in litigation at all levels, from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal all the way to the Supreme Court. Litigators who argue over everything and never concede anything are seldom successful and often have FMOTL tendencies.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
I would start by asking them what law they think allows them to charge a release fee.

How exactly would that help? They'll have a templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations, this is hardly going to advance the OP's cause. I suspect the receipt he got when he collected the vehicle probably covers it anyway.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 16:19
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:57) *
QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:34) *
For once I have to completely disagree with Mad Mick V, Kking parked in a restricted zone outside of a marked bay so 01 is the correct contravention code, as the situation is analogous to parking in a CPZ on a yellow line.

Put it another way, the permit is irrelevant because there is no permit that would allow Kking to park where he did.

Personally I would concede the contravention but argue that the tow was disproportionate.



Where is the advantage in conceding anything if a release fee has been paid?

Avoid wasting (the tribunal's) time with pointless arguments for one. IMO it would be unreasonable to challenge the contravention. Appearing reasonable and willing to make reasonable concessions is a key skill in litigation at all levels, from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal all the way to the Supreme Court. Litigators who argue over everything and never concede anything are seldom successful and often have FMOTL tendencies.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
I would start by asking them what law they think allows them to charge a release fee.

How exactly would that help? They'll have a templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations, this is hardly going to advance the OP's cause. I suspect the receipt he got when he collected the vehicle probably covers it anyway.


Members of the public who appeal to The Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland are not litigators, they are members of the public.

What evidence do you have that the EA has a "templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations," or are you merely speculating? The last case regarding release fee that went to Scotland proved the Adj. had no idea what they were talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kking
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:03
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,319



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 17:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:57) *
QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:34) *
For once I have to completely disagree with Mad Mick V, Kking parked in a restricted zone outside of a marked bay so 01 is the correct contravention code, as the situation is analogous to parking in a CPZ on a yellow line.

Put it another way, the permit is irrelevant because there is no permit that would allow Kking to park where he did.

Personally I would concede the contravention but argue that the tow was disproportionate.



Where is the advantage in conceding anything if a release fee has been paid?

Avoid wasting (the tribunal's) time with pointless arguments for one. IMO it would be unreasonable to challenge the contravention. Appearing reasonable and willing to make reasonable concessions is a key skill in litigation at all levels, from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal all the way to the Supreme Court. Litigators who argue over everything and never concede anything are seldom successful and often have FMOTL tendencies.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
I would start by asking them what law they think allows them to charge a release fee.

How exactly would that help? They'll have a templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations, this is hardly going to advance the OP's cause. I suspect the receipt he got when he collected the vehicle probably covers it anyway.


Members of the public who appeal to The Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland are not litigators, they are members of the public.

What evidence do you have that the EA has a "templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations," or are you merely speculating? The last case regarding release fee that went to Scotland proved the Adj. had no idea what they were talking about.


Thanks a lot guys but I’m quite confused about what I’m going to write so could you please give me the wording. Really appreciate that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:06
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 17:19) *
Members of the public who appeal to The Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland are not litigators, they are members of the public.

They are litigators because they are engaged in civil proceedings before a tribunal established by law. That fact that they are almost always litigants in person does not change the fact that the adjudicator will have a more receptive attitude to reasonable appellants, than he would have to those who are intransigent and/or unreasonable.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 17:19) *
What evidence do you have that the EA has a "templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations," or are you merely speculating? The last case regarding release fee that went to Scotland proved the Adj. had no idea what they were talking about.

Unless you want to argue that the council wasn't empowered at all, as a matter of law, to tow the vehicle, I don't see the point in getting into an academic argument over which legislation applies, this will just distract from the point of appeal that have merit. To answer your question however, the council is empowered to tow vehicles under The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 16:33) *
An argument that a release fee if not legal it should be a removal fee, and that it is a breach of human rights to demand a payment to engage in the appeal procedure

The second part IMO has more merit.

Bogsy makes this argument very well but it has never had any success, IMO in Scotland it would do naught but p off the adjudicator

The argument that it is a breach of human rights to demand a payment to engage in the appeal procedure has merit, but Parliament (and the Scottish Parliament) has established that in order to engage in the appeals process one must pay the release fee. In order to pursue this, the only options I can see are to either

1) Apply to the Court of Session for a judicial review, seeking to strike down The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 as in force in Scotland as being contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, or
2) Make the argument before the Scottish adjudicators, lose, ask for a review, lose again, then apply to the Court of Session for a judicial review.

To be perfectly frank, while it may be possible to challenge the matter further at the Supreme Court, and then further still to the European Court of Human Rights, were such an argument may well succeed, this is not a realistic avenue of appeal for over 99.9% of people, because at the end of the day the amount of hassle and cost involved is completely disproportionate to a £180 release fee.

Therefore the only argument that has any realistic prospect of success at the tribunal stage is, IMO, that towing the vehicle was a disproportionate interference with Kking's property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, and it is for the council to show that towing was a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim. Two cases that can be quoted in support of this are:

https://www.scribd.com/document/374695358/B...t-Protocol-ECHR (It is for the council to establish the removal was proportionate)
https://www.scribd.com/document/374695480/R...ol-City-Council (there is a principle of “fair balance” between the severity of the parking infringement and the citizen’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property)

There is no guarantee of success, but at least this is an arguable basis to challenge the removal that has more than a fanciful prospect of success.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



I think you are confused.

Nobody has said the tow was unlawful.

The question is whether charging a released fee for an UNabandoned vehicle is lawful.

Parliament can pass laws which breach the ECHR. All UK courts can do is declare that fact, they cannot strike down legislation.


"Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal."


The appeals form given upon release says that the RTA 1991 says that the penalty, removal and storage charges must be paid before recovery.
Do you agree with that? Because I don't, and giving false information is grounds for requesting an entire refund.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=55795


This post has been edited by Asif Nazir: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:08
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:42) *
The appeals form given upon release says that the RTA 1991 says that the penalty, removal and storage charges must be paid before recovery.
Do you agree with that? Because I don't, and giving false information is grounds for requesting an entire refund.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=55795

I do agree with the council on this point, because section 71 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, as modified by paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999, says they're right.

See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/71 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/1999/59/...aragraph/3/made


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:22
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



Nope.

The power to demand a release fee comes from s.101(4) RTRA 1984 and all the demand is the removal and storage charge.

(4) If, before a vehicle [ found outside Greater London ] is disposed of by an authority in
pursuance of subsection (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the
authority that he is its owner and pays such sums in respect of its removal and storage as may be
prescribed to the authority entitled to those sums, the authority shall permit him to remove the
vehicle from their custody within such period as may be prescribed.

I agree with Bogsy that this only applies to abandoned vehicles so the council should be using 102(4) instead

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection
(2) above any sum is recoverable in respect of a vehicle by the chief officer of a police force or a
local authority in whose custody the vehicle is, the chief officer or local authority shall be entitled
to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid.




QUOTE (Kking @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:03) *
QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 17:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:57) *
QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:34) *
For once I have to completely disagree with Mad Mick V, Kking parked in a restricted zone outside of a marked bay so 01 is the correct contravention code, as the situation is analogous to parking in a CPZ on a yellow line.

Put it another way, the permit is irrelevant because there is no permit that would allow Kking to park where he did.

Personally I would concede the contravention but argue that the tow was disproportionate.



Where is the advantage in conceding anything if a release fee has been paid?

Avoid wasting (the tribunal's) time with pointless arguments for one. IMO it would be unreasonable to challenge the contravention. Appearing reasonable and willing to make reasonable concessions is a key skill in litigation at all levels, from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal all the way to the Supreme Court. Litigators who argue over everything and never concede anything are seldom successful and often have FMOTL tendencies.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
I would start by asking them what law they think allows them to charge a release fee.

How exactly would that help? They'll have a templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations, this is hardly going to advance the OP's cause. I suspect the receipt he got when he collected the vehicle probably covers it anyway.


Members of the public who appeal to The Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland are not litigators, they are members of the public.

What evidence do you have that the EA has a "templated answer quoting the relevant section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and subordinate regulations," or are you merely speculating? The last case regarding release fee that went to Scotland proved the Adj. had no idea what they were talking about.


Thanks a lot guys but I’m quite confused about what I’m going to write so could you please give me the wording. Really appreciate that.



In plain English, the council had no power to demand you pay the penalty charge, they could only demand the removal and storage charge.

I would write the them the following email

"Please quote the exact law the allows you to demand that the penalty, removal and storage charge must be paid before release.
The form given to me at the pound refers to the Road Traffic Act 1991. I want to know which sections you rely upon."

and add any other stuff you want - tow was disproportionate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Asif Nazir, you're looking at the wrong legislation.

For starters, under Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 3 of The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999 (MODIFICATIONS OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984),

"4.—(1) Section 101 shall be modified as follows.
(2) Subsection (4) shall be omitted.
"

Section 71(1) RTA 1991 says, in so far as is relevant to this case and including the modifications made by The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999:

"The owner or person in charge of a vehicle who—
(a)removes it from the custody of the parking authority in accordance with subsection (4A) of section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under that Act);
...
shall thereupon be informed of his right under this section to make representations to the relevant authority and of the effect of section 72 of this Act.
"

Section 101(4A) of RTRA, including the modifications made by The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999, says (my emphasis):

"(4A)If, before a vehicle found in the parking area is disposed of by an authority in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the authority that he is its owner and pays—
(a)any penalty charge payable in respect of the parking of the vehicle in the place from which it was removed; and
(b)such sums in respect of the removal and storage of the vehicle—
(i)as the authority may require; or
(ii)in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed,the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as they may specify or, where paragraph (b)(ii) applies, as may be prescribed.
"

The right to make representations is in section 71(3):

"Any person to whom subsection (1) above applies may make representations to the relevant authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) below."

Therefore the right to make representations under section 71 only applies to a person who is the owner or person in charge of a vehicle, who has paid both for its release and for any penalty charge in respect of the parking of the vehicle in the place from which it was removed.

In plain English, the suggested grounds of representation included in post 25 are wrong/hopeless. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it is what it is and I don't want Kking to be mislead.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:10


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 21:21
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



You are getting further and further off track.

Read the RTRA 1984.

You have referred to section 4A, there is NO section 4A.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/101

and section 102 for Scotland

102 Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles.S
(1)The provisions of this section shall have effect where a vehicle—
(a)is removed from a parking place in pursuance of an order to which section 101 of this Act applies, or
(b)is removed from a road, or from land in the open air, in pursuance of regulations under section 99 of this Act.
(2)In any such case—
(a)the appropriate authority shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the removal of the vehicle;
(b)the chief officer of a police force or a local authority other than a London authority] in whose custody any such vehicle is during any period shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges ascertained by reference to a prescribed scale in respect of that period;
©the chief officer of a police force or a local authority [F23other than a London authority] who dispose of any such vehicle in pursuance of section 101 of this Act shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges determined in the prescribed manner in respect of its disposal [F25and
(d)a London authority shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible, such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of a vehicle removed from a parking place designated under section 6, 9 or 45 of this Act or otherwise provided or controlled by that authority as they may require.]
(3)Any sum recoverable by virtue of this section shall, in England or Wales, be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction or, in the case of a sum not exceeding £20, summarily as a civil debt.
(4)Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above any sum is recoverable in respect of a vehicle by the chief officer of a police force or a local authority in whose custody the vehicle is, the chief officer or local authority shall be entitled to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:21) *
Read the RTRA 1984.

You have referred to section 4A, there is NO section 4A.

Yes there is:

Section 71 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 wouldn't mention RTRA section 101(4A), if 101(4A) didn't exist.

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:21) *
and section 102 for Scotland

You've quoted the wrong legislation again, as section 102 is modified by The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999. In any event that section does not negate the effect of section 4A above. This argument was tried in appeal 2140323858 (Ian Stuart Thomson -v- London Borough of Camden), needless to say it did not end well. The council is entitled to rely on RTRA section 101(4A) as the Road Traffic Act 1991 and The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999 explicitly make provisions for this.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:15
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



No, wrong again, Im afraid.

That is section 101(4A) which is for Greater London and has been repealed by Traffic Management Act 2004 c. 18 Sch.11 para.3(1) (March 31, 2008 as SI 2007/2053)


Here it is in full. It was repealed when civil parking enf. started.

(4A) If, before a vehicle found in Greater London is disposed of by an authority in pursuance of
subsections (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the authority that he
is its owner and pays—
(a) any penalty charge payable in respect of the parking of the vehicle in the place from
which it was removed; and
(b) such sums in respect of the removal and storage of the vehicle—
(i) as the authority may require; or
(ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local
authority, as may be prescribed,
the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as they
may specify or, where paragraph (b)(ii) applies, as may be prescribed.

I think you should stop now. You do agree that Greater London is not Glasgow, right?

This post has been edited by Asif Nazir: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:32
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:15) *
No, wrong again, Im afraid.

That is section 101(4A) which is for Greater London and has been repealed by Traffic Management Act 2004 c. 18 Sch.11 para.3(1) (March 31, 2008 as SI 2007/2053)
...
I think you should stop now. You do agree that Greater London is not Glasgow, right?

It has not been repealed in Scotland, as you can see on https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/101 if you scroll down to the "Scotland extent" section.

It is for Greater London, except that for Glasgow The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999 (which you really need to read) says, under Schedule 3, Part 1, Paragraph 4

"4.—(1) Section 101 shall be modified as follows.
(2) Subsection (4) shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (4A), for the words “Greater London” there shall be substituted “the parking area”.
(4) Subsection (5) shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (5A), for the words “Greater London” there shall be substituted “the parking area”.
"

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/1999/59/...aragraph/4/made

You do agree The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999 is relevant here, right?

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:35


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:40
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I don’t express a view on which one of you is correct. However, if this particular argument has never succeeded in front of an adjudicator (which I believe someone referred to above) it seems a little duplicitous to recommend it, at least without saying it has never succeeded.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:40) *
I don’t express a view on which one of you is correct. However, if this particular argument has never succeeded in front of an adjudicator (which I believe someone referred to above) it seems a little duplicitous to recommend it, at least without saying it has never succeeded.



When has this argument ever been put to a Scot Adj.?


This is s.101(4) for Scotland, it makes no reference to a penalty charge, only removal and storage

(4) If, before a vehicle found outside Greater London
is disposed of by an authority in
pursuance of subsection (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the
authority that he is its owner and pays such sums in respect of its removal and storage as may be
prescribed to the authority entitled to those sums, the authority shall permit him to remove the
vehicle from their custody within such period as may be prescribed.


However, I agree with Bogsy that 101(4) is for abandoned vehicles and that Glasgow and others should be using 102.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 22:53
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:48) *
QUOTE (Kking @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:03) *
Thanks a lot guys but I’m quite confused about what I’m going to write so could you please give me the wording. Really appreciate that.

It's just my opinion but I think it's only fair to clue you up here.
One of the respondents has a personal agenda: Numerous towing cases have been taken off on this tangent; effectively, hijacked.
That should be evident again here, in just the few hours since you posed the above question.

The person concerned has, as I understand it, been suspended and or barred from this forum numerous times and their latest 'name' is the
umpteenth incarnation.

While there might be some merit in some of the things he/she has to say I am repeatedly bemused why they don't just
go and get towed themselves; giving them the opportunity and incentive to challenge as they insist is possible.
They certainly haven't ever demonstrated, on this forum, that they have the wherewithal to actually present a case and
see it through to a successful outcome: In short, unrealistic and the bottom line to that is, hence actually unhelpful.
I don't recall them ever offering to attend to represent anyone seeking help, as is obvious such contentious arguments would require.

I hope that helps clarify the advice being given.



Which law states that Glasgow council can demand the penalty charge is paid as part of the release fee? Please provide a link and a copy and paste.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:00
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:48) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:40) *
I don’t express a view on which one of you is correct. However, if this particular argument has never succeeded in front of an adjudicator (which I believe someone referred to above) it seems a little duplicitous to recommend it, at least without saying it has never succeeded.



When has this argument ever been put to a Scot Adj.?


You tell me.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:04
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:48) *
This is s.101(4) for Scotland, it makes no reference to a penalty charge, only removal and storage

Section 101(4) has no application in Glasgow because The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Glasgow) Designation Order 1999 (which you really need to read) says, under Schedule 3, Part 1, Paragraph 4 (my emphasis):

"4.—(1) Section 101 shall be modified as follows.
(2) Subsection (4) shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (4A), for the words “Greater London” there shall be substituted “the parking area”.
(4) Subsection (5) shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (5A), for the words “Greater London” there shall be substituted “the parking area”.
"

QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:53) *
Which law states that Glasgow council can demand the penalty charge is paid as part of the release fee? Please provide a link and a copy and paste.

You need to read the following documents together: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/71 as modified by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/1999/59/...aragraph/3/made and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/101 as modified by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/1999/59/...aragraph/4/made

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:05


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asif Nazir
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:27
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 27 May 2018
Member No.: 98,139



So now you are saying that the RTA 1991 does NOT say that the Council can demand a release fee?


If the amendment to the RTRA is correct and Glasgow replaces Greater London then that only applies to abandoned vehicles.


If this were not the case then section 102 would be otiose.


2) In anysuch case—
(a) the appropriate authority shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges as may be
prescribed in respect of the removal of the vehicle;
(b) the chief officer of a police force or a local authority[ other than a London authority] in whose custodyanysuch
vehicle is during any period shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges ascertained by
reference to a prescribed scale in respect of that period; . . .
© the chief officer of a police force or a local authority[ other than a London authority] who dispose of any such
vehicle in pursuance of section 101 of this Act shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges

a) is the removal charge
b) is the storage charge

no mention of penalty charge.

and this is what allows the council to retain custody until a) and b) are paid

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above any sum is
recoverable in respect of a vehicle bythe chief officer of a police force or a local authorityin whose custodythe vehicle is, the
chief officer or local authority shall be entitled to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 06:46
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,707
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Asif Nazir @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 23:48) *
........When has this argument ever been put to a Scot Adj.?...…….


Couple of years back.
Bogsy guided the OP and the adjudicator spent a long time in deciding the appeal.
Decided against the argument.
IIRC that was Glasgow but would have to search to find the case for details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 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: Saturday, 23rd June 2018 - 23:59
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.