Lambeth council - wrong reg entered in app |
Lambeth council - wrong reg entered in app |
Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 09:26
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,412 |
Morning all,
I received a PCN for parking my car, after thinking I had paid for the parking via the app. I only own one car, but what I hadn't realised what that I had downloade and used the app while in the Netherlands, whilst out there on business, and as a result I had paid for parking in Lambeth for a Dutch rental car. In short, an honest mistake. I had paid for parking, just for the wrong car. I wrote to the council and explained the situation, but they have upheld their judgement. https://app.box.com/s/0mz9jnevfdv6muwpc0abbtfw00z9qtnl https://app.box.com/s/b9nryka8fxo9ab847595j9qtb0dklrf6 I now have the choice of paying the fine (£130) or going to appeal. Thoughts? Thanks. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 09:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 17:23
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,412 |
Many thanks....
Many thanks... |
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:13
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,412 |
Appeal refused....
The appellant informed the tribunal that he was content for the hearing to go ahead in his absence. The Enforcement Authority did not attend. The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle was parked in a bay for resident permit holders or pay and display. The appellant states that he paid for parking but mistakenly paid for the incorrect vehicle registration mark. He refers to decisions in other cases including a decision made in a different tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. He refers to a number of Regulations and claims that the notice of rejection is not compliant. He relies on procedural impropriety as his ground of appeal. Payment for parking must be made for the vehicle registration mark in question. Payment for a different vehicle does not provide an exemption. I am not bound by decisions in other cases. Each decision is made on the merits of the case. I am not persuaded that there has been a procedural impropriety I find that the notice of rejection is substantially compliant. I refuse the appeal. The penalty is payable. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 12:50
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I doubt it'll work but you have nothing to lose in asking for a review.
-------------------------- A review is necessary in the interests of justice, because the adjudicator made an error of law. While adjudicator Anderson is correct that each case is decided on its merits, she fell into error in deciding that it was not a procedural impropriety for the Notice of Rejection to assert that the council "will" increase the penalty charge. In James Demery v London Borough of Bexley (case reference 2180251300) adjudicator Anthony Chan found that: "...the Authority has been given a discretion to issue a Charge Certificate and the PCN must state that this discretion exists. The PCN cannot give the impression that there is no such discretion even if the reality is that such a discretion will not be exercised in the motorists' favour" The authority in this instance has been given a discretion to increase the charge by 50%, or not. The Notice of Rejection cannot give the impression that there is no such discretion even if the reality is that such a discretion will not be exercised in the motorists' favour. In holding that, despite giving the impression that no such discretion exists, the Notice of Rejection was nonetheless complaint and did not constitute a procedural impropriety, adjudicator Jane Anderson fell into error. It is therefore in the interest of justice for the review to be allowed, and for the decision to be made afresh by a new adjudicator. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 07:31
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 7 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,412 |
As predicted - refused
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:03 |