Horns Road Ilford Yellow junction box PCN |
Horns Road Ilford Yellow junction box PCN |
Wed, 27 Dec 2017 - 13:45
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
Person driving my car received PCN on Horns Road Ilford, I have booked an appointment tomorrow for viewing the video however just realized can view it myself online. Any advice if there are grounds to challenge it based on PCN text and position of the junction box ?
PCN Attached - http://i68.tinypic.com/woj6o.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/2z83y9i.jpg This post has been edited by JohnSmith1234: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 - 14:07 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 27 Dec 2017 - 13:45
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 18:35
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Based on that, I think i would be looking for a review. In this case it was a matter of law not fact. The adjudicator found you could work it out, The law says it must be shown on the PCN
in this case it would appear the adjudicator misdirected themselves as regards the law -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 19:01
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Based on that, I think i would be looking for a review. In this case it was a matter of law not fact. The adjudicator found you could work it out, The law says it must be shown on the PCN in this case it would appear the adjudicator misdirected themselves as regards the law +1 It's either a statutory duty to display the amount clearly or it isn't. "We can work it out" is a Beatles song not a law. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 20:29
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Based on that, I think i would be looking for a review. In this case it was a matter of law not fact. The adjudicator found you could work it out, The law says it must be shown on the PCN in this case it would appear the adjudicator misdirected themselves as regards the law +1, the relevant case law here can be found in London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357, at paragraph 41: "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." The 1991 Act has been replaced by the 2004 Act, but the relevant provisions are substantively the same. Either the statutory conditions are met, or they are not. Either the statutory condition that the amount of the penalty is on the face of the PCN, or it is not. The fact that one could work it out is irrelevant and does not change the fact that, because the statutory conditions are not met, there is no liability to pay the penalty. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 21:51
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,270 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Note that we haven't heard from OP since he stated he wanted to appeal.
We never saw that appeal or any draft to comment on/add to and adjudicator said - "The appellant only appealed on the procedural ground I have rejected." -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 15:04
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
I thought it all ends here, Is there a further appeals process ? Will that increase my fine ?
Sorry here is the content of my appeal which was refused. Dear Madam/Sir, I do not dispute the PCN however would contest that the PCN is invalid as it does not print the full PCN amount as per section 8.a of the legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted I have attached the PCN as evidence and you can clearly see that the space for the amount is blank, therefore the PCN is invalid. The local authority has also acknowledged the fact that PCN has been misprinted. I have attached the response to my appeal, the LA acknowledges it is a problem and probably is aware of this issue, but considers this a frivolous thing, it may have been issuing thousands of such invalid PCNs everyday. I think the issue could have been corrected with simple due diligence or review however LA thinks it is above the law and fails to follow directives of honourable parliament. The motoring public deserves nothing less than that the public authorities exercising penal powers understand the importance of their complying with the conditions attached to their powers and are scrupulous about having in place administrative processes that do so. It is imperative that the public can have confidence in the fairness and propriety of the enforcement of parking controls. It is also relevant that the penalties for parking contraventions are relatively low. It is very undesirable in those circumstances for the imposition of those penalties to be attended by uncertainties about its legality for procedural reasons. What is required is simplicity, clarity and certainty. That aim is not assisted by a less than rigorous approach to procedures by Local Authorities. PCNs are issued in their thousands every day; over 4 million every year. Only about 1 per cent gets as far as an appeal before a Parking Adjudicator. In relation to such a routine, everyday, prolific activity it is highly undesirable for non-compliant PCNs to be served in large numbers. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 15:21
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
Note that we haven't heard from OP since he stated he wanted to appeal. We never saw that appeal or any draft to comment on/add to and adjudicator said - "The appellant only appealed on the procedural ground I have rejected." Sorry what does that mean? I have added details of my appeals here, did I fail to include something important ? Worth reviewing ? |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:27
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Note that we haven't heard from OP since he stated he wanted to appeal. We never saw that appeal or any draft to comment on/add to and adjudicator said - "The appellant only appealed on the procedural ground I have rejected." Sorry what does that mean? I have added details of my appeals here, did I fail to include something important ? Worth reviewing ? I've given you the legal grounds you can use to ask for a review in post 43, I would suggest you have nothing to lose at this point and you should not delay, a review should always be requested as promptly as possible. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 09:33
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
I called up the tribunal helpline and they provided the email id to appeal, its the same one we receive case notification from.
Head of Support Services London Tribunals PO Box 10598 Nottingham NG6 6DR 19th March 2018 Dear Madam/Sir, Application for Review Case number:XXXXXXXXX Penalty Charge Notice number: XXXXXXXXX Date of Adjudicator’s decision:16th March 2018 Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr XXXXXXX in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision. I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests of justice require a review. My reasons for applying for a review are as follows: The Adjudicator has ruled that "The reasonable motorist would have no difficulty in working out how much they had to pay." In this case it was a matter of law not fact. The adjudicator found I could work it out, The law says it must be shown on the PCN in this case it would appear the adjudicator misdirected themselves as regards the law It's either a statutory duty to display the amount clearly or it isn't. The relevant case law here can be found in London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357, at paragraph 41: "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." The 1991 Act has been replaced by the 2004 Act, but the relevant provisions are substantively the same. Either the statutory conditions are met, or they are not. Either the statutory condition that the amount of the penalty is on the face of the PCN, or it is not. The fact that one could work it out is irrelevant and does not change the fact that, because the statutory conditions are not met, there is no liability to pay the penalty. I would like my application to be considered by the adjudicator at a postal hearing Regards, |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 11:55
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Our advise is tempered by lack of the case number so we can easily see the adjudicators decision.
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:05
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
Our advise is tempered by lack of the case number so we can easily see the adjudicators decision. There is nothing much else in there - Adjudicator's Decision The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal against liability for the charge should be refused. The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed. The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to: London Borough of Redbridge PO Box 750 ILFORD IG1 1FQ If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty charge by a further 50%. An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded Adjudicator's Reasons The payment amount is shown on the PCN. It is misaligned and appears below the box where it would normally be. This does not in my view amount to non compliance. The reasonable motorist would have no difficulty in working out how much they had to pay. The appellant only appealed on the procedural ground I have rejected. He does not dispute a contravention occurred and the Authority has provided clear evidence that it did. This post has been edited by JohnSmith1234: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:06 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:39
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,270 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Our advise is tempered by lack of the case number so we can easily see the adjudicators decision. 2180060903 -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:47
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I called up the tribunal helpline and they provided the email id to appeal, its the same one we receive case notification from. Head of Support Services London Tribunals PO Box 10598 Nottingham NG6 6DR 19th March 2018 Dear Madam/Sir, Application for Review Case number:XXXXXXXXX Penalty Charge Notice number: XXXXXXXXX Date of Adjudicator’s decision:16th March 2018 Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr XXXXXXX in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision. I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests of justice require a review. My reasons for applying for a review are as follows: The Adjudicator has ruled that "The reasonable motorist would have no difficulty in working out how much they had to pay. In this case it was a matter of law not fact. The adjudicator found I could work it out, The law says at4(8)(a)(ii) it must be shown on the PCN. contrary to the decision, this amount does not appear on the PCN. this is an error in fact in this case it would appear In finding that a motorist had the ability to work it out the adjudicator misdirected themselves as regards the law It's either a statutory duty to display the amount clearly or it isn't. The relevant case law here can be found in London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357, at paragraph 41: Mr Justice Jackson says at paragraph 41 "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." The 1991 Act has been replaced by the 2004 Act, but the relevant provisions are substantively the same. Either the statutory conditions are met, or they are not. Either the statutory condition that the amount of the penalty is on the face of the PCN, or it is not. The fact that one could work it out is irrelevant and does not change the fact that, because the statutory conditions are not met, there is no liability to pay the penalty. I would like my application to be considered by the adjudicator at a postal hearing IMO Add the red take out the purple Regards, -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 13:09
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
Thank you, I have updated the review.
|
|
|
Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 07:21
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,689 |
Unfortunately, the review has been refused as well
Reasons 1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original Adjudicator or the law. 2. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the evidence submitted. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the applicant's vehicle was in contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including the observations of the applicant's vehicle. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding. 3. The original Adjudicator also made findings that the PCN met the applicable legal test by being substantially compliant with the relevant regulations as well as being clear and adequate. The original Adjudicator was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence for the reasons given. The question of prejudice is irrelevant. The PCN was compliant. 4. The applicant's latest representations are essentially no more than a disagreement with the original Adjudicator's findings and a repetition of the submissions made before. There is no reason to conclude that the original Adjudicator did not consider all the evidence submitted and all matters raised in the applicant's original representations." Your application for review is therefore rejected. |
|
|
Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 12:31
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
That is very disappointing, as the original adjudicator was clearly not entitled to reach the conclusion that the PCN was complaint. Unfortunately unless you want to take the matter to the High Court, that's the end of the line.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:44 |