Traffic Penalty Tribunal, 14 months for a decision |
Traffic Penalty Tribunal, 14 months for a decision |
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:31
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,855 |
I received a penalty notice for using a bus lane,I then appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal using the online facility because of inadequate signage on the 28/08/2017.This has been outstanding but I foolishly queried why no decision had been made on line and last week and yesterday received a decision I LOST. Is there any time limit on the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to make a decision as 14 months is a long time to be accused of commiting an offence before knowing if you are guilty or not.I don't think 14 months is a reasonable time to wait.
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:31
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:41
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I received a penalty notice for using a bus lane,I then appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal using the online facility because of inadequate signage on the 28/08/2017.This has been outstanding but I foolishly queried why no decision had been made on line and last week and yesterday received a decision I LOST. Is there any time limit on the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to make a decision as 14 months is a long time to be accused of commiting an offence before knowing if you are guilty or not.I don't think 14 months is a reasonable time to wait. It would seem to breach the ECHR article 6 right to a fair trial reasonable time guarantee but tell us more page 24 on here https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HR...ND-03(2006).pdf -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:23
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
But did you appeal to the TPT or to the council that issued the PCN ? The two are completely separate. I can understand a council being totally dozy, but not the TPT. As said above, we need much more information than you have provided so far.
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:44
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I received a PCN ....and here it is
I made reps to the authority......and here they are I received a NOR.....and here it is I appealed to TPT....and here it is I received notice from TPT that my appeal had been refused.....and here it is. Over to you. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:45 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:07
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,855 |
Sorry for the late reply,this offence occured on 29/10/2016 but as I am a van dealer the PCN took over a year to get to me because the van had passed through several dealers before I purchased.The van was being driven on a test drive by a potential customer unaccompanied when he must have gone through the bus lane.
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:24
Post
#6
|
||
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,855 |
Sorry fast reply does not allow attachments.I attach the appeal and the TPT decision
|
|
|
||
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
The adjudicator says the parties are owed an apology, but I see no actual apology. If it were me, I'd be rattling the bars of the TPT cage on this matter, and indeed, be taking the matter up with the Ministry of Justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:32
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:40
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity. from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:50
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity. from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently You think wrong I'm afraid, you cannot sue a court or tribunal acting in its judicial capacity. Under the convention, you can sue a member state for breaching its convention obligations in the European Court, but that would be a suit against the United Kingdom on the basis that UK law has caused a breach of the OP's convention rights, so the case would be OP vs United Kingdom (As ECHR cases always are). I suspect such a suit would be unsuccessful because for proceedings of a summary or administrative nature, the ECHR has previously allowed two years where there is no special urgency (such as child proceedings etc...). Sure waiting 10-14 months isn't great, but in other European countries that's the norm. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:58
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Why has the extra-procedural hare been set running..
BANG, BANG...... Now back to the regs: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made 12(b)(vi) refers: vi)the interests of justice require such a review. You use and ultimately exhaust all your regulatory options before considering other avenues. So, submit a request for a review. You have until 30 Nov. Your ideal outcome is to allow your appeal. Your fallback is a recommendation to the authority to cancel the penalty based on the justice delayed is justice denied principle. I note the adjudicator's reference to the inordinate and, with respect, unacceptable delay of *** between registration of the appeal and its determination and suspect that this must have been due to an administrative error - you cannot bring yourself to even consider that the adjudicator himself took *** months to make his decision. But whatever the cause, you were denied a decision for **** months. You submit that this is contrary to all concepts of fairness which is an overriding principle for the court and the authority. This delay also denied you the opportunity to consider other possible grounds for review i.e. new evidence coming to light, because the passage of time has rendered memories unreliable and increased the likelihood that records have been discarded. If the adjudicator is not able to allow the appeal on these grounds, you request that at least the decision be varied with a recommendation to cancel the penalty made to the authority. Just some thoughts. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:07
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
That's more like it, nothing to lose at this point so might as well ask for a review.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:28
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I would be very circumspect in asking for a Review of a case by Knapp who IMO has the same status as Houghton in London.
The key to any successful Review has to be based on prejudice or the potential for prejudice it's not about unfairness per se. The critical precept is that undue delay has in itself caused prejudice without proper explanation for the delay. Knapp has taken the facts and established there was a contravention and that there is no prejudice regardless of the delay. If we are considering a delay by the Council the following would be relevant:- "Also, for this enforcement to be lawful the Council has a duty to exercise its powers with reasonable expedition and fairness. I note the case of R-v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex p. Doody (1994) (House of Lords) per 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". I have also considered Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (PAS 1970198981) where it was considered that a delay of more than 2/3 months in responding to an appellant's representations was prima facie evidence of unfairness in the absence of explanation". As we are talking about legal aspects of delay I cannot see how TPT can be excluded from the above if its actions have not complied with a legitimate expectation the TPT would action the case in a timely manner. Sections 14 onwards of this document present the difficulty faced here:- http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/20...UT_105_iac.html This sort of statement " Thus, if the reviewing or appellate Court identifies a procedural irregularity or impropriety which, in its view, made no difference to the outcome, the appropriate conclusion is that there was no unfairness to the party concerned" So IMO if prejudice cannot be proved there is little chance of success. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:41 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:36
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
With respect, we can't just apply the principles applicable to a public body to the court.
And why would the adj not be embarrassed, they should be either on their or their organisation's behalf. To not register implies acceptance, but it is not acceptable. The recommendation to the council option is my preferred outcome, which is why it's included, as it doesn't require Knapp to fall on his pen and allows the authority a say. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:55
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Stephen Knapp has taken the view that the decision would have been the same 2 months after the PCN or 14 months after the PCN.
He has IMO decided there were no extraneous factors like unfairness or prejudice that had to be taken into account in reaching that decision because the case was so clear cut contravention-wise. So, rather than asking him to be ashamed of his organisation or consider immolation by biro what substantive grounds can the OP make to get this case back on the table? Mick |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:58
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity. from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently You think wrong I'm afraid, you cannot sue a court or tribunal acting in its judicial capacity. Under the convention, you can sue a member state for breaching its convention obligations in the European Court, but that would be a suit against the United Kingdom on the basis that UK law has caused a breach of the OP's convention rights, so the case would be OP vs United Kingdom (As ECHR cases always are). I suspect such a suit would be unsuccessful because for proceedings of a summary or administrative nature, the ECHR has previously allowed two years where there is no special urgency (such as child proceedings etc...). Sure waiting 10-14 months isn't great, but in other European countries that's the norm. Thanks, well wxplained -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 21:11
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
OK, 14 months and no prejudice so what period would be unreasonable, 10 years ? Death of the appellant maybe ? Somebody here deserves a severe kicking and probably dismissal from the TPT, no ifs or buts. No apology has even been issued, it has merely been indicated as "deserved".
This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 21:12 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 22:09
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
@MMV, you seem to be reading into the decision more than is justified on the facts.
The objective facts are that the adjudicator took *** months to determine an appeal. B****r anybody else's duties, this is shameful and IMO MUST be challenged and justified. To acquiesce would be unforgiveable. If they choose to justify, so be it. But don't assume the door is not ajar, kick the b****r and see. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:57
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
@ hca
Not assuming anything and I would certainly ask for a Review. What I have stated to date is that any request for a Review be considered in relation to prejudice or potential prejudice not just unfairness. I have also stated that the adjudicator probably took the line that there was no prejudice since to him it was a slam dunk case then as it is now. So that is a hurdle we must bear in mind. Remember, we have had this situation in Scotland where some of the adjudicators take forever to make a decision. In one of those cases I commented as follows:- "The key point is that of course the OP has been prejudiced. The delay HAS affected the OP's ability to argue the case for the simple reason that as noted in Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ( PAS 1970198981) " the unconscionable delay in the case has severely prejudiced the Appellant’s ability to collate and preserve evidence". The Council could have altered its lines and signs at the location since September 2013 and, in making further investigation perhaps in 2014 or 2015, the OP would be none the wiser. So there is the potential for prejudice too." A second point relates to the legitimate expectation issue in that the OP expects to be treated fairly by an authority vested with penal powers (TPT). This has not happened because of the inordinate delay and maladministration. The case time-scale proves the point, as does the TPT's failure to account for the delay. I still believe the second ground can be expanded to emphasise a compromise of Article 6 of the EHRC. I was not suggesting acquiescence I was suggesting that, given the difficulties I outlined, any request for a Review must concentrate on prejudice and legitimate expectation and get the rationale spot on--else we are wasting everyone's time. Mick |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:34 |