PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Horns Road Ilford Yellow junction box PCN
JohnSmith1234
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 54)
Advertisement
post Wed, 27 Dec 2017 - 13:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 19:01
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 18:35) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 20:29
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 18:35) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 21:51
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
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."


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 15:21
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,689



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 21:51) *
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 ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:27
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (JohnSmith1234 @ Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 15:21) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 21:51) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post 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,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:05
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,689



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 11:55) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:39
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 11:55) *
Our advise is tempered by lack of the case number so we can easily see the adjudicators decision.

2180060903



--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 12:47
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (JohnSmith1234 @ Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 09:33) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnSmith1234
post 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 sad.gif


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:26
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here