PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

File of cases to assist arguments, listed under various headings
Hippocrates
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I am offering this list of cases to help people find cases quickly in order to support their arguments. It also saves me time in cross-referring to my other browser!

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Please feel free to add. If you do so, please indicate at the start of your post the type of case your chosen decision(s) e.g. legitimate expectation.

Charge Certificate: premature issue

2130230240 and 2050339777. 213021691A. 213040742A 2140034850 2130622819 2140065151
2130296792, 2140068375.

Evidence not served in time

2110144328, 2130131442, 2120451094, 2130259672.


Will/may cases

2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316, 2130516990, 2140068320, 2140026692, 2140006797, 2140046893, 2110029250

Legitimate expectation

2120130716, 2120134353 , 2110055104,. 2130190430, 2120088937, 2130288681, 213031735A

Mandatory info missing from Reg. 10 PCN

The PCN does not contain mandatory information re viewing the evidence. Case Nos.: 2120293222, 2130089798, 2130149029, 2130034162, 2130397290, 2130011644, 2130430807, 2140026692, 2140006797, 2140068320. 213009616A, 2120473279

Regulation 3(4) opening statement and 3(5) and (6) in their entirety. The adjudicator in the first case cites the legislation in her decision.

Representations treated as requests

2120488345, 2100587978, 2120408958, 2110494261.

Multiple choice decision: Code 12

2120562288

Failure to consider

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...ly%2520case.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...0discretion.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...520decision.pdf

Fettered discretion: I am unable to cancel

2130316200, 2130521902, 2130497615.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 12 May 2014 - 20:47


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
20 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 12:13
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 21 Jun 2014 - 00:40) *
Yellow Box Junction de minimis: 2140226090

In the light of the very small amount by which the vehicle is seen to be in the entrance to the junction and the brief time it is in this position I treat this on its facts as a case where the principle of de minimis ( i.e legal insignificance) should be applied, and on that basis no contravention occurred. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


Viewing evidence re Reg 10 CCTV issued PCNs: 2140232457

The case also raises the question as to whether the wording on the Council's PCN complies with the requirement of Regulation 3(4)(e) to state the effect of 3(5) and (6) - again a matter which seems on the face of it a little doubtful but which may await some future decision of the point is raised.


YBJ de minimis

2140244445
The appellant has attended at the Angel today.
… I do not allow yellow box junction appeals on the basis of the timing and sequence of traffic lights. Nor in general are appeals properly allowed because a vehicle in front slows or stops unexpectedly. I detected fault over the appellant entering the box as he did without certainty of clearing it without stopping. The Council dossier … does not tell me precisely how many seconds the appellant car was stopped. It is not especially easy to detect precisely how many in this particular case but on my calculation it was approximately five or under. The vehicle when stopped was towards the perimeter exit of the box and straddling it. … but given the evidence overall I have on balance, decided the occurrence was too minor to establish unlawful stopping and liability for a penalty charge.


2140186189
I have concluded that the driver was at fault in entering the yellow box as he did. I am not bound by earlier decisions of other Adjudicators … about a required number of seconds of stopping … In my judgment the correct approach is not simply a case of counting seconds but examining the full CCTV clip and having regard to the full facts. I have however been persuaded that the stop that occurred … can be regarded as insignificant enough as to be classed as legally inconsequential.

214018619A
The footage shows that Mr xxx's car entered the box junction without having a clear exit. However, the car was stopped for only 3 seconds before the wheels were again in motion. I do not believe that this constitutes stopping in a sense sufficient to constitute a contravention. A vehicle might come to a halt in a box for 2 to 3 seconds while a driver changes gear and moves forward. A vehicle might similarly come to a halt for a few seconds due to stalling. I agree with Mr xxx that this is simply too de minimis to amount to stopping for the purposes of the alleged contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Thu, 14 Aug 2014 - 10:12
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Time, location, signage, moving traffic: 2140254631
(courtesy of qafqa)

"….. I am persuaded by this and by the lack of any compelling evidence from the authority to show otherwise, that the signage at this location is not adequate.
In addition I note that the recording shows that contravention actually occurred at 08.01.35, whereas the time given in the PCN is 08.02. By 08.02 the vehicle
had passed the alleged contravention site, and was stationary at the next junction. As this is a moving traffic alleged contravention there is a need for complete
accuracy as to time and location which is not satisfied on this occasion. The PCN should not stand on this ground also. The appeal is allowed."

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Wed, 27 Aug 2014 - 09:20
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



Blue Badges: if the TMO doesn't refer to a clock being displayed, the badge itself is enough:

214033669A
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when Mr X's car was parked in a disabled badge in Temple Fortune Lane. There was a disabled badge and clock in the car. The bay is for disabled badge who may park for up to three hours. The clock in the car was set at about 12:00. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 09:51. the local authority states that the car had been parked for more than three hours. I accept Mr X's evidence which is supported by a letter from his GP surgery that the car was parked for about 30 minutes. I find as a fact that the car was parked in the bay for less than three hours.

The local authority provides a copy of the Traffic Management Order. The Order states that a car parked in a disabled bay must have a disabled badge displayed. The Traffic Management Order does not refer to any requirement to display a clock. As there is no requirement to display a clock it follows that the incorrect setting of the clock does not amount to a contravention.

I allow this appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Fri, 29 Aug 2014 - 10:11
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Yellow Box Junction – stopped for pedestrian. 2140345227
Authority: Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Decision Date: 28 Aug 2014
Reasons: The appellant claims that she stopped briefly for a pedestrian to cross and then moved forwards out of the box.
The Regulations provide "...no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within
the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles." I find as fact that the vehicle did not stop in the box junction due to the
presence of stationary vehicles. The vehicle stopped for a pedestrian to cross. The vehicle then moved out of the junction.
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 11 Sep 2014 - 22:18
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



"Parked" for less than a minute: 2140097930 and 2130139739. Original adjudicator in both is Michael Lawrence. Good bloke IMO.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Wed, 17 Sep 2014 - 07:04
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



QUOTE (2cupsofcoffee @ Sun, 1 Jun 2014 - 17:42) *
another asked the CEO first 2140203335


Asked CEO first: 2140369203 - Parked after expiry of time. Driver did not have reading glasses with her so relied on information given to her by the CEO.

Failure to pursue PCN within reasonable time. 2410263676. More than 6 months is not reasonable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 11:18
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Do you have a list of cases involving Reg 3(5) and 3(6) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007? EG PATAS 2120293222.
Thanks,

"(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—
(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention."
"(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 11:36
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 12:18) *
Do you have a list of cases involving Reg 3(5) and 3(6) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007? EG PATAS 2120293222.
Thanks,

"(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—
(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention."
"(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time."



2130360654?

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented.

The Appellant had made a written request to see the CCTV recording. He said that he did not receive a response and the Authority did not challenge that. The failure to allow the Appellant to see the CCTV recording is a procedural impropriety.

I am allowing the appeal.

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 11:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 20:36
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (2cupsofcoffee @ Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 12:36) *
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 12:18) *
Do you have a list of cases involving Reg 3(5) and 3(6) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007? EG PATAS 2120293222.
Thanks,

"(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—
(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention."
"(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time."



2130360654?

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented.

The Appellant had made a written request to see the CCTV recording. He said that he did not receive a response and the Authority did not challenge that. The failure to allow the Appellant to see the CCTV recording is a procedural impropriety.

I am allowing the appeal.

Panel decision has now reversed this p.i. Mashkiach thread.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry964810

214015350A

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 - 20:39


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 10 Oct 2014 - 10:19
Post #70


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Our old friend Clements Road.

Case Reference:2140372354 Appellant:Tube Lines Authority:Redbridge VRM:WP61ZXJ PCN:AF91271385 Contravention Date:04 May 2014 Contravention Time:07:23 Contravention Location:Clements Road Penalty Amount:£130.00 Contravention:Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle Decision Date:02 Oct 2014 Adjudicator:Anthony Chan Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The Appellant Company is represented by Mr Skilton who attended the hearing in person. The Authority was not represented.

Mr Skilton seeks to rely on an exemption contained in the Redbridge Prescribed Routes (no.1) Traffic Order 2010. The Authority submits that this is the incorrect TMO. It says that the correct TMO is the Ilford Town Centre Prescribed Routes Order 1987 no1.

The allegation is about a section of a bus route in Clements Road. The former TMO refers to a bus route in Clements Road. The latter order does not refer to Clements Road save for a mention of it as a marking the commencement of a restriction in Clements lane.

I accept that the 2010 TMO applies and as the Authority has not provided any arguments as to the application of the exemption in that Order, I am allowing the appeal.

I gather that there may be further appeals under similar circumstances. I wish to make it clear that this decision is not to be treated to be a blanket cover for all Tube Lines vehicles to travel on Clements Road. I have not made a finding on the application of the exemption. This may be the subject of any future appeals. I would suggest that both parties must now pay c loser attention to what the TMO says, and come to the Tribunal equipped with proper evidence and legal submissions.


PLUS

Case Reference:2140352867 Appellant:[Redacted] Authority:Redbridge VRM:[Redacted] PCN:AF91278806 Contravention Date:09 May 2014 Contravention Time:17:37 Contravention Location:Clements Road Penalty Amount:£130.00 Contravention:Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle Decision Date:02 Sep 2014 Adjudicator:Andrew Harman Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:This appeal was scheduled for hearing today.
Neither party to the proceedings attended.
The matter has now been listed before me for determination on the papers.
The contravention alleged in this case is that this vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
The types of vehicle that are subject to the prohibition are motor vehicles and motorcycles. An exemption applies for buses and for access.
On the point being raised by the appellant I note that the penalty charge notice does not specify the types of vehicles that are subject to the prohibition. I am not for that reason satisfied that the notice states the grounds upon which the council believes that the penalty charge is payable and find that it is for that reason not compliant with the legal requirements.
The contravention did not I find therefore occur.


This post has been edited by Fredd: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 10:39
Reason for edit: Personal details redacted
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Sun, 12 Oct 2014 - 16:29
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Any more like this case below?
IE what is a reasonable time limit for PATAS referral following a WS or SD? The practical meaning of "promptly".
Thanks,
Enceladus

QUOTE (2cupsofcoffee @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 16:35) *
Case Reference: 2140252454
Declarant:
Authority: Merton
VRM:
PCN: MT80267607
Contravention Date: 24 Jun 2013
Contravention Time: 12:21
Contravention Location: Windermere Avenue SW19
Penalty Amount: £110.00
Contravention: Parked in a restricted street
Referral Date: 02 Jun 2014
Declaration Direction Date: 10 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Austin Wilkinson
Appeal Decision: Closed
Direction: the LA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice

Reasons: draw the local authority's attention here to the PATAS User Manual issued to all Enforcement Authorities in December 2008 at paragraph 20.5 where there is reference to the statutory duty to refer cases promptly to this Tribunal once the Court has made its Order upon presentation of a Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement. Failure to do so may result in the Adjudicator finding the delay in doing so debars the Enforcement Authority from enforcing the penalty charge notice and directing cancellation of the penalty charge notice and the Notice to Owner. In addition, in exercising its functions under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 the local authority has a duty to act fairly. 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 . Here, the Date of referral of the Witness Statement is 23rd May 2014 but the Order of the Court is 30th October 2013 and I have no explanation for this level of delay. This is an unreasonable and , in my view, an unfair delay causing potential evidential prejudice to the Appellant. Enforcement cannot be permitted in these circumstances.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 12 Oct 2014 - 17:42
Post #72


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



In that instance less than 3 months. This one via Mr Mustard uses the same timescale but also quotes the Human Rights Convention and explains how unfairness might occur.

PATAS 2130453008

There has been a great deal of unexplained delay in this case. The Notice to Owner was issued on 24th August 2011. However the Charge Certificate was only issued on 22nd March 2013. The Council has not given any explanation for the level of delay before issuing the Charge Certificate and obtaining registration of the debt at Court. In my judgement there is a compromise of Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention here. It is a problem for the Adjudicator to give a fair hearing in the case if the delay has potentially affected the recollection of events by either the Appellant or the parking attendant. 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 . I am not satisfied that the local authority has conducted the timetable of this enforcement with reasonable expedition and that, as a result, there is an unfairness. For both of these reasons I find that the appropriate Direction here is that the Penalty Charge Notice must now be cancelled.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 10:59
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 11 Sep 2014 - 23:18) *
"Parked" for less than a minute: 2140097930 and 2130139739. Original adjudicator in both is Michael Lawrence. Good bloke IMO.


Stopped (less than a minute) where prohibited - red route 2140351445 (TFL)
'The term to stop on a red route does not require the vehicle to be left in the sense of being unattended, it simply has to come to a stop or become
stationary; however it has to be more than nominal; one would expect with camera enforcement that a vehicle would have to be stationary for at
least a minute, not to be regarded as nominal. In this case the vehicle is seen for about 58 seconds before the passenger returns, gets aboard and
the vehicle starts to move off.'


This post has been edited by astralite: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 - 05:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 11:21
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Wrong contravention – footway parking. 2140409319 (TFL)
Cycle lane is part of the carriageway.


This post has been edited by astralite: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 11:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 11:41
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Failure to act fairly – LA used wrong postcode. 2140413123 (TFL)
YBJ case.




This post has been edited by astralite: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 11:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 12:14
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Failure to investigate - Costs awarded - 2140285792 (TFL)
LA failed to investigate/deal properly with representation (no evidence of a sign) before issuing NOR.


This post has been edited by astralite: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 - 12:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 15 Oct 2014 - 15:58
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Do you have any cases where expenses have been claimed, successfully or otherwise for N244 court fees? Specifically where an appellant has had to resort to an N244 application for review of the TEC decsion to refuse an Out Of Time application, in order to get the matter before PATAS and the appeal has been allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Fri, 17 Oct 2014 - 13:41
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Event day signage. Parked in a restricted street. Controlled Zone. 2140405442
Richmond Upon Thames

…. even if the hours on the Zone sign were adequate to override the time plate there is … a dearth of evidence to prove that the Appellant must have passed
such a sign …No plan of the Zone showing the location of the signs has been provided nor is there any evidence that all the signs had been correctly set to show
the dates of the event days. (There is also no evidence of the Secretary of State's authorisation for the sign, although I suspect on the basis of other cases that
this has in fact been granted). … I am unable to be satisfied the restriction relied on was adequately drawn to the Appellant's attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Fri, 17 Oct 2014 - 13:54
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,268
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Assisted boarding. Driver’s mobility. Parked in a restricted street. 2140398085
Richmond Upon Thames
The picking up exemption must allow time for a driver to assist a passenger to a vehicle especially where the passenger is young, elderly, disabled
or otherwise vulnerable. A period of 5 or even 10 minutes is not excessive especially where the driver is also suffering from a mobility problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 8 Jan 2015 - 11:32
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (astralite @ Tue, 8 Jul 2014 - 22:03) *
2140263304 Multiple PCNs. Bus lane


http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:07
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