PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

515 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 17:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (daxilic @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 13:14) *
You can change that to personal if you want


What do you mean by that?



If you want a personal hearing you can still ask for one. Its a legal right
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400838 · Replies: 113 · Views: 3,376

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 17:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (janeta33 @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 17:46) *
Thanks all. I'll go back to the lease company and ask for something in writing regarding when they sent the letter to the council with my details. I'll also contact the council and ask if they could provide me with the date the first PCN was cancelled, I doubt they will but it's worth a try.



Just ask for the pcn history log
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400837 · Replies: 8 · Views: 103

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 15:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Those 3 stills must be the clearest we have seen yet. They certainly give the impression that motor vehicles are prohibited from the cycle lane. And that would be the logical interpretation. Not that you had entered a bus only street
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400773 · Replies: 7 · Views: 73

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 15:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Just told a car driver to pay up for exactly the same thing. You are right on the back foot here
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400768 · Replies: 9 · Views: 116

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 15:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Looking at GSV and the photos on the PCN, pay the discount

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5175419,-...3312!8i6656
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400765 · Replies: 10 · Views: 100

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 14:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


When I was a kid the coppers would give you a clip round the ear if you stepped out of line. They obviously cant do that now. But let the twassock defend it in court if they want to

Then if its found that the FPN is not the correct method of deterrent then perhaps waiting til the motorist returns, stopping them and spending an hour going over the car would be allowed.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400743 · Replies: 52 · Views: 971

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 13:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Either the parking places are not legal, or the DYL are not they cannot both be there
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400729 · Replies: 8 · Views: 234

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 12:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (daxilic @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 12:42) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:45) *
Apologies for not answering earlier, I've been busy with work. As far as the legalities go I don't think there is much to add, are you going for a hearing or a postal decision?

The only thing you could add is that if the restrictions are lawful (which is not accepted), there has to come a point where they cease to be enforceable where traffic conditions amount to reasons beyond the driver's control. The Council seem to think you should have waited at the junction indefinitely, and this is wholly unreasonable. Are they saying you should have stayed there blocking traffic for 15 minutes? An hour? Three hours? A day?

On the Council's interpretation of the law, if traffic conditions were sufficiently bad, you should still be sitting at that junction waiting to turn right as of today, such a strict interpretation of the legislation is clearly absurd and cannot have been the intention of Parliament when it enacted the TSRGD 2016.


No problem, despite them giving me a deadline of yesterday it's still possible to upload evidence. Although I haven't submitted the appeal yet.

It says "Appeal status: Listed for hearing" but "Hearing type: Postal".


You can change that to personal if you want
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400716 · Replies: 113 · Views: 3,376

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 11:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Pessa @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:54) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 15:03) *
Lots of adjudications at post 9 that disagree with the council.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121549


for best advice post up the PCN, your representations and the council rejection


I have tried to upload it but it's saying the picture is too large to upload. I have checked out the link you posted, PASTMYBEST, I think it is very similar to mine so I'm looking at the decision which addressing all the issues in my letter of rejection.
I will still try to upload them once I can find a way to reduce the size of the photos. Thank you for the link. biggrin.gif


use an external hosting site such as imgur or fliker
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400687 · Replies: 7 · Views: 73

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 10:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:29) *
I am against advising the OP to go to adjudication effectively to test an argument about the ‘purpose’ of the legislation. IMO, their case is no different to the majority we see at this location: they made a mistake and we cannot rewrite the legislation to make this one with no consequences.


No we cannot. Nor for that matter can an adjudicator. Their interpretation of the law however carries more weight than ours and it has been shown that at least on 3 occasions this interpretation has been made.


I have made clear, as have you that we do not think it is a sound argument it might find favour. My feeling in this is give the OP the information and our take on it then let them decide. Its a double or quits bet in the end
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400661 · Replies: 21 · Views: 204

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 10:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


This is from an appeal I wrote re the issue for another person in a Reading bus lane. It should be noted that the appeal was allowed on the ground of inadequate signage. The adjudicator did not consider other issues but said they would be unlikely to have succeeded.

IMO this is a cop out. Indeed the signage argument was weak, but its not the first time we have seen this taking the easy option



QUOTE
3:-The use of the term WILL as opposed to the regulatory requirement of MAY is one that has many times been before both the TPT and the London tribunal service. It is a collateral challenge under the statutory ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

This comes about as the PCN states that “if you do neither of these things within 28 days from the date of service of this notice the council will serve a charge certificate.

The regulations as set down at 32(1) that the authority may serve a charge certificate.

Case law has laid down first and foremost in Barnet vs the parking adjudicator Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) Jackson J said this in endorsing the findings of parking adjudicator Mr Mark Hinchcliffe

•     Section 66(3)©,(d) and (e) requires every PCN to convey certain specified information. The use of the words 'must state that' suggests that the exact words of the section are not mandatory, but the PCN must accurately convey the information set out in the subsections . .

Can the words Will and may be read to mean the same thing. My contention is that they cannot.

WILL must denote an action that has be taken if the criteria are met. Whereas May denotes an action that can be taken if it is deemed fit in the same circumstances.

Will sets a path that must be followed, May allows a deviation. I submit that the meaning of the information required by the regulations is not conveyed and the statutory requirement is not met

A further test is, is the required information conveyed by the PCN when read as a whole. Again I submit not. Only one reference to a charge certificate is made and it is not correct

Jackson J also endorsed the finding of adjudicator Mr Martin wood who found that literal compliance was not necessary. Substantial compliance is all that is needed. Case law in both tribunals has found substantial compliance to mean. The information must be clear and not mislead or confuse. To ascribe a completely different meaning to a regulation with the use of different words ,must be said to mislead as to the intent of the regulations

The next question I put is why is the what could be seen as a minor difference so important?

A council as a public body has an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. In the exercise of its punitive powers it has and must maintain at all times discretion in its actions. It must not fetter that discretion. It may set a policy as to how it may act but must always be prepared and able to act outside that policy.

There may be many reasons why a council would not or should not issue a charge certificate. A recipient might be discovered to be very ill and hospitalised, and are thus unable to deal with a PCN, it could be they have passed away, or it could be that a persons financial state would place an unbearable burden if a PCN was pursued.

The draftsman aware of this drafted the regulations in such a way as to maintain the councils discretion, parliament passed the regulation drafted this way for that reason. It is not for the council to seek to go beyond this safeguard written into the regulations

I would by way of support for my contention relay in summery a case taken before London tribunals. Case ref 2170501900 and review This gentleman asked for a review this was also denied. He then sought advice from an intenet advice site. His claim was that the council (London borough of Newham) had identified the wrong car. He posted evidence of this. Experienced members of this site attempted to help as there did appear to be a miscarriage of justice. Contact was made with the council who agreed to look again at the issue. They agreed an error had been made and cancelled the penalty. Without discretion this could not happen.
I opened this chapter with the assertion that this as a matter that has been before the tribunal many times. In reaching a finding I ask that the adjudicator gives consideration to the view of the following adjudicators all of whom have found on this in the past

2130516990 Andrew Harman
2140046893 Anthony chan

216022028A Belinda Pearce
2160211926 Christopher Rayner
2110072817 Edward Houghton

2120021652 Henry Michael Greenslade
2150379790 Joanne Oxlade
2160211959 John Lane
2100649871 Michael Burke
2160422149 Michael Lawrence
2110415753 Michael Nathan
2150479729 Neeti Haria
2160210490 Sean Stanton-Dunne

I submit that no doubt inadvertently the authority play fast and lose with the regulations, and that this PCn be declared a nullity

I would like to thank the adjudicator for their time and consideration of the points raised and respectfully submit that you find as I contend, that this PCN is unenforceable by way of no contravention being committed or that the shear number of flaws render it a nullity.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400660 · Replies: 12 · Views: 207

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 10:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:02) *
Agreed the Key Case does not explore all aspects, including exemptions.

But none applies here as far as I can see. The vehicle ahead had completed its manoeuvre and was no longer ‘turning right’ and it’s a gyratory.


We differ in onw aspect. I could see the argument having merit, taking the purposive view as SSD did in the quoted case, but that it is a gyratory so no exemption was ignored
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400647 · Replies: 21 · Views: 204

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 10:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:50) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 09:10) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 09:02) *
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 13:52) *
The PCN is dated 13 July (a Friday). It arrived through my door on Tuesday 17 July in an "advanced first class mail" envelope. If really posted on date of issue it should have arrived on Saturday or Monday.


Royal Mail's performance utterly irrelevant.


Your a fine one to be making that statement rolleyes.gif


Err, in my case it took longer than it should arrive.

In this case PCN was posted Friday and arrived two business days later. Perfectly acceptable.


I know hence the emoji just taking what you wrote literally

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400646 · Replies: 9 · Views: 116

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 09:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:11) *
QUOTE
IMO this is a gyratory system - PMB


Living, as I do, in H&F, it is almost always referred to as the 'Hammersmith gyratory' in traffic reports and the like: occasionally as the 'Hammersmith one-way system'.

What is the difference between a gyratory and a roundabout?


schedule 9 part 7(11)(3)

The right turn exemption does not apply on a gyratory system

7(11)(6)(b)

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:20) *
IMO the evidence does not support the OP’s contention. They could not have had any realistic expectation based on visible traffic conditions, wishful thinking yes!

One adjudicator’s decision does not a mindset make. IMO, this Key Case is more indicative of adjudicators’ views:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...14031218240.pdf


HCA

I think you and I are in agreement on this, (as per the opening line of my post) though I am not sure your link has any relevance to the validity of the right turn exemption
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400636 · Replies: 21 · Views: 204

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 08:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 15:07) *
QUOTE
I would dearly like to see where it states in plain English that adjudicators cannot consider mitigating circumstances


In decision after decision from PaTAS/LT.

Perhaps on the LT website? (no time to check at the mo.)

The most I can rememeber seeing from LT Adj's. is the occasional plea/recommendation to an EA to reconsider its decision in the light of mit.circs.

Yes, they always say they cannot consider mitigation, but where is the statute on this ? The statutory grounds are the law, and one of them says "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". So what circumstances ? There is nothing in law therefore to prevent adjudicating on mitigating circumstances


chapter 43 paragraph 2 here

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html&query=(camden)+AND+(v)+AND+(the)+AND+(parking)
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
____________________
Between:


LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN
Claimant

- and -


THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
-and-
(1) BFS GROUP 03568 t/a FIRST FOR FOOD SERVICE
(2) LEE SUGDEN
(3) AIDAN BRADY
Defendant



Interested Parties


"In short, there are two distinct categories of representation. First, there are the statutory representations which, if successful, oblige the authority to cancel the notice to owner and impose no penalty. There are then other representations which may cause the authority to choose not to exercise its discretion to pursue or enforce payment, but which do not oblige it to do so. No doubt in a very exceptional case that discretion could be challenged by way of judicial review if there were grounds for saying that it had been unlawfully exercised. However, the statutory power of the adjudicator is limited to the consideration of the matters which are statutorily set out in paragraph 2. It is only those matters which he can consider, and only those in respect of which he can issue directions. Accordingly, the wider mitigating or extenuating factors which may affect the exercise of the authority's discretion when deciding whether or not to collect parking fines are not issues which the adjudicator can consider. They simply fall outside his province: his powers are limited by the statutory provisions." (paragraph 22)

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400624 · Replies: 9 · Views: 116

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 08:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I personally am wary of this decision. IMO this is a gyratory system. But I'm not an adjudicator

2180148403

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Talgarth Road at the junction with Butterwick at 3.47pm on 26 January 2018.
Paragraph 7(1) of Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
Paragraph 7(2) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.
Mr Bennett appeals because he says that the car entered the box to make a right turn out of the box and that the vehicle stopped in the box due to other traffic waiting to complete the right turn.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. The footage shows that Mr Bennett's car stopped within the box to make a right turn out of the box and was prevented from completing the right turn by a stationary vehicle in front which had also made the right turn.
The Council, in its case summary, states that Mr Bennett's vehicle was turning right but that it was not stopped by oncoming traffic.
The wording of the exemption in Paragraph 7(2) is expressed in the alternative. The exemption applies to allow the vehicle to stop in the box for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn. In other words, it is not necessary for both conditions to exist for the exemption to apply. It is sufficient that the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn. That is, in my judgement, the correct reading of the statutory provision. There is no requirement for the exit to be blocked by oncoming traffic. It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Whilst I accept that the vehicle in front of Mr Bennett's had technically completed the right turn, it would make a nonsense of Paragraph 7(2) for the right turn exemption not to apply just because the next vehicle making the right turn manages to clear the box rather than having to stop within it.

Its not the only one

2180108271
2170442131

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400616 · Replies: 21 · Views: 204

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 08:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Its a long case, and reviewed so I have edited to only the relevant part


2170053479


It is completely understandable, for the reasons set out above, that the original Adjudicator may have missed a point that had greater credence than perhaps first appeared amongst many others.
Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state … (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; … (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; … and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: ‘The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.’
Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.
I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued.
I have not deal with it as it was not an issue but for completeness the same applies to the reduced penalty period, although the requirements for different types of penalty charge notices are not all the same.
However, whilst it may be understandable that the original Adjudicator missed this particular issue, I do find that it is a fundamental one. The Enforcement Authority have simply not complied with the statutory requirements.
Accordingly, I accept the application for review and the appeal must be allowed.
No other issue therefore need be determined.

original adjudicator Gerald Styles

Reviewing adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400603 · Replies: 22 · Views: 423

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 08:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 09:02) *
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 13:52) *
The PCN is dated 13 July (a Friday). It arrived through my door on Tuesday 17 July in an "advanced first class mail" envelope. If really posted on date of issue it should have arrived on Saturday or Monday.


Royal Mail's performance utterly irrelevant.


Your a fine one to be making that statement rolleyes.gif
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400597 · Replies: 9 · Views: 116

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 08:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 21:10) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 20:35) *
Lets see all of all documents

+1
The law is quite clear, they have 28 days from receipt of the address of yourself from the hire company to issue a new PCN and cancel the old one. Clearly they have failed in this, and are trying it on. However you must be able to prove that they were provided with your address at the date you mention. The biggest problem in all this decriminalised enforcement is that there are no penalties at all on them for acting unlawfully. It's probably the biggest hole in the whole regime. What is needed is a regulator who can impose swingeing penalties on councils that do this, including taking the decision takers to a criminal court for malfeasance. This would stop all this illegal activity in its tracks. However, I'm not holding my breath !


Its no quite that clear the date is 28 days from date the original PCN is cancelled 10(6)(a) and(b) of the regs. We really need to see your representations. But essentially if what you say about the date in by which the hire co informed the council of your details then they only have the 28 day period to cancel, the 6 month period does not start afresh. The dates will be substantiated by the case history log
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400595 · Replies: 8 · Views: 103

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (daxilic @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 21:35) *
Any luck? 2 hours left to submit (I'm assuming a midnight deadline).



Send CP a PM if he has nothing to add, having read your reps again and the council rejection and summery, I would just put the case I have added into evidence so debunk the idea that you cannot claim the right turn exemption if traffic is crossing your path
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400523 · Replies: 113 · Views: 3,376

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Lets see all of all documents
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400488 · Replies: 8 · Views: 103

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:55) *
That Order does not quote St Mary's Butts so I don't think it applies.

It is interesting however at 6(a)(ii) that the order appears to allow unloading via the bus lane:

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...etOrder2017.pdf

If the appropriate Order has the same type of article then an exemption argument might be made.

On the will/may issue I am less confident than cp8759 because we have had adjudicators dismiss that ground in Reading.

Mick


I too am not confident on the will/may I would like lots of other reasons to back it up. But will not give up on it. IMO the adjudicators are wrong. Given the differing views the two tribunals should sit down together as a panel and agree Yea or nay on it
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400482 · Replies: 12 · Views: 207

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 14:07) *
OP, pl forget about tables, chairs, IKEA, receipts and anything not directly related to procedure.

You say a NTO has been issued.

In which case the authority are dead in the water procedurally.

You cannot have two distinct demands for different sums of money being made against two unrelated (in law) parties for the same alleged penalty.

Read the back of the PCN:

‘....but if a NTO is served notwithstanding those representations then representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the NTO’

So, on whom was the NTO served and what was its date of issue?

That’s it IMO.

Once you’ve confirmed, we can draft reps for the owner to make against the NTO and a response from you to the authority’s letter.



Agree almost completely, but I would include the loading exemption as a first point as well. The procedural point raised by HCA worded correctly is an almost dead cert at adjudication
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400441 · Replies: 34 · Views: 1,689

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (CnT @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:05) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:39) *
Point 1 of your representations is frankly bs, but you are absolutely correct about section 86 of the TMA. I would take this to the adjudicator. Don't mention signage as none is required in any event. Post a revised draft of your appeal here before submitting, remember you're not going to the supreme court and this a clear cut area of law so try and keeps things short and to the point.



Thank you for the advice. Indeed there's no need for over complicating the reasoning here, wasn't sure that section 86 of TMA is sufficient grounds for an adjudicator to consider (and potentially agree to) in an appeal.

What would you think about the 2nd PCN, should I follow the course of PCN1 (contravention did not occur) or should I go for a continuous contravention? Not sure the latter is something neither the council nor an adjudicator would consider as valid since they are 2 days apart still...


forget continuous contravention the car has moved according to the photos
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400440 · Replies: 9 · Views: 222

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Lets see what CP comes up with as well but for me along with your reps that are already with the adjudicator I would add a rebuttal to the notice of rejection re your 3rd point

2180035633


Adjudicator
John Hamilton
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
It is for the Enforcing Authority (the Authority) to prove a contravention has occurred on the balance of probabilities. An appellant does not have to prove anything. However if the authority produces sufficient evidence to support its allegation and an appellant then makes factual assertions that it is said show a contravention did not occur, there will normally be a need for the appellant to provide credible evidence in support of those assertions. The law is clear that it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are aware of the restriction that operate in the areas they chose to drive and park.
My power to allow appeals is limited. I can only allow an appeal if the enforcing authority has acted illegally or failed to follow proper procedures. I cannot allow an appeal if the authority has acted within the law but I feel it has acted harshly, have sympathy for the motorist or because I would have given more weight to the mitigating circumstances put forward by a motorist. Where a contravention has occurred but the motorist asks that it should not be enforced because of difficult or unfortunate circumstances relating to the contravention or his or her personal circumstances, only the Authority has the power to accept the motorist's mitigation and cancel the parking or other traffic penalty. Again, the law is clear, if the Authority rejects the motorist's mitigation, I have no power to interfere with that decision.
The appellant did not ask for an oral appeal so I did not hear evidence. In his Appeal Notice he says that he did not intend to stop on the box junction. His vehicle had entered the junction when traffic lights turned green and the traffic ahead was moving. His vehicle had to stop due to traffic in front of his vehicle stopping.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Regulation 29(2) and Schedule 10 paragraph 7(2) provide that a vehicle must not enter a box junction unless it is able to exit that junction without stopping. An exception to this rule is when a vehicle enters a junction in order to turn right but has to stop because it is prevented from turning right by oncoming traffic or other cars waiting to turn right.
The Authority relies on CCTV footage showing the appellant's vehicle entering the junction in order to turn right. The vehicle has to stop in the junction because of stationary traffic in the lane he wishes to join. The Authority says that stationary traffic in the oncoming lane is not' oncoming traffic' and therefore the Appellant cannot rely on the exception to the prohibition against stopping in a box junction.
I disagree with the Authority. I find that the term oncoming traffic should be construed broadly as this is in line with the purpose of the exception to the prohibition on entering junctions. It is hard to see how there would ever be cars waiting to turn right (as envisaged in the second limb of the exception) if the Authority's interpretation were correct.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied the Authority has shown that a contravention occurred or that it is entitled to enforce the Penalty Charge Notice.

Also check the PCN your reps and notice of rejection in the pack Are they a true copy of those sent to you


For CP's consideration. Given that they submit a TMO is it worth a punt with the TMO vs s36 argument?























  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1400436 · Replies: 113 · Views: 3,376

515 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 20th July 2018 - 18:28
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.