Who would believe it, Redbridge council |
Who would believe it, Redbridge council |
Sat, 16 Jan 2021 - 12:00
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Case reference 2200498773
Appellant London Borough of Redbridge Authority London Borough of Redbridge VRM EA54 VNJ PCN Details PCN AF94713286 Contravention date 18 Aug 2020 Contravention time 12:01:00 Contravention location Ilford High Road Penalty amount GBP 130.00 Contravention Performing a prohibited turn Referral date Decision Date 14 Jan 2021 Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons The Appellant and the Enforcement Authority are one body corporate. The Enforcement Authority is purportedly pursuing itself for this penalty charge. The appeal will be allowed on the basis that the Penalty Charge Notice is then cancelled and no other issue need be determined. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Jan 2021 - 12:00
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Feb 2021 - 14:56
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
But please excuse me while I laff, the manager will not be an expert on parking/traffic law, the employee obviously isn't, can't rely on the expert opinion of the parking dept, who speaks for the little guy just trying to do their job? ACAS? The union? I thought public sector workplaces were fairly unionised. They can always come here and put a thread in the flame pit. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Feb 2021 - 15:41
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
But please excuse me while I laff, the manager will not be an expert on parking/traffic law, the employee obviously isn't, can't rely on the expert opinion of the parking dept, who speaks for the little guy just trying to do their job? ACAS? The union? I thought public sector workplaces were fairly unionised. They can always come here and put a thread in the flame pit. Still laffing. While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? |
|
|
Mon, 15 Feb 2021 - 22:37
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? You could apply that to any employer with a driving policy. I once made a complaint against a megabus driver who was speeding, undertaking and almost caused a collision, I sent the video to megabus and they told me in no uncertain terms that he'd be spoken to and a repeat offence could have serious consequences for him. And the same goes for any vehicle run in the course of employment, every supermarket delivery driver, DPD driver and so on can be subject to complaints. That's why so many vehicles have a "how's my driving?" number on the back. In the final analysis, if someone gets unfairly fired they can take it up with the employment tribunal. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Feb 2021 - 22:39
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? ECHR isn’t applicable in an employment relationship, even with a public authority employer. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 01:30
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? ECHR isn’t applicable in an employment relationship, even with a public authority employer. No but but it does apply within the decrim system. My point is that if the employer who is responsible for enforcing traffic ignores the prescribed system but seeks to enforce via employment, how does that accord? |
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 10:54
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? ECHR isn’t applicable in an employment relationship, even with a public authority employer. No but but it does apply within the decrim system. My point is that if the employer who is responsible for enforcing traffic ignores the prescribed system but seeks to enforce via employment, how does that accord? What do you mean by “ignores the prescribed system”? What, exactly, is the employer doing? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 11:33
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
While this is decrim, the right to a fair trial (ECHR 6) still applies AFAIK. How does bypassing the prescribed procedures and using an internal disciplinary procedure accord? ECHR isn’t applicable in an employment relationship, even with a public authority employer. No but but it does apply within the decrim system. My point is that if the employer who is responsible for enforcing traffic ignores the prescribed system but seeks to enforce via employment, how does that accord? What do you mean by “ignores the prescribed system”? What, exactly, is the employer doing? I may be tying myself in knots but.... The employer is the council who is tasked by parliament with enforcing parking under a statutory scheme. The scheme does make the owner liable so from that respect there is the situation that enforcement would be against themselves, the situation where this thread started. There is then an employment situation where an employer can take an employee to task if they are breaking driving rules, being caught or having complaints raised. I don't have an issue with that, some employers will take it seriously, some won't, that's life. Where I run into a problem is the thought that an employer would deny an employee access to the statutory process AND seek to penalise them with a PCN from that process. To put them through an internal disciplinary hearing when there is the option of act on the company's behalf, if you lose, you pay, still working within the process. Contractual terms etc would all come into it but the option is there, for the driver in question to defend themselves within the statutory process. My issue comes when the enforcement authority cannot enforce nor allow the driver to defend within the statutory system AND then goes into disciplinary systems to penalise the driver. The option available to any other driver outside an enforcement authority is simply not available, to me that is a breach of Section 6. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 12:48
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
My issue comes when the enforcement authority cannot enforce nor allow the driver to defend within the statutory system AND then goes into disciplinary systems to penalise the driver. The option available to any other driver outside an enforcement authority is simply not available, to me that is a breach of Section 6. I think you're raising a problem that doesn't exist. Even if a PCN is cancelled, or a driver is acquitted by a criminal court, that does not preclude disciplinary proceedings. We see it quite often with police officers who are acquitted by a criminal court but can still get dismissed for gross misconduct. Secondly as SP says, Article 6 doesn't apply to disciplinary proceedings, which are instead covered by employment law. What if a council employee becomes an expert of every single loophole, law and regulation, and drives around getting loads of PCNs that are always cancelled at the tribuna & FPNs that he pleads not guilty to and always gets acquitted at court. Could you really criticise the employer for pressuring the employee not to get any PCNs/FPNs in the first place? After all an employer could well take the view that regardless of the legalities, it expects the driving of their drivers to be beyond reproach and having to deal with loads of paperwork due to an employee who enjoys beating contraventions based on technicalities is imposing an unnecessary burden on the employer, and they'd rather employ someone who doesn't get any PCNs or FPNs in the first place. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 13:10
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
On the subject of driving beyond reproach by council employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5Zo2fENIg -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 19:51
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Where I run into a problem is the thought that an employer would deny an employee access to the statutory process AND seek to penalise them with a PCN from that process. To put them through an internal disciplinary hearing when there is the option of act on the company's behalf, if you lose, you pay, still working within the process. Can’t see it myself. The liability falls on the employer. They can deal with it as they see fit. How they deal with the employee thereafter isn’t influenced by Art 6. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:51 |