PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

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
12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12  
Start new topic
Replies (220 - 239)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 13:41
Post #221


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Notice Of Rejection ----Procedural Impropriety -----Kensington and Chelsea

"Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.

2170537351

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay in Kempstead Gardens at 9.09am on 5 May 2017 without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

I am allowing the appeal because there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council. Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.

The notice of rejection served on Mr Brandt and dated 13 October 2017 stated that a charge certificate may be issued and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. "Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.
------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 14:32
Post #222


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,301
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 13:41) *
Notice Of Rejection ----Procedural Impropriety -----Kensington and Chelsea

"Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.

2170537351

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay in Kempstead Gardens at 9.09am on 5 May 2017 without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

I am allowing the appeal because there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council. Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.

The notice of rejection served on Mr Brandt and dated 13 October 2017 stated that a charge certificate may be issued and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. "Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.
------------------------------------

Mick


Would be nice to see one of these by an adjudicator other than SSD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:25
Post #223


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Footway parking, the definition of road and what comprises public land

2170551476

Dr. Osment appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the prohibition on parking a vehicle “in or on any urban road in Greater London … so that one or more of its wheels is resting on—

(a) any footway;

(b) any land (not being a footway) which is situated between two carriageways in any such road; or

© any grass verge, garden or space not falling within the foregoing paragraph (a) or (b)”, to quote from the relevant legislation, namely s.15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

The definition of a road is to be found in s.192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is defined as a “highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Accordingly, whether a vehicle’s wheel or wheels are resting on any of the spaces in paragraphs (a) to © of s.15(1) only falls to be considered if the vehicle is parked “in or on” a road as defined in s.192 of the 1988 Act. Whether a given place is a road is a matter of fact, in accordance with the principles in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647.

Dr. Osment helpfully produced a skeleton argument. Although I rejected summarily most of the grounds, an argument raised at point 2 had real merit and warranted consideration. At point 2 he argued: “The photos clearly show that I was on a void space further on and well clear of the footway.” This was foreshadowed in his representations to the Enforcement Authority (EA), which included the following: “I was not on a footpath. I was on an area of hardstanding forming no other purpose, other than suitable for parking.” I am afraid I disagree with the second point raised there; the area on which, the photographs show, the vehicle was parked was plainly not designed, or suitable, for parking. Whether it forms part of a road, however, is a different matter. Dr. Osment argues he was not parked in or on a road at all. Rather, he says, his vehicle was parked wholly on an area of land that does not comprise part of the road. It is the EA’s case that the vehicle was parked (at least partially) on the footway of North Street and was thus in or on a road with one or more wheels on the footway.

I have not been provided with any map showing the parameters of North Street, or the road which is parallel to it. I have, however, studied the photographs in some detail. There is a footway, which I accept is part of North Street. There is a parallel road, which has parking spaces next to it. In between those two roads is a space which, to my mind, is a pleasant open space for people to enjoy, paved differently from the footway, containing trees and benches. Bearing in mind the reasoning in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647 I find that it is a place to which the public have access, but not a road. In particular, it is not an area of the road that is between two carriageways; the other road is separate and is not merely a carriageway of North Street.

I turn then to whether Dr. Osment’s vehicle was parked on the road, namely North Street, or the area that is not a road. I have looked at the photographic evidence provided. It is clear to me that no wheels of Dr. Osment’s vehicle were resting on the footway, which is paved distinctly. Rather, his vehicle was wholly within that area that I have deemed on the evidence to be public land but not a road.

It follows from that that I am not satisfied that the vehicle was parked on a road. Section 15(1) is not engaged and the contravention did not occur.

Dr. Osment was aggrieved that the EA’s rejection of his representations contained an allegation that he had caused an obstruction; perhaps it might have been better not to mention this given it is not a necessary element of the contravention (or offence, as it used to be). However, the allegation was not wholly unreasonable given that, as I find, Dr. Osment should not have parked on that area of public land. Although Dr. Osment applied, partly for that reason, for his costs, I am not satisfied that the EA has conducted this appeal is such a way as to warrant an order for costs.
----------------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 18:11
Post #224


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Transfer of liability of a hire agreement

This case spells out what is required but also gives the Council leave to seek costs against the Appellant.

2170551523

On 19.01.18 I refused 5 of the Appellants’ appeals in cases similar to this one.

The Appellants seek to transfer liability for this PCN by virtue of a vehicle hire agreement. They refer me to decisions of other Adjudicators but the decision of one Adjudicator is not binding on another.

Liability for PCNs may be transferred where the contravention occurs at a time when the vehicle is the subject of a vehicle hire agreement of less than 6 months. However the document relied upon must satisfy The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000, which require a statement of liability signed by the hirer and the inclusion of the following details:

'A. Particulars of person signing statement of liability*

1. Full Name.

2. Date of birth.

3. Permanent Address.

4. Address at time of hiring (if different from 3 above and stay is likely to be more than two months from date of hiring).

5. Details of driving licence:

(a) country where issued (if not UK),

(b) serial number or driver's number,

© date of expiry (which should be no later than date specified in B7 below).

* Where the statement of liability is in Part II of form H, the full name and address of the person by or on whose behalf the statement of liability was signed should be supplied together with the date on which it was signed. If the person taking possession of the vehicle is not the same as the person by or on whose behalf the statement was signed, the full name of that person should also be supplied (if known).

B. Particulars of hiring agreements

1. Registration mark of vehicle hired under the hiring agreement.

2. Make and model of vehicle hired under the hiring agreement.

3. Registration mark of any vehicle substituted for the above during the currency of the hiring agreement.

4. Make and model of any vehicle substituted for the above during the currency of the hiring agreement.

5. Time and date of any change of vehicle.

6. Time and date of commencement of original hiring period.

7. Expected time and date of expiry of original hiring period.

8. Time and date of commencement of authorised extension of hiring period.

9. Expected time and date of expiry of authorised extension of hiring period.

10. Actual time and date of return of vehicle (or when vehicle returned out of hours time and date on which vehicle-hire firm next opened for business).

This requirement applies only to the vehicle hire firm's copy of the hiring agreement.'

The Appellants may only transfer liability under the above provisions if they are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ which is defined as ‘any person engaged in hiring vehicles in the course of a business.’

Even if I were satisfied the vehicle hire agreement provided by the Appellants represented a genuine transaction it does not contain all the above requirements and is non-compliant in any event. However, I have further concerns about the document.

The vehicle hire agreement provided by the Appellants purports to show the hirer of the vehicle as ‘Surrey Car and Van Hire Ltd.’ which, despite the name, has an address in Edinburgh. The Enforcement Authority’s case is that this is not a genuine vehicle hire agreement, that the person signing the statement of liability is Mr. Clive Palmer who is Managing Director of the Appellants and that the Edinburgh address is an address of convenience, out of the jurisdiction and therefore presenting extra difficulty in enforcement.

The Enforcement Authority state that Companies House gives the Appellants’ business as ‘Taxi operation/Freight transport by road’.

By letter of 28.11.17 Mr. Palmer complained that the Enforcement Authority allegation of ‘fraudulent behaviour’ was unfair. He did not answer the charge.

The Appellants have not provided any evidence which might support the assertion that they are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ within the above definition and I am not satisfied that they are.

An allegation of fraud is a serious matter and I do not feel able on the evidence provided to make a finding of fraud against the Appellants. However, it is for the Appellants to establish that the vehicle was subject of a valid vehicle hire agreement. I am not satisfied that the Appellants are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ or that the vehicle hire agreement provided represents a genuine transaction. It follows that there is no proper basis for the transfer of liability in this case and I refuse the appeal.

In 2 of the cases decided on 19.01.18 the Appellants chose to go further than merely challenging enforcement and to apply for costs. Clearly there is no question of a costs order in their favour but I am minded to consider a costs order against the Appellants in the present case, on application by the Enforcement Authority which should set out all costs to which the Enforcement Authority have been put. Should an application for costs be submitted, the Appellants will have a further opportunity to make representations before I make any such order.
---------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 10:58
Post #225


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Boxed in Vehicle-------Beyond the Driver's Control

2180029903

In this case Mr. Marriott appeals on the basis that he was prevented from moving his vehicle during permitted hours, so that it would not remain in situ during restricted hours, due to circumstances outside his control, namely that he was ‘boxed in’ by vehicles either side of him. It is regrettable that the enforcement authority (EA) has not seen fit to provide the traffic management order so that I can analyse the wording of its exceptions. Accordingly, I proceed on the basis that common sense would dictate that where a vehicle is prevented from moving by circumstances beyond the owner’s control then it would fall within an exception to the prohibition on parking on a restricted street during prescribed hours. Plainly it would be for the party seeking to rely on the exception to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that s/he fell within it.

Notably, two days before this alleged contravention, Mr. Marriott observed that his vehicle had been ‘boxed in’ after he had parked it there. He took photographs of the situation and informed the EA. He was thereafter given a penalty charge notice (PCN) on that occasion but has heard no more of it, so he assumed the EA has decided not to issue a notice to owner. This PCN was issued two days later, Mr. Marriott having kept the EA informed of his predicament in the meantime, and not, on his account, having been able to move the car. He took the view that it was impossible for him to move it. The credibility of Mr. Marriott’s account is enhanced, in my view, by the honesty he showed in having told the EA two days beforehand, and before having been issued with the first PCN, of his situation. Ultimately, however, although Mr. Marriott’s own view as to whether he was unable to move his car is significant, I must decide whether he was, objectively, correct.

The EA says that the photographic evidence of the vehicle in situ on the occasion of this alleged contravention shows that Mr. Marriott did, in fact, have enough room to manoeuvre his car before the period of restricted hours and, thus, he was not prevented from moving by circumstances beyond his control. It points, in particular, to a photograph of the rear of the vehicle which appears to show a gap between it and the adjacent car. In my view, having looked at the photographic evidence as a whole, that single photograph, taken from an angle, is somewhat deceptive as to the space actually available. Other photographs show the vehicle ‘boxed in’. It is my finding, on the evidence as a whole, and particularly the EA’s photographic evidence, that cars had parked next to Mr. Marriott’s vehicle in such close proximity that it was simply impossible for him to manoeuvre out of that space until at least one of them had gone. Those were circumstances beyond his control. I am satisfied, therefore, that an exception applies to this situation and the contravention is not proved.
------------------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 07:42
Post #226


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Case won because Council (Harrow) fail to call off the Bailiffs


2180016639

I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was lawfully served. The Appellant then made a Ground 2 Witness Statement on the basis that he had not received the Notice to Owner. The County Court accepted the statement and made a revocation order was made.

The Authority re-issued a Notice to Owner. The Appellant submits that as the matter has been reverted to "the PCN stage" the reduced penalty is payable.

This is not correct. The discount is available for a period of 14 days from the service of the PCN. So while the matter is at the PCN stage, it has passed the first 14 days of the PCN stage. The discount is no longer available.

The Appellant's representations against the second Notice to owner were rejected on 13 December 2017 and he made an appeal to the Tribunal on 11 January 2018. The Authority was made aware of the appeal on the next day. The Appellant received a visit from Bailiffs on 30 January 2018. The proceedings have not reached the Charge Certificate stage and there was no evidence of a second Charge Certificate. One wonders if the problem was caused by a failure to cancel the Bailiffs after the revocation order was made. Irrespective of the cause, the Authority is not entitle to demand any payment until the appeal is heard and resolved in their favour.

I allow the appeal.
------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Barrel67
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 16:20
Post #227


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 26 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,274



[quote name='Hippocrates' date='Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01' post='958207']
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/

Has the web address changed?

I can't seem to access these appeal cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 19:52
Post #228


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,301
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Try this

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Barrel67
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 20:01
Post #229


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 26 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,274



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 19:52) *



Thank you.

Are all the case references still available?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 17:53
Post #230


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Newham Removal Procedurally Incorrect

2180062931 (Extract)

In the Notice of Rejection the local authority states that the car was removed at 10:15. I have not seen any evidence from any civil enforcement officer who authorised the removal or any photographs taken when the car was removed. I have seen no explanation of the reason for the removal.

I am not satisfied on the evidence that I have seen that the car was lawfully removed.

I allow the appeal against the removal of the car.
---------------------------
Newham in abuse of process regarding a missing permit

I don't think Mr Houghton likes Newham's unrestrained towing activities.

2180063548


The vehicle was parked without displaying a permit and was therefore on the face of it in contravention – which would give the Council to the legal power to issue a PCN and remove the vehicle.

However in the present case this is only the starting point. The Appellant’s evidence goes beyond mitigation. She has given a detailed account of the application for a permit and its rejection – an account which does not appear to be challenged by the Council and which I accept.

The position therefore was that the Appellant applied for a permit but her application was rejected on the basis that her the name on the insurance documentation did not match her own. The conditions for the issue to a residents permit as supplied in evidence by the Council merely require that the vehicle be insured under UK law and it seems to me that rejecting the application on this ground alone if the rest of the required documentation was in order was unnecessary. Be that as it may, the Appellant explained that she had married and that the insurance was in her maiden name, and offered to supply a copy of her marriage certificate. She was informed that this would not do. That seems to me to be quite inexplicable. The combination of the insurance documents in her maiden name and the marriage certificate evidencing the name change ought to have satisfied the Council, and in the absence of any explanation I regard the Council’s informing her that it could not accept these documents as wholly unreasonable.

The upshot is that in my judgement the absence of a permit is due largely to the Council’s own actions in in unreasonably refusing to issue one. On the particular facts of this unusual case it seems to me that allowing the Council then to demand a penalty and to remove a vehicle would amount to the equivalent of an abuse of process. In those circumstances no enforceable contravention can be said to have occurred – see the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905.

The Appeal is therefore allowed.
---------------------------------------------

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 18:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 14:08
Post #231


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Towing, Article 1 of Protocol 1 EHCR:

https://www.scribd.com/document/374695358/B...t-Protocol-ECHR (It is for the council to establish the removal was proportionate)

https://www.scribd.com/document/374695480/R...ol-City-Council (Caroline Sheppard endorsing the above case and confirming there is a principles of “fair balance” between the severity of the parking infringement and the citizen’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property)


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lashes1984
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 13:20
Post #232


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 138
Joined: 10 May 2017
Member No.: 91,884



2170596678

TFL not posting notices on the date in which it was issued.

As mentioned by one of the more experienced forum members, it’s important to go through the Enforcing Authority’s evidence pack as they often hand you a win without you even realising.

I only appealed after I was unable to pay the penalty online and it had increased to the Charge Certificate amount even though a Charge Certificate had not yet been issued.

Attended the first hearing and the Adjudicator adjourned to allow TfL to respond to the points I raised.

Anyhow...starting going through the Ticket History and noticed that TfL (like Islington) use a company called Liberty to send out notices and from previous experiences (with Islington) I know that Liberty don’t send out postal PCNs/NTOs on the date of issue but a few days later.

Looking at the Ticket History TfL provided this was indeed the case and I raised this with the Adjudicator as a PI.

The appeal was allowed.

If anyone receives a PCN from TfL (or Islington) be sure to check the Ticket History to confirm the dates of when the PCN/NTO was posted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:51
Post #233


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



An unusual "going for change" Decision.

2180084209

Mr Sweet states he parked and went to his sister's property to collect change, she did not have any so he got back in his vehicle and left.

It is right that drivers should have the correct change when parking. However drivers are also afforded a reasonable amount of time to check the restrictions in place and comply with them. Mr Sweet in attempting to obtain change in the space of a couple of minutes is no different to him attempting to pay by phone while the civil enforcement officer issues the ticket in the same manner.

I find on this occasion a reasonable amount of time was afforded to Mr Sweet to comply with the restrictions and therefore I am not satisfied the contravention has occurred.

I allow this appeal.
------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 20:34
Post #234


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,301
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Date of service not date of notice in LLAA 2003 PCN + allow21 days not 14 for discount (well laid out reasoning)

2180111742

Mr. Gahir puts his appeal on the basis that the penalty charge in his case, in which a moving traffic contravention is alleged, exceeded the amount applicable. To my mind, the point he raises goes to the validity of the penalty charge notice (PCN) itself. Mr. Gahir points out that in two respects the information provided in the PCN by the enforcement authority differs from that required to be provided in the PCN by the relevant legislation, namely s.4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). He argues, in effect, that the departure from the mandatory statutory requirements is such that the PCN is invalid and, as such, unenforceable. The response of the EA is to say that, taken as a whole, the PCN is not misleading and would not prejudice its recipients. Accordingly, it is not invalid and remains enforceable.
The EA referred me to the case of R v. Parking Adjudicator & Lancashire County Council, ex parte Hackney Drivers' Association [2012] EWHC 3394 (Admin), a decision on the similarly worded provisions contained in the schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 as to the content of PCNs in respect of parking contraventions. That case post-dates the addition in 2007 of an express ground of appeal based on a procedural impropriety in respect of such contraventions. I have also had regard to the case of R v. Parking Adjudicator, ex parte London Borough of Barnet Council [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) and to Adjudicators’ decisions in the cases of Moulder v. London Borough of Sutton (3 Dec 1999, No. 1940113243) and Al's Bar & Restaurant Ltd v. London Borough of Wandsworth (2 July 2002, No. 2020106430). These three decisions concern parking contraventions but, because the statutory wording reflects that in the 2003 Act and they deal with validity of PCNs, they are highly relevant and persuasive given that validity is the issue here.
I turn then to the differences between the information provided on the PCN in Mr. Gahir’s case and the requirements of the 2003 Act. These differences are not in dispute. First, the PCN reads: “The penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this penalty charge notice is served.” Second, it states: “If the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which this notice was served, the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%.”. The PCN also reads: “If after the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served no such representations have been made, and the penalty charge has not been paid, we may increase the penalty charge by 50% to E195.00 and may take steps to enforce payment of the increased charge.”
Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act states, as far as is relevant:
(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must
(a) 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;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
In summary, therefore, the PCN wrongly states (for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (iii) and (v)) that the period of 28 days commences with the date of service, as opposed to the date of the PCN itself. It also wrongly extends the period during which the reduced amount is payable. Mr. Gahir states that the difference creates ‘an obvious prejudice’. I disagree. The variation is in his favour, provided the EA only commences the next step in the procedure in accordance with its own, incorrect, timetable as opposed to the timetable set down in the 2003 Act. That there is no prejudice to Mr. Gahir is relevant, but not conclusive.
The EA seeks to rely on the Lancashire County Council case on the basis that it is authority for the propositions that PCNs must be read as a whole and must not slavishly follow the statutory wording. The PCN must ‘convey what is required to be conveyed’ by - in that case - the 2007 Regulations. Those propositions are not in doubt. On the facts of that case, the PCN, read as a whole, did convey what was required by the Regulations. For that reason, that authority does not, in my judgment, assist the EA in this case. It is distinguishable on its facts. Here, the PCN did not ‘convey what needed to be conveyed' by the 2003 Act. Instead, it mis-stated two time limits, albeit in the recipient’s favour. It conveyed wrong information. It did not comply with the mandatory requirements of s.4(8)(a), in respect of sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (v).
R v. Parking Adjudicator, ex parte LB Barnet, a decision of Jackson J (as he then was), was considered in Lancashire County Council. In the LB Barnet case the High Court upheld the decision of the Adjudicator that a PCN was invalid because it did not specify the date of issue. Jackson J’s reasoning is of more general application in respect of the effect of departures from statutory requirements for PCNs. The following passages are of particular note:
“41 Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. 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.
42 In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not comply with section 66(3)©,(d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.”
It is right to say that Jackson J, having disposed of the case on the above ground, went on to comment, obiter, on a second ground which relied, as here, on time periods being extended in favour of the recipient of the PCN. He did not express a clear view on the issue.
The decisions of the Adjudicators on this topic are not strictly binding but are highly persuasive. In the Al’s Bar case, the Adjudicator drew a distinction, subsequently endorsed by Jackson J in the LB Barnet case, between literal and substantial compliance; it is the latter that is significant. The Adjudicator held that:
“I also take into account the fact that the PCN in this case was non-compliant in a considerable number of respects. This is not a case of a single, minor error. I am afraid that the Council has played rather fast and loose with the carefully drafted requirements of the Act, no doubt inadvertently, but it is none the less serious for that.
All these factors taken together in my view point strongly towards the interests of parking control being best served by my finding the PCN to be a nullity irrespective of whether the non-compliance caused prejudice in this case.”
Albeit there were more errors in that case, I am unable to distinguish this case from it in any significant respect. There are a number of errors here also. They are simple errors but important ones and there is really no excuse for the EA having failed to follow the clear wording of the 2003 Act in the respects I have identified. In my judgment, there has not been substantial compliance with the 2003 Act in those respects. Indeed, it appears the EA has now changed the PCN, having identified what it describes as the need for ‘slight changes’ to the wording. That is somewhat of an understatement. PCNs are, although not penal in effect, of some importance in financial terms to their recipients.
Notwithstanding the lack of prejudice in this case, and bearing in mind the principles as to the exercise of discretion in declaring a PCN a nullity as expressed in the Al’s Bar and Moulder cases, I am satisfied that the departures from the statutory requirements are such that I should declare the PCN a nullity in this case. As a result of its invalidity it is no longer enforceable. Put another way, given that the PCN is invalid, the amount payable is nil.
I allow this appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 07:29
Post #235


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Permit sign needs to identify nature of Permit

Wow!!! I doubt if this one will be generally accepted by ETA but it does provide leverage when a higher Code 16 penalty is given in Newham.

2180119904

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked for longer than permitted in Graham Road. The alleged contravention occurred at 11.32am on 21 December 2017.

I am allowing the appeal because the signage for the bay in which Mr Sumbul's car was parked is defective. The sign states that parking is for permit holders only during the controlled hours. The sign is defective because it fails to identify the nature of the permit required for parking. There must be a clear description of the nature of the permit required whether this is by words or letters. The time restriction for parking may be clear but this does not cure the defective omission.

-------------------

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 07:40
Post #236


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Newham removal not justified if a lower penalty is given

2180122884

The Appellant accepts that he made a mistake in failing to complete the residents permit as he was new to the area and new to the system. However he objects to the fact that his car was removed which penalty he cannot afford and which he consider to be excessive in the circumstances.

Bearing in mind that this PCN has been issued for a code 19 contravention which is recognised to be a less serious contravention attracting a lower penalty, I fail to see the traffic management purpose in removing the vehicle in these circumstances and in the absence of any aggravating features.

I find the removal of the vehicle to be contradictory to the purpose of providing a lower differential penalty, and excessive and unnecessary in this context.

I therefore allow this appeal in relation to the removal charges

--------------------
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 15:49
Post #237


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



PDF version of TPT bus lane case CV06680 (will/may, motorist does not claim discount it is his as of right, council does not "offer" a discount): https://www.scribd.com/document/378106026/A...V06680-Will-may


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:02
Post #238


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Blue badge holders allowed to park for 3 hours in loading bays:

https://www.scribd.com/document/379002087/A...sion-YD05198JSD

https://www.scribd.com/document/379002134/A...cision-KM05633F
https://www.scribd.com/document/379002206/A...ctions-KM05633F

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:13


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:09
Post #239


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 939
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 13:02) *


And, indeed, in loading bays!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 08:14
Post #240


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,027
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 13:02) *

https://www.scribd.com/document/379387881/CP1A26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12
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: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 15:03
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.