PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

560 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 17:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:50) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03) *
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN

I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity.


from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently

You think wrong I'm afraid, you cannot sue a court or tribunal acting in its judicial capacity. Under the convention, you can sue a member state for breaching its convention obligations in the European Court, but that would be a suit against the United Kingdom on the basis that UK law has caused a breach of the OP's convention rights, so the case would be OP vs United Kingdom (As ECHR cases always are).

I suspect such a suit would be unsuccessful because for proceedings of a summary or administrative nature, the ECHR has previously allowed two years where there is no special urgency (such as child proceedings etc...). Sure waiting 10-14 months isn't great, but in other European countries that's the norm.


Thanks, well wxplained
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434937 · Replies: 20 · Views: 215

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 17:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:31) *
Wih respect, the answer is in the decision:

In the absence of any direct evidence of a failure to observe the policy I am reliant on the logic of Mr. Campbell’s argument to infer that the EA did not have regard to it,


that no decision-maker who had regard to the guidance could have proceeded to enforce the PCN. It is quite marginal as to whether less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box; the decision maker was entitled to treat is as a marginal case. Even if s/he had accepted that less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box, as I read the guidance it requires the decision-maker to exercise a discretion. The guidance does not stipulate in which way the discretion should be applied

So do not let the matter rest with having to be determined by the adj, YOU MUST put the matter to the authority. The adj then has the authority's reply to consider and their guesswork is not needed.

Put the question smartly

Given that **** states **** and given that the facts of this case as shown in the video evidence show **** then I submit that my circumstances fall within **** and that the policy of the council requires that *******.

If the authority do not consider that **** applies then they must respond in detail to the following:
Do the authority:
Accept that the *** is 'large' for the purposes of the policy;
Accept that *******

OP, do you get my drift?

You do not leave it all until the last minute at adjudication, you would inevitably lose for the reasons above.


this case if anyone's interested

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....Z6egVqtFSUvioW8


HCA your point is well made . I have the council summary if it is of interest
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434935 · Replies: 16 · Views: 186

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03) *
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN

I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity.


from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434902 · Replies: 20 · Views: 215

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


post the council photos and a GSV
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434899 · Replies: 23 · Views: 185

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434880 · Replies: 20 · Views: 215

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 14:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Every raised pavement has tactile paving, you will be hard pressed to argue they are speed humps
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434878 · Replies: 3 · Views: 58

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 14:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Start your appeal with something like this

I made representations to the effect that I had a clear exit from the box, but a taxi cut across me from the right taking that space. The council rejected this representation stating that this happened before I had entered the box.

Strictly this may be correct however examination of the video shows it happened within a vehicle length before entry to the box by my vehicle. There was only one second between the taxi cutting in front of me and my entry to the box.

In the traffic conditions prevalent at the time, I contend and would do so with experience that it would be impossible for me to stop in a normal safe manner in such a short distance and time. As such I had to enter the front of the box to avoid the risk of an accident.

Having been forced to enter the front of the box and thus being in contravention I made a decision to attempt to clear the box. The taxi now in front of me being still moving at that time. I then, seeing that there would not be enough space moved to the right and attempted to clear as much of the box as possible. This action I believe minimised any disruption to traffic flow brought about by the actions of the taxi drivers lack of consideration to others

In summary I contend that,
My entry to the box was clear on approach
On entry to the box I was cut up by a taxi that took the space available to me in my lane
The incursion into the box, once forced upon me was de minimis, mot in the length of time in the box but in effect on traffic management
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434875 · Replies: 88 · Views: 1,356

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 13:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (qaz1 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 10:43) *
would some one please advise, when i appeal to the adjudicater will i need to resubmit my reasons or will they get them from the first appeal to the council. ?

the original appeal letter [and reasons] may be hard to find on my new pc

thanks



you will need to submit an appeal, we will help you draft it but we will need to see the notice of rejextion
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434870 · Replies: 34 · Views: 1,463

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 13:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


a verbal contract you agree is due. Pop round with a cheque
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1434868 · Replies: 12 · Views: 322

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:25) *
I fear the council might content it's a kerb lowered to assist pedestrians in crossing the road. Let's see what they come back with.



Almost undoubtedly, but IMO hard to maintain when if you look at GSV there is a sloping kerb to the right of the driveway, then the lowered section runs for 40 metres to the grass verge where there is no discernible sloping kerb. There is no tactile paving and only driveways opposite
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434866 · Replies: 14 · Views: 199

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 10:28) *
If there is a policy document published by the council, then it binds officers of the enforcement authority.

In EVERY case where officers of the enforcement suthority have prima facie failed to comply with such a policy or where an owner's defence is that the exemption in such a policy applies then the question must be put in reps and full appeal, and keep asking until an answer is forthcoming.

Do not just say...they haven't complied, give the adjudicator more to go on.


Here's the decision for the case I appealed


2180222175

Mr. Campbell appeals against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the requirements of a ‘box junction’, contrary to paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (“the Regulation”).
The CCTV evidence shows Mr. Campbell’s vehicle entered the box junction fairly slowly at a green light. The traffic at the other side of the box junction was already stationary. Mr. Campbell slowed to a halt behind the vehicle ahead, with some of his car remaining stationary within the box junction for a few seconds. Mr. Campbell’s account was that, due to the nature of the rise and curvature of the road, it was very difficult to see if there was sufficient space between the far side of the box junction and the vehicle ahead. I accept that. I also accept that he stopped with a gap between his vehicle and the vehicle ahead so that the vehicles did not come into contact if the vehicle ahead rolled back a little.
I have had regard to the wording of the Regulation and to the case of Gillingham v. LB Newham et al which interprets it. The Regulation states:
“11 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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.
(7) A reference in this paragraph (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within the box junction.”
The Regulation means in effect that the motorist must not enter the box junction unless there is sufficient space beyond it for him or her to clear the box junction entirely, even if the vehicle ahead were to stop unexpectedly. The motorist who enters the box junction when there is insufficient space beyond it takes the risk that, if the vehicle ahead were to stop, his or her vehicle would have to stop wholly or partially within the box. In those circumstances, the contravention would occur.
I have also had regard to the Highway Code, rule 150, which, although it does not have the status of law, is useful guidance. The Highway Code, at point 150, informs motorists that ‘you MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear’.
The CCTV evidence in this case demonstrates a clear contravention of the prohibition on stopping within a box junction. When Mr. Campbell entered the box junction the road ahead was not ‘clear’ - in the sense that there was demonstrably sufficient space beyond the box junction for Mr. Campbell to clear it without colliding with the vehicle ahead. Although I accept it may have been difficult to judge the space available, Mr. Campbell should have waited until his exit from the box was demonstrably clear for his whole vehicle before entering it. In entering the box junction without a clear exit the risk is, as transpired in this case, that insufficient space is available behind the vehicle ahead and the vehicle in question, or part of it, is ‘trapped’ in the box junction. The reason Mr. Campbell stopped partially within the box junction is, self-evidently, due to the presence of the stationary vehicle or vehicles ahead. But for the presence of stationary vehicles Mr. Campbell’s vehicle would have been able to move forward. I do not accept that the period in which the vehicle stopped was ‘de minimis’. In any event, it is not necessary for the enforcement authority (EA) to prove that the period in which the vehicle stopped was more than de minimis, or that an obstruction was caused, although these are relevant to the next point Mr. Campbell raises. The contravention is proved.
Mr. Campbell raises a further interesting point that arises from the EA’s regard (or alleged lack of it) to its guidance on the enforcement of penalties for alleged contraventions of the requirements of a box junction. Mr. Campbell says that the EA’s failure to have regard to its own policy or guidance, and to act fairly in accordance with it, renders the PCN unenforceable. Assuming that I have jurisdiction to entertain such a ‘collateral challenge’ to the PCN, I proceed to deal with the argument on its merits. I quote from the relevant guidance, which is the LBHF Box Junction Enforcement Guidance ver. 3 2007:
“9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction….”
It is Mr. Campbell’s case that, given it was a large type box junction, and less than 50% of his vehicle was over the box and was not causing an obstruction, the EA cannot have had regard to the guidance. If it had, acting fairly, it would have cancelled the PCN.
There is a presumption that a public body has had regard to its own policy unless the contrary is proved (see PCSU v. Minister for the Cabinet Office [2017] EWHC 1787 (Admin)). In the absence of any direct evidence of a failure to observe the policy I am reliant on the logic of Mr. Campbell’s argument to infer that the EA did not have regard to it, because no decision maker who had had regard to it could have reached the decision it did.
I accept that the box junction in question is ‘large’. I also accept, on my view of the evidence, that (slightly) less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box and it was not causing an obstruction. I am not able to accept, however, that no decision-maker who had regard to the guidance could have proceeded to enforce the PCN. It is quite marginal as to whether less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box; the decision maker was entitled to treat is as a marginal case. Even if s/he had accepted that less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box, as I read the guidance it requires the decision-maker to exercise a discretion. The guidance does not stipulate in which way the discretion should be applied. Some decision-makers would have exercised the discretion in favour of Mr. Campbell. In this case the discretion was exercised, perhaps strictly but fairly, against him. The guidance is, after all, just that. It is not a set of hard and fast rules. Despite Mr. Campbell’s diligent research and persuasive submissions, I am not, therefore, persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA failed to have regard to its own policy or guidance or to act fairly.




I think the OP in this case could fall foul of the same reasoning
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434862 · Replies: 16 · Views: 186

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Not sure about the legality of the sign The norm would be except in marked bays not a "P" symbol
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434856 · Replies: 18 · Views: 141

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


first post the documents you have. they sound like charge certificates, and you cannot appeal against them. But if you can show you had a live account with funds available then Dart are known to be reasonable
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434788 · Replies: 6 · Views: 110

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I think I would still try it but need some case law on a councils public law duty and on legitimate expectation. I know its out there but no chance to look till next week at best
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434785 · Replies: 16 · Views: 186

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I made quite a strong appeal at this location in another case with very similar circumstances. It lost


Appeal against the imposition of Penalty charge number xxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark aa 23 cde.

I made my representation against this PCN in the belief that the council, seeing that from the position my vehicle stopped, it could cause no obstruction to the flow of traffic and that the council would apply their own policy. I was sadly disabused by the rejection. Somewhat upset by this I undertook some research and sought advice and would appeal as follows. Firstly under the Statutory ground that

There was no contravention of a prescribed order

The video takes pictures from a hight looking down upon the traffic, unlike myself looking from road level. It appeared to me upon the traffic lights changing, there was both room for the range rover in front to move forward, and for me also to have moved slightly forward to clear the box. It is my submission that I believed that I had cleared the box, and that had I known differently, there was room for me to move forward and do so, Albeit this would be a tight fit.

I would contend that the second limb of the contravention is not made out. In the alternative, I submit that the principle of de minimis non curat lex can apply, both in respect of the amount of transgression of the box. Only the rear wheels being within the box. And also the amount of time stationary (approximately four seconds) is too trivial to warrant a penalty.

I also make a collateral challenge under the ground that

The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

That the council fail in their common law duty to act fairly. The council publish a guidance document for yellow box junction enforcement. At chapter 9 it says “ On larger type box junctions cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box junction should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction.” For small boxes this is reduced to 25% I would refer the adjudicator to paragraph two of page two of the Notice of rejection. The statement that “The rigidity of enforcement is equal across every square metre of the box”. Whilst this must of course be the position in law, it make a mockery of the council guidance. This is followed by the statement “While your vehicle would not be be seen as causing as much of an obstruction as one in the centre of the box it would still cause an obstruction”. This as can be seen from the attached GSV, from the council video and stills taken from it, is disingenuous to say the least. No obstruction was or even could be caused to any vehicle that had a legal right of access to the box.

I would contend that this particular box falls into the definition of larger, but either way less than 25% of my car encroached into the box.

A council as a public body has an overriding duty at common law to act fairly at all times. For this reason once a guidance policy has been agreed by the council it is not for individual officers to arability step outside it. There must be good reason that policy is not followed, and this must be explained. The council have at best cited a spurious reason this is not acting fairly, nor is it taking the guidance at its word “SHOULD” have discretion applied This can only mean that the default position should be to apply this discretion not ignore it, as has been done here,

The council have failed in their common law duty. As such the cannot seek to enforce a penalty on the back of that failing.

I respectfully ask that having given consideration to these submissions, the councils policy document, video stills and attached GSV you will find either or both of these reasons sufficient to order cancellation of this PCN

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5044308,-...3312!8i6656

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5072...er%203.doc.html
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434779 · Replies: 16 · Views: 186

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 20:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


post your representations and the notice to owner, we like to check for errors
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434753 · Replies: 20 · Views: 311

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 18:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 17:46) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:23) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:11) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:59) *
Right so we seem to think the best chances are given by the sum of: hcandersen's narrative opening, PASTMYBEST's taxi reps, followed by my three technical grounds.

PASTMYBEST, do you want to draft something re: the taxi?


Yes I will do so later tonight


bump for myself

Yeah but -
QUOTE (Bazza1964 @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 21:48) *
if my company responds tomorrow to go ahead with appeal ?



It was my 60th on Wednesday, family commitments would not allow me any time OP can always register his appeal with details to follow
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434736 · Replies: 88 · Views: 1,356

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 18:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


so parked between these two posts

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Grenfel...0.1871898?hl=en


I would take this all the way, there is no contravention


  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434735 · Replies: 14 · Views: 199

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 16:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Case from yesterday, bear in mind yours is response to an informal challenge

2180340717

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a sign in Coronation Road indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign. The alleged contravention occurred at 9.20pm on 20 January 2018.
I am allowing the appeal for two reasons. Firstly, I accept the evidence of Mr Al-Khayat that the Notice of Rejection letter was sent by the Council by second class post instead of the required first class postage. Secondly, the Notice of Rejection letter was undated. The dating of the letter is critical for determining the date of service. Various actions required by the motorist in the Notice of Rejection are required within a time frame running from the date of service.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434700 · Replies: 25 · Views: 430

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (ilford @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:56) *
Hi All,

Hope you are doing well. As my tribunal is approaching I am just wondering do I need to prepare anything?
Any advice will be much appreciated.


Thanks.


have you recieved the council evidence pack. if so post the summary
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434694 · Replies: 51 · Views: 2,076

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:11) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:59) *
Right so we seem to think the best chances are given by the sum of: hcandersen's narrative opening, PASTMYBEST's taxi reps, followed by my three technical grounds.

PASTMYBEST, do you want to draft something re: the taxi?


Yes I will do so later tonight


bump for myself
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434676 · Replies: 88 · Views: 1,356

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Yes make your submission now, There is no benefit in delaying

Post what you intend to send here first for review
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434675 · Replies: 36 · Views: 533

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (TigerRob @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 11:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:46) *
QUOTE (TigerRob @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:08) *
So assumed date of service is today (16th Nov). But surely the letter should have a date on it. I shouldn't have to go to the website and piece the history together. If I 'd been away I'd have no idea which day the letter was delivered.
Problem is there is no statutory requirement to respond to an informal challenge (they merely have to consider) so there is nothing set out that requires a date. having said that it is still worth arguing that it is unfair to give a time period to respond but not give a start date

Thank you PMB. Whilst they don't need to respond, they chose to, and attached future actions to the date of service of that response. Not providing the information to determine the date of service is, in my opinion, unreasonable.

I think there's also a will/may argument based on this statement: ... " we will send a Notice to Owner" ...

and further to this I believe that "Please do not make a further challenge as we reserve the right to disregard any further correspondence related to the notice before the NTO is served" is legally/procedurally incorrect. I believe that they are obliged to consider (but not necessarily respond to) any representations received prior to issue of the NTO. Am I correct?


for me I would make the point re the first ground (no date) but not push it

the second point I would not bother with, re serving a NTO it might just irritate an adjudicator

The third you are correct it is a PI and the one I would argue more vigorously

3(2) of the appeals regs

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—
(a)
that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and
(b)
that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—
(i)
those representations will be considered;
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434674 · Replies: 25 · Views: 430

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (TigerRob @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:08) *
from the PCN event log on the council's website:



Which would fit with the rejection being posted on 14th and arriving on 15th.

So assumed date of service is today (16th Nov). But surely the letter should have a date on it. I shouldn't have to go to the website and piece the history together. If I 'd been away I'd have no idea which day the letter was delivered.


Problem is there is no statutory requirement to respond to an informal challenge (they merely have to consider) so there is nothing set out that requires a date. having said that it is still worth arguing that it is unfair to give a time period to respond but not give a start date
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434606 · Replies: 25 · Views: 430

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Without photos it is impossible to be sure but if you do not get the photos before the end of the 14 day period challenge that the DK is not lowered for any of the statutory reasons laid out in s86 of TMA 2004

and if they reject demand the photos
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434604 · Replies: 14 · Views: 199

560 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: Sunday, 18th November 2018 - 13:18
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.