PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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


Member


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



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

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

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

Charge Certificate: premature issue

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

Evidence not served in time

2110144328, 2130131442, 2120451094, 2130259672.


Will/may cases

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

Legitimate expectation

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

Mandatory info missing from Reg. 10 PCN

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

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

Representations treated as requests

2120488345, 2100587978, 2120408958, 2110494261.

Multiple choice decision: Code 12

2120562288

Failure to consider

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

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

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

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

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

Fettered discretion: I am unable to cancel

2130316200, 2130521902, 2130497615.

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


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

Donald Rumsfeld

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

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
20 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (240 - 259)
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, 25 May 2018 - 14:57
Post #241


Member


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



PayPoint
This one gives going for change a completely new dimension. Might be useful in certain circumstances:-
https://www.paypoint.com/en-gb/consumers/se...rectory#parking
Pay for Parking

You can pay for your parking in cash at specific PayPoint stores where PayByPhone is available.


How it works

  • Check signage on the street for details and for nearest PayPoint store.
  • Note down the PayByPhone location code where you have parked and your vehicle registration number.
  • Go to the nearest PayPoint store and confirm the location code, your vehicle registration number and parking duration to the retailer.
  • A receipt will be provided for your reference.
  • No need to return to your car to display a ticket.
  • If you need more time in town, just pay for additional parking at any PayPoint store in the area.
Areas where cash parking payments are currently available:

London Borough of Lambeth
Wigan Council
London Borough of Haringey
London Borough of Barnet
Waltham Forest Council
Brighton and Hove City Council
London Borough of Southwark
__________________________
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 18:47
Post #242


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



2180169731

Tfl publish that BL not enforced Xmas day. Council rightly say TfL do not set the Law but as transport authority the public do not know TfL not responsible for all bus lanes might help bikers


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:40
Post #243


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Traffic Penalty Tribunal decision: Soiling oneself is not necessarily foreseeable even if there is a known, pre-existig medical condition.

https://dochub.com/cp8759-cp8759/Oj11YM/dec...1T1Ht51McxbFPTp


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:54
Post #244


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



Cornhill - 2180181464 - could be handy.

The appellant attended.
The local authority's case is that the appellant's vehicle passed the bus and cycle only signs at the Gracechurch Street end of Cornhill.
The on-line evidence does not show the vehicle pass the signs in question.
The appellant has consistently said that he entered Cornhill from the Threadneedle Street end.
He said he did so and picked up his passenger in Cornhill and did a U Turn and exited by Finch Lane.
He provided photographic evidence of the signage, stating, "Other traffic use Cornhill" and also a photograph on his mobile 'phone showing that a warning sign at the Threadneedle Street end is facing the carriageway and not on-coming traffic. I was unable to cause that to be scanned.
I was persuaded that the vehicle did not pass the signs, on which the local authority relies. In the absence of any evidence that the signage he provided was not accurate I will allow the appeal.


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:45
Post #245


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Good for Haughton. He disagrees with the obiter view expressed in the appeal court re suspended bays and elects not to follow it

2180194309

Adjudicator
Edward Houghton
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
The Appellant was represented by his wife, the driver of the vehicle.
At the time of the observation the vehicle was parked in a bay indicated as suspended and it is not surprising that a PCN was issued. The driver’s case, however, is that at the time of parking there was no suspension sign in place. The Council states that signs were erected on the 16th march and produces its records in support.
Having heard the driver at some length and in some detail I find her evidence very persuasive. This is a driver who was well aware of the various suspensions occurring in the area and indeed on this occasion moved her vehicle to this parking place having been displaced by other suspension signage. The suspension sign relied on is seen to be immediately adjacent to her vehicle; and it seems to me that compelling evidence is required to show that in these circumstances the driver failed to see what was as plain as the proverbial pikestaff. The driver on discovering the PCN spoke to various operatives of the water company who confirmed that there was on going difficulties with signs being removed or displaced and one of them confirmed that the sign was put in place after her vehicle had parked.
The Council’s evidence appears to show that 10 signs were erected in or near this road on the 16th. However there seems to me to be no clear evidence to show that the particular sign relied on was one of them , nor is there any evidence ( such as a photograph) to show the sign remained place shortly before the vehicle was parked. On balance I prefer the evidence of the Appellant and find that the sign was not in place at the time of parking.
The Appellant has understandably assumed that if this is so no contravention can occur and this appears to be accepted by the Council. Although I share this view I have to note that the law is perhaps not so clear cut. In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal (Camden LBC v Humphreys [2017] EWCA Civ 24) a similar issue fell to be decided in the case of a motorcyclist who left his motorcycle in an unsuspended bay which was subsequently suspended incurring a PCN. The motorist succeeded in a |Judicial review hearing in the High Court at which the Council unaccountably did not appear. The Council subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. They failed, but purely on the basis that they were too late and should have made their submissions to the High Court at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal, however did express a provisional view as to what the law was in this type of situation. The majority view was that the Council is only required to prove that the bay was suspended and that the vehicle was parked within it for a contravention to occur. The view of the remaining Lord Justice of Appeal was that some form of notice of the suspension would be required. The Court emphasised that the views expressed were only provisional pending the law being fully argued in some subsequent case; and therefore technically the views expressed are not binding on me. With great respect I agree with the minority view; it seems to me a principle of all parking law that the motorist should have some notice of a restriction or prohibition when deciding whether to park.
As I am not satisfied adequate notice of the suspension was given the Appeal is allowed.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 10:24
Post #246


Member


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



Coventry Parking Zone successes


The Traffic Penalty Tribunal has been reviewing Coventry City Council's Restricted Parking Zone Scheme (RPZ) to make sure it is fair after complaints it was confusing and there weren't enough signs.

The mile-wide zone - in place across the city centre - was brought in in 2012.

But Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard OBE upheld appeals on six fines, ruling that they were "unenforceable" because signs were "confusing" and placed in "unusual locations".

Story here:-

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/cove...cision-14631215

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 12:08
Post #247


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 11:24) *
Coventry Parking Zone successes


The Traffic Penalty Tribunal has been reviewing Coventry City Council's Restricted Parking Zone Scheme (RPZ) to make sure it is fair after complaints it was confusing and there weren't enough signs.

The mile-wide zone - in place across the city centre - was brought in in 2012.

But Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard OBE upheld appeals on six fines, ruling that they were "unenforceable" because signs were "confusing" and placed in "unusual locations".

Story here:-

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/cove...cision-14631215

Mick



Case here
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/d...%20decision.pdf


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:50
Post #248


Member


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



A robust response from the adjudicator as Lambeth tries it on for PCNs which are two years old.

2180001201

At this scheduled personal hearing the appellant attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.

The Enforcement Authority have referred a Witness Statement which was made by Mr Shane Lowry on behalf of the Appellant Company in respect of this Penalty Charge Notice. Mr Lowry was effective keeper of the vehicle at all material times.

The Order of the County Court cancelled the Order for Recovery and the Charge Certificate but not the original Penalty Charge Notice.

In the Witness Statement Mr Lowry ticketed the box to indicate that the ground for making the Witness Statement was that he had made an appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators but received no decision (Ground 3).

I have had the opportunity of hearing the appellant personally and find him to be a credible and convincing witness. I accept that this was a genuine error and that he meant to make it on the ground that he had made original representations to the Enforcement Authority but received no Notice of Rejection (Ground 2).

This present Penalty Charge Notice is one of a number in respect of the same vehicle for the same contravention on divers dates at the same location. Mr Lowry had made original representations for all of them together, because the facts were the same. He believed that they would be dealt with together and he had already an appeal in respect of one.

The statutory process is as follows:

1. The Enforcement Authority serves a Penalty Charge Notice.

2. The Enforcement Authority then serves a Notice to Owner on the person it believes to be the owner or the hirer of the vehicle.

3. The recipient then has 28 days to make representations to the Enforcement Authority. The Enforcement Authority may disregard any representations not made within this time.

4. The Enforcement Authority must then serve a notice in response rejecting or accepting the representations.

5. If the Enforcement Authority serves a Notice of Rejection, the recipient of the notice then has 28 days to appeal to the Adjudicator.

I have seen a copy of the original representations to the Enforcement Authority. For the reasons set out I accept that there was genuine confusion on the part of Mr Lowry.

The matter was today listed for an appeal in respect of this one Penalty Charge Notice. The Enforcement Authority have failed to produce evidence to address the issues raised by Mr Lowry or indeed, other than a copy of the Penalty Charge Notice itself, evidence to show that a contravention did occur.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur. Accordingly this appeal must be allowed

The administrative staff of the Tribunal and made enquires of the Enforcement Authority and it appears that Penalty Charge Notices LJ06208124, LJ06204994, LJ06507142, and LJ06057299 are still with them and have not been referred for a year.

Penalty Charge Notice LJ06445094 is also currently with the Enforcement Authority although was originally assigned appeal number 217019578A, but could not be registered and thus has not been subject to any decision of the Adjudicator.

Penalty Charge Notice LJ06057040 is the subject of appeal 2180200988, listed for hearing on 23 June 2018. There is currently no Enforcement Authority evidence on the case file.

These Penalty Charge Notices all date back to around October 2016. The facts are disputed and would be hard to recall after so long a period. Without apportioning blame to any party, it cannot be in the interests of justice, even if all or any are in time, for these matters to be pursued any longer.

If the Enforcement Authority are not going to refer these outstanding Penalty Charge Notices, then they should inform Mr Lowry without delay that they are going to be cancelled. If the Enforcement Authority are still intending to refer them then they must do so without delay and will have to provide in person, a full and detailed explanation for the delay to the Adjudicator.

For the hearing on 23 June 2018 (appeal 2180200988), if still resisted, the Enforcement Authority must send a representative to the hearing who can fully and confidently deal with all issues. If it is no longer resisted then Mr Lowry and the Tribunal should be informed accordingly, and without delay.
______________________________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 21:31
Post #249


Member


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



Have to pass the traffic sign for the restriction to apply

This one might be useful in Connell Crescent cases where the signs are set back and the enforcement camera takes photos as soon as you enter the street.

2180203283

Contravention Failing to comply with a no entry sign

The Appellant performed a U-turn at the junction of Grove Hill Road and Peterborough Road. He said that he had not entered Grove Hill Road. I disagree. The vehicle had clearly passed the give way lines separating the two roads. However, I am not satisfied that Appellant passed either of the two no entry signs.

The allegation is that the Appellant failed to comply with a no entry restriction. The key issue in this case is where the no entry restriction commences. The Authority's case seems to be that entry into Grove Hill Road is a contravention. I do not agree.

A pair of no entry signs create a virtual line or gate. The restriction prevents vehicles from passing this line or gate. This is particularly the case where there is no Traffic Management Order so that the position of the signs defines the point at which the restriction begins. Paragraph 1 (2) in Part 5, Schedule 3 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 provides that: "When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point."

It is therefore reasonable for motorists to understand that a no entry contravention only occurs if a vehicle passes the no entry signs. The no entry signs in this case are not placed close to the junction. On of the signs is about two car lengths from the give way line. The other over four car lengths from the give way lines. It is therefore not unreasonable for the Appellant to believe that he could turn before the no entry signs.

The Authority stated in the Notice of Rejection that the Appellant passed the no entry sign. It then stated in the case summary that the Appellant's vehicle drove over the no entry road markings and made no reference to the upright signs. It seems to me that the Authority has by then recognised the problem with its case but I do not think that its submissions work.

First, the road markings do not indicate when the restriction begins nor are they enforceable signs. Secondly, the Authority's photographs of the road markings are not dated. The markings do not seem to be present in the CCTV recording, and they are not present in Google images in July 2017.

I find that the signage restricts or at least give the impression that its restricts, vehicular movement after the no entry signs. It does not indicates that one cannot enter Grove Hill Road. I allow the appeal.
___________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 14:46
Post #250


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Dartford crossing, Keeping the crossing fee to apply to future crossings and no exercise of discretion whether to issue PCN or not

Decision:
Motorists who use the crossing have a legal obligation to pay the road user charge, and Dart Charge likewise have a duty to accept it. Where Dart Charge accepted payment, and the result was an unpaid crossing for which it was intended, they are not entitled to hold that on account of a future crossing. This is for two reasons. First of all the future crossing may never occur, and secondly they may only do so where there is an Advance Payment Agreement in place (see Regulation 6 of the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013).
I am not aware there is any such Advance Payment Agreement in place between Dart Charge and ...... in the form of a properly opened account. As I have said, there is a very strong presumption that ,,,,,,,, intended the payment to be for his recent crossing, because he surely cannot have intended to receive a penalty by making the payment against a future crossing instead.
I therefore deem the payment to have been accepted by Dart Charge in relation to the unpaid crossing which is the subject of this PCN.
Can Dart Charge issue a penalty charge notice despite having been deemed to have accepted the slightly late payment of the road user charge? Theoretically, yes, although the penalty charge notice would have to be for the penalty amount of £70, and could not include the crossing fee. The amount they have demanded in this case therefore exceeds what they are entitled to demand.
There is a further difficulty. The purpose of the penalty scheme is to encourage compliance with the payment system. Where a motorist has paid slightly late, but, importantly, before Dart Charge have even issued a penalty, they can be no good reason for enforcing penalty. The window for payment contained in the Regulations is very short, and motorists can often have perfectly understandable reasons for paying late - often, as in this case, by using the crossing in order to embark on a longer journey, during which payment may be understandably difficult.
The power to issue a penalty charge notice is a discretionary one - the regulations state that the authority ‘may issue a penalty charge notice’ (my emphasis). In order for such a decision not be procedurally improper, there must be evidence that it has been taken in a discretionary way, not simply as the result of an effectively automated process. Where someone has paid a day or two late, and before Dart Charge have even begun to take action on the unpaid crossing by issuing a penalty charge notice, they can be few, if any, reasonable grounds for issuing a PCN, given that the purpose of the penalty system is to encourage compliance with the payment system.
I do recognise that ......... has a recent history of making another slightly late payment, but there is no evidence that Dart Charge took that into account when actually issuing this PCN. Furthermore it still does not counter the basic fact that he paid only slightly late, and before Dart Charge even realised that there had been an unpaid crossing, and therefore there is no reasonable justification for the PCN being issued.
I therefore find that the decision to issue PCN was not a properly exercised discretionary power as allowed for by the Regulations, and therefore procedural impropriety has occurred.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 23:11
Post #251


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The London Borough of Tower Hamlets parking policies in force as of 20 July 2018:

Policy - Cancellation of PCNs v5.1: https://www.scribd.com/document/384377453/P...on-of-PCNs-v5-1
Policy - Bay Marking Contraventions v1.0: https://www.scribd.com/document/384377449/P...raventions-v1-0
Policy - Bank Holiday Arrangements 2017-18 v1.0: https://www.scribd.com/document/384377451/P...ts-2017-18-v1-0
Policy - Car Club Vehicles v2.0: https://www.scribd.com/document/384377452/P...b-Vehicles-v2-0
Policy - Bailiff Complaints v1.0: https://www.scribd.com/document/384377450/P...Complaints-v1-0
Policy - CCTV Enforcement of Parking Contraventions v2.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380114/P...raventions-v2-0
Policy - CEO Conduct v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380112/P...EO-Conduct-v1-0
Policy - Complaints and Investigations v3.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380109/P...stigations-v3-0
Policy - Conflict of Interest v2.1 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380110/P...f-Interest-v2-1
Policy - Controlled Parking Zones v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380111/P...king-Zones-v1-0
Policy - Correspondence Other Than Royal Mail v2.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380113/P...Royal-Mail-v2-0
Policy - Correspondence Other Than Royal Mail v2.1 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380117/P...Royal-Mail-v2-1
Policy - Data Protection and Retention v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380116/P...-Retention-v1-0
Policy - Disabled Person's Parking v3.2 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380119/P...-s-Parking-v3-2
Policy - Disabled Person's Parking v4.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380118/P...-s-Parking-v4-0
Policy - Observing Criminal Offences Etc v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380120/P...fences-Etc-v1-0
Policy - Permit Transfer Scheme v2.3 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380121/P...fer-Scheme-v2-3
Policy - Permit Transfer Scheme v3.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380124/P...fer-Scheme-v3-0
Policy - Public Viewing of CCTV Evidence v2.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380123/P...V-Evidence-v2-0
Policy - Residents' Visitor Scratchcards v2.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380129/P...ratchcards-v2-0
Policy - Sole Traders & Contractors Permits v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380125/P...rs-Permits-v1-0
Policy - Vehicle Removals & Relocations v4.3 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380127/P...elocations-v4-3
Policy - Warning Notices v1.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380130/P...ng-Notices-v1-0
Policy - Yellow Line Restrictions v2.0 - https://www.scribd.com/document/384380131/P...strictions-v2-0


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 16:53
Post #252


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Footway parking resolution for Violet Avenue and Royal Lane, Hillington. I've obtained this resolution but can't track down the thread it relates to so I'm posting it here for future reference:

https://www.scribd.com/document/384771358/Violet-Avenue


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:44
Post #253


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Elizabeth Kehinde v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2180261257) - very late response to informal representations is a procedural impropriety:

The Appellant, Miss E. Kehinde, attended a Personal Hearing before me on 31st July 2018 to explain his contention personally.

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle HV10KCU, at the relevant time, on the material date; namely at a location subject to a restriction requiring the purchase of time to park and the display of paid-for time voucher and/or display of an applicable and valid permit.

The Enforcement Authority assert the absence of payment/permit display in respect of the said vehicle.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in her written representations, which she reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: still frames revealing the said vehicle in situ, the lack of appropriate permit/sight of a displayed payment voucher and the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's evidential record suggests that the said vehicle was observed for a 5 minute period before the point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

Whilst a motorist must be afforded sufficient time to comply with a parking regime [e.g. attendance at a voucher-dispensing machine/complete a telephone payment transaction] this does not extend to the seeking of requisite coinage.

The Appellant’s contention in this regard does not negate liability.

Evidentially I am satisfied that the contravention occurred.

I note that the Appellant's informal representation was lodged on 15th January 2018 by email, the receipt being virtually instantaneous as opposed to postal receipts.

Notwithstanding that, by legislative prescription, a Notice to Owner will issue 28 days after a Penalty Charge Notice remains unpaid or unchallenged, and an Enforcement Authority has a statutory obligation to respond to formal representations [those made in response to the Notice to Owner] within 56 days, the Enforcement Authority allowed 99 days to pass before responding to the Appellant's initial representation.

No acknowledgement of receipt was issued, nor an explanation, let alone apology, for such inordinate delay. I find this to be wholly unacceptable.

I acknowledge and endorse the Appellant's interpretation of such silence to be acceptance of those representations.

I note the Enforcement Authority's statement to the effect that the Appellant was not disadvantaged due to the re-offer of the discounted penalty, I do not find that to be appeasing particularly in light of the stringent time constraints set for those challenging Penalty Charge Notices and the consequences of their non-compliance.

I do not find that the Enforcement Authority has considered the Appellant's representation in a timely manner, and I consider that action to be tantamount to procedural impropriety.

Indeed I conclude that by not duly considering the Appellant's representation in a timely fashion the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I do find to be a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

Accordingly, I allow this Appeal.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:36


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:43
Post #254


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Manchester Oxford Road appeals (Nelson Street to Hathersage Road)

MC00752-1712 (29 January 2018): https://www.scribd.com/document/386135347/D...on-MC00752-1712
MC00816-1712 (30 January 2018): https://www.scribd.com/document/386135441/D...on-MC00816-1712
MC00729-1711 (31 January 2018): https://www.scribd.com/document/385753270/M...on-MC00729-1711
MC00014-1801 (14 February 2018): https://www.scribd.com/document/385753271/D...on-MC00014-1801
MC00642-1805 (7 June 2018): https://www.scribd.com/document/386135239/D...on-MC00642-1805

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 01:40


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 15:57
Post #255


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 16:43) *
Manchester Oxford Road appeals (Nelson Street to Hathersage Road)

MC00014-1801: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753271/D...on-MC00014-1801
MC00729-1711: https://www.scribd.com/document/385753270/M...on-MC00729-1711


Got this lot for oxford road, might be duplicated in part

Short and sweet - (MC00060-1801):

Mr XXX (senior) took part in the telephone hearing on behalf of his son, the Appellant. Mr YYY represented the Council.

Mr YYY told me that the Council had not changed the signage in this location since two previous decisions had made plain that the signage was inadequate. Mr YYY said the Council were urgently looking at the possible remedies but that this was not a matter with which he was personally involved. Mr YYY reiterated that in their view the signage was technically correct but conceded that its placement was not ideal.

Indeed it is fair to say that the signage in this location, technically correct or not, is hopeless. It gives the distinct impression of applying only to the adjacent cycle lane and not to that part of the carriageway which is intended to be restricted to buses (and other authorised vehicles) only. The signage fails to satisfy Regulation 18 of the Local Authority Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996.

Mr XXX raised a further point: he asserted that the penalty charge notice (PCN) was served out of time. He described his calculations and, upon looking at the Regulations and a calendar, I agree with him. The PCN was only just out of time but it was, nevertheless, served too late to be enforceable.

The appeal is therefore allowed for two reasons: first, that no contravention occurred because the signage intended to warn motorists of the restriction was inadequate; and, second, because the PCN itself was served later than the Regulations permit.

Mr XXX asked for costs and will, if he wishes to pursue this, send to the Tribunal a breakdown of the time reasonably spent on this case together with the out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred. Mr XXX is aware that any costs awards, which are very rarely made by this Tribunal, will be modest. It will be necessary, as a primary point, for Mr XXX to demonstrate that the Council’s conduct of this case has been “wholly unreasonable”. Note that mere unreasonableness will not suffice, it must be “wholly” unreasonable.

MC8545971A

1. I have decided this appeal without a hearing. The parties did not ask for a hearing.
2. The Council have produced footage from an approved camera device which shows Mr A's vehicle driving southbound along Oxford Street after its junction with Nelson Street.
3. The whole of Oxford Street at that point in that direction of travel is a bus lane from 6am to 9pm. During those times buses, taxis and permit holders’ vehicles are the only motor vehicles permitted to proceed along Oxford Road beyond its junction with Nelson Street.
4. Mr A explains in his that he was planning to park on Denmark Road following a route down Grafton Street left on to Oxford Road and then right on to Denmark Road. In fact, this route took him on to Oxford Road before the start of the bus lane and then into the bus lane, the turn for Denmark Road being past the start of the bus lane
5. Mr A appeals on the basis the signage did not indicate he could not take that route and was unclear and confusing. He said, in particular, the signs at the beginning of the restriction are on either side of a wide road, with the near side sign located on the far side of a cycle lane, well away from the carriageway and separated from it by the cycle lane and nearside kerb. He argues the sign indicated to him that the restriction applies to the extended bus stop area on the nearside.
6. Mr A is right that there is a long bus stop on the left hand side of the road, indicated by a yellow dashed marking on a red-coloured road surface, immediately after the start of the bus lane. Although this is, in fact, only a bus stop rather than the bus lane, Mr A is not alone in misunderstanding the sign on the near side of the start of the bus lane as applying to simply the left hand side of the road, where there is a long bus stop, as opposed to the whole of the road. Nor is he alone in evidently not noticing the equivalent sign on the far side of the road, because the road is so wide that it is remote from the side of the carriageway to which it relates.
7. The decisions of other adjudicators in appeals concerning this bus lane have highlighted that other motorists have interpreted the signage in exactly the same way as Mr A, that is as identifying a bus lane as being what is, in fact, the bus stop on the left hand side of the road with an unrestricted lane next to it.
8. A number of adjudicators have considered the question of whether the signage for this bus lane is adequate, in the context of appeals from motorists, like Mr A, who appealed because they were simply unaware they had entered a bus lane at all. In three cases - MC00729-1711; MC00816-1712 and MC00752-1712, the adjudicators decided the signage was not adequate and allowed the appeal. In each case they gave detailed reasons for their decision. Indeed, Mr A has quoted from the reasons in a further decision with the same outcome – MC00014-1801.
9. I am not bound by any of those decisions but find them persuasive, particularly in the context of Mr A’s evidence that he misunderstood which part of the road the restriction on the sign at the start of the bus lane applied to. Consequently, I agree with the decisions of these adjudicators that the signage for this bus lane is unclear and inadequate, and adopt their reasons for so deciding.
10. Because the signage is not adequate, the restriction is not enforceable against Mr Ai. I allow his appeal on the ground the alleged contravention did not occur. He has nothing to pay.


https://imageshack.com/i/pmfWKu9pj
https://imageshack.com/i/pmEOkR3Sj
https://imageshack.com/i/pnGffGErj

https://imageshack.com/i/pnYM0vrHj
https://imageshack.com/i/poHixRI0j
https://imageshack.com/i/pnYM0vrHj

https://imageshack.com/i/po2c937Dj
https://imageshack.com/i/pnsl6UAWj
https://imageshack.com/i/pnVdQo5ej

https://imageshack.com/i/pmCPjycdj
https://imageshack.com/i/poQhQdplj
https://imageshack.com/i/pm96wOHEj

https://imageshack.com/i/pnMEhc41j
https://imageshack.com/i/pmJQ2cJ7j
https://imageshack.com/i/poU0O7rOj
https://imageshack.com/i/poHHKqg4j
http://imageshack.com/i/pnjoAfDxj







--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:45
Post #256


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I made this for myself for ease of reference but I might as well post it up, it includes all changes up to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2018:

Consolidated version of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007: https://www.scribd.com/document/385841898/T...egulations-2007

Obviously this is in no way an authoritative document, only the legislation as enacted by Parliament has force of law and it prevails in the event of any discrepancies.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 18:45
Post #257


Member


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



Parking in a cycle lane-----problems with the contravention

2180259732

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of parking wholly or partly on a cycle track of lane.

Following an adjournment the local authority has referred me to the road markings and signs authorised by Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. I have also seen Department for Transport Circular 01/2016 version 2 issued in May 2016 soon after the 2016 Regulations were implemented. Paragraph 3.48 confirms that no traffic order is required for mandatory with flow cycle lane.

Part 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 refers to the significance of particular signs in Schedule 9.

Regulation 12(2) states that ‘the marking conveys the requirement that a vehicle, other than a pedal cycle must not be driven or ridden in the cycle lane during the cycle lane’s hours of operation ( which may be all the time) ‘

The Penalty Charge Notice was not issued for a moving traffic contravention of driving or riding in a cycle lane. It was issued for parking in a cycle lane. I am not satisfied that the contravention for which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued is prohibited by Regulation 12(2) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

I allow this appeal.
____________________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 15:40
Post #258


Member


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



Dropped kerb contravention----where a vehicle access is fenced off

2180304699

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person in some detail parked in part adjacent to what was physically a lowered footway. The Council is, however, required to prove not only that the footway was lowered but that it was lowered for one of the three purposes set out in s 86 Traffic Management Act 1986. It seems clear that the purpose relied on by the Council in this case is that of facilitating vehicular access to adjoining premises. It seems improbable that such an extensive length of kern would be lowered simply as a pedestrian crossing point and there is no evidence of tactile paving. The Appellant, who is very familiar with the location states that the drop originally gave access to garages and the appearance of the location in the photographs suggests that this is so.

The Appellant, however states that these entrances have been fenced off for at least five years; and this seems consistent with the growth of ivy up the right – hand fence seen in the photographs. The Council submits, with no further argument, that the restriction exists as long as the drop kerb is in existence.

I do not agree that this is so. If that were the case motorists would be prohibited from parking when any traffic management purpose for doing so had long since evaporated, even if, for example, the premises in question had been demolished or re-built. In my view a purposive interpretation must be given to this legislation and in my judgment the statutory purpose must subsist at the time of parking. Certainly some mere temporary absence of use for the intended purpose would not suffice; it would not avail a motorist to say, for example, that the garage owner did not have a car, or that a driveway had not been used for some time. Some degree of permanence would be required, normally in the form of some major physical alteration to the premises and their access. Questions of fact and degree might arise; but on the facts of the present case, substantial fencing of five years standing, I have no hesitation in finding that the statutory purpose had long since ceased to subsist and that therefore no contravention occurred. As it transpires the PCN was incorrectly issued.
-------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 18:19
Post #259


Member


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



Vandalised Ticket Machines---Council has difficulty in contending pay by phone.


2180323219

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a shared use parking place in Mallinson Road without clearly displaying a valid permit or pay-and-display ticket on 7 April 2018. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1303.

 
The Appellant states that she parked adjacent to a pay-and-display machine which gave three options for payment – by cash, card or phone. She attempted to pay by card that the machine did not appear to work and so she attempted to other machines and they also did not work. She then walked down the road to find the nearest cashpoint returned with cash, again tried all three machines but none worked. She saw a civil enforcement officer and asked if she could pay him but was told that many of the machines had been vandalised and that she could use a machine further away. He states that she could not reach this machine and displayed within five minutes of arriving at the location as the Council indicated was required in their correspondence.

 
The Council maintained that "there are several options available to a motorist of the machine is unable to produce a pay-and-display ticket. In such circumstances the motorist should either use the cash the service or move the vehicle out of the bay." On this occasion the Council contends the Appellant ought to have called park mobile on the telephone number on the pay-and-display machine to activate parking rights.

 
I have no hesitation in accepting the Appellant's account as true. Further I note that the Council accepts in their correspondence that the number of the pay-and-display machines had been vandalised and that the Council were looking to replace these machines "with an option to pay by cash to longer available" (sic). The Council assert that if a machine is not accepting payment by coins motorist must use the cashless parking facility or find an alternative place to park. The Council has not however produced any evidence of what is stated on the pay-and-display machines at and the location and what the motorist should do in the circumstances. I am satisfied that on this occasion the motorist undertook reasonable attempts to effect payment. It is a requirement of a pay for parking scheme that the Council provide the means by which the motorist may effect payment. I am not persuaded on the facts of this case that the Council have discharged this requirement by simply asserting that the cashless parking facility should be used.

Accordingly, the Council may not enforce this penalty and the appeal is allowed.
-----------------------------------

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 11:19
Post #260


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



PCN flaw databse: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...dit?usp=sharing

Literally just started this, but it makes sense to have a quick lookup guide so you can quickly check if a PCN has certain known issues. I'll give write access to any long-standing members who ask.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here