Appeal allowed on basis of Late response to Informal Reps. |
Appeal allowed on basis of Late response to Informal Reps. |
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 19:44
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
I recently had a case PCN for not displaying a parking permit, which I won at tribunal against Greenwich Council.
Today I was on the London Tribunal website, looking up my details, when I noticed another successful appeal against Greenwich Council. Case 2180261257. The crux is that the adjudicator took umbrage to the Council's tardy response to the appellant's initial informal rep. It had taken 99 days. On this basis alone [ the adjudicator took the view that the contravention had happened ] the appeal was allowed on the basis of PI. Even though there are no time limits legislated re. responses to informal reps. Now in my last two dealings with Greenwich Council their responses to my informal reps, took 5 months and 4 months respectively. So going by a standard that 99 days is unacceptable, then it is very likely that many [ most?] contraventions in Greenwich could be appealed successfully on the same basis. This is not a 'Flame Pit' type of post. However I thought case this might be a useful precedent; and didn't see an obvious home for it. Text of adjudication: Initial summary of case. Yada yada yada... 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 rosturra: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 19:46 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 19:44
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:44
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've added this here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1404335
We have a sticky thread specifically to keep a record of such cases. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:40 |