PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane / Gate PCN Romney Avenue Bristol, Inadequate signage/markings?
Morrowitz
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Hi all

Hoping someone will be able to help with this PCN case

My wife went through a bus gate on 12/7/2017 at midday at this location in Bristol
https://goo.gl/maps/DgZjj4LDZLK2
Notice was posted on 18/7/2017
Date of Service is taken as 20/7/2017
Deadline for reduced charge is 3/8/2017
Deadline for Reps is 17/8/2017

It’s a new lane so the street view only has a 20mph sign and the road ends at a dead end. This is how it looks on 19/7/2017
http://i65.tinypic.com/jqkg9c.jpg
There is a warning sign further back the road at this location
https://goo.gl/maps/pHwJDLNscSQ2
http://i67.tinypic.com/1670ak2.jpg

This is the PCN




http://i67.tinypic.com/24lv66r.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/2cpxojd.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/2ynld7a.jpg

Here’s what happened
On the morning of 12/7/2017 my wife took our pre-schooler and young baby to a forest school on Romney Avenue, Bristol.
https://goo.gl/maps/HeEfApueioM2
It was the first time she had ever been along this road and was approaching from the south. The warning sign is situated just prior to the school on the right. My wife does not recall seeing this sign, probably as she had seen the school and was scanning for parking.
Parking was limited so she drove on and parked here https://goo.gl/maps/DgZjj4LDZLK2
She parked at around 10 am, approximately 20 yds from the bus gate.

At 12:00 she returned to the car, loaded the children into and set off for home. She knew she had to take a left after the school to bring her back towards home but had already driven past the turning while looking for a parking space and not realised it. She set off down the road and almost immediately crossed the red painted section of road. She registered the sign but the lack of red painted road ahead and the lack of Bus Lane markings fooled her in to thinking the lane was either not in force yet (it’s a new development) or further ahead.

There was absolutely nothing for her to gain in using this bus lane and it turned a 1 mile journey in to 4 mile journey.

So my question is probably the same as many others: Are there grounds for a challenge?

  1. The initial warning is ~ 220ft from the bus gate (not sure if this has any bearing)
  2. According to the TSRGD table 36 item 13 “The road marking “BUS GATE” means a road or part of a road indicated by the sign shown in Table 6 item 10, 11, 12 or 18 when varied to include at least an exception for buses.” These are all red circle signs and not the blue sign used.
  3. Referencing the blue signage the Traffic Signs Manual - 15.29 states “Where either a one-way or two-way road is reserved for buses and cycles, the entry points should be indicated by signs to diagram 953. The other end of a one-way road must have “no entry” signs to diagram 616 in accordance with paras 4.39 to 4.41. Where the order permits taxis to use the road or excludes cycles, the sign to diagram 953 shall be varied accordingly. As with contra-flow bus lanes, this sign must be used in combination with the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2. Where the road is for the exclusive use of buses, the sign to diagram 953 is varied to show only the bus symbol.” The “Only” sign is missing from both signs and is required. I understand there may be an exception if the council has secured DfT authorisation to allow them to use a variant sign.
  4. Also referencing the blue signage (953) figure 15-8 of the traffic signs manual states “Direction 20(1) does not permit diagram 953 to be used without the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2”. I’m not sure what Direction 20 is though.
  5. The PCN is for Code: 34J Being in a bus lane but she was never in a bus lane and there were no markings to suggest there was a bus lane. This was an argument suggested in this thread (among others) http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=97756



Sorry for the long initial post but I thought I’d get as much down as possible.

Is anyone able to suggest the best way to take this forward?

Many thanks in hope

This post has been edited by Morrowitz: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 09:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 09:51
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,744
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP--Let's see what they come back with.

This is the HC case on surcharges:-

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...Adjudicator.pdf

In essence the Council acted ultra vires (outside the law) in imposing a surcharge. That case sets a precedent in England and Wales and, even though we are dealing with a bus lane case, I doubt an adjudicator would or could set it aside. The other aspect of the Camden case worth noting is that the payment route, like yours, was optional.

My view is that the surcharge would mean the penalty charge level, agreed by the Secretary of State is exceeded and therefore the statutory ground "that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" applies.

I would also suggest the PCN is a nullity if the Council seeks to importune in such a manner.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ripples28
post Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 11:14
Post #22


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 5 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,376



I was wondering if you had a resolution to your challenge? We have just recieved an almost identical notice except doubled up as I'm assuming my husband realised his error, turned round and came back - the notices are within 30 seconds of each other. I will at the very least be challenging the second notice, but was wondering if you had any success with your challenge around it not being clear that it was for buses only and if I had a case for challenging both.

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 21:49
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Ripples28 @ Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 12:14) *
I was wondering if you had a resolution to your challenge?

You need to start your own topic.

QUOTE (Ripples28 @ Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 12:14) *
and if I had a case for challenging both.

Have you read the points raised?


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 18:37
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Edited: Removed a comment about paying this within the 14 days. I want to go to appeal unless others think it's a waste of time.

Hi all

Update is that the reps were rejected.

So much going on with the house at the moment I've left it two weeks to post on here.

If anyone has any advice please let me know if it's worth pursuing to appeal?

The thing that has really got my back up with the response from the council is that it addresses very little of the reps. The majority of the photos of the signage they supplied were either temporary (only there as a warning back in May that there would be a bus link) or approaching from a different direction.

Picture 1(page 1 of the response) is the same signage as I sent them but with an additional temporary red sign.
Picture 2 (page 2 of the response) is a temporary sign that was not present on the day and the accompanying sign is not relevant to bus lanes
Picture 3 (page 2 of the response) is a permanent sign that is before Picture 4. I've actually never heard of Chiswick village and there are no signs to say where chiswick village is (apart from "Ahead").
Picture 4 (page 2 of the response) is the same signage I sent them which I contended was too far from the actual bus gate
Picture 5 (page 2 of the response) is a permanent sign on a different road which would not have been seen from the direction of approach. It's a road coming in from the left of picture 2 (you can see the same yellow sign in both).

Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Page 4


Covering letter
This was sent because my wife made the reps and not the owner of the vehicle.


This post has been edited by Morrowitz: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:43
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:47
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:57
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.


Yep til the 17thI will outline all the errors but got a lot on this week so bump me this time next week
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:00
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:57) *
QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.


Yep til the 17thI will outline all the errors but got a lot on this week so bump me this time next week

Amazing, thank you and will do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:14
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Bumping for @PASTMYBEST
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:53
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:14) *
Bumping for @PASTMYBEST


got it will do tomorrow afternoon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:18
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Fantastic, thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 17:27
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Just a start, posting now coz got to leave it for a bit, Might finish tonite but if not in the morning

Finished. I have added some links at the bottom. Print them off and take them with you. or if you can attach them as appendices to the text. They are the cases I've quoted. it's a good idea to make it easy for the adjudicator

Use this verbatim edit to suit or throw it away. There can be no guarantees but it should give a good shot, as some of the rulings are binding

I have conceded the signage, because TBH there is not much hope so no need to start with a bad point. You may think different


Appeal against the imposition and enforcement of PCN number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE
Your name

QUOTE
I make this appeal having made representations to the authority and received an unsatisfactory response that failed to deal with all but one of the points raised. This being the case, I undertook some fairly extensive research, Having done so I would concede that the signage is adequate, and I understand that the adjudicator cannot consider the mitigating factors. I have however discovered that the authority has failed in the duty imposed on it by The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and would submit that for a number of reasons I will outline below, appeal under regulation 9(2)(f) That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

First and foremost, I make a submission that the enforcement of the PCN must fail because the statutory ground has been met. The authority demand by way of surcharge a penalty that exceeds that allowed by statute.

Both the PCN and NOR in the how to pay section give the option to make payment by telephone. Both of these legally mandated documents include a statement that calls cost 2p per minute plus your phone companies access charge.

The imposition of surcharges to cover cost incurred by the authority or for any other reason has been the subject of judicial review. Neutral citation Number [2011] EWHC 295 (admin) case No CO/13317/2009



B e f o r e : THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT Between: LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN and THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR claimant and (1) BFS GROUP 03568 t/a FIRST FOR FOOD SERVICE defendant (2) LEE SUGDEN (3) AIDAN BRADY interested parties

paragrapgh 18 line 7 “'the substance of what [the notice] is saying is that to discharge the penalty the motorist will have to pay a sum greater than the penalty prescribed by law.'

Paragraphs 27 and 28 set ouy arguments for and against and paragraph 29 gives the ruling

I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
That the amount is relatively small does not detract from the fact that it is a surcharge indeed a person would not know at the time of making the payment exactly what this surcharge would be.

It is my contention that this ruling at JR leaves no doubt that the authority are demanding a payment in excess of that proscribed thus invalidating the enforcement of the PCN

I further submit by way of collateral challenge, under the same statutory ground . That the authority fail at 10(1)(b) of the regulations. This being a failure of a statutory duty, I made the claim in my representations that the PCN was invalid as it demanded a penalty higher than that set by statute. The reason for not accepting this was not given, as required by the above regulation.

Again I submit that this invalidates the PCN and enforcement.

A further collateral challenge under this ground.
Registration 8(5)(e)(f)and(g) deal with the relevant periods for making payment. The 14 day and 28 day periods for payment at the relevant amount, and the period for making representations. The 14 day period is described at (f) The 28 day period and the period in which representations can be made are set out in registration 7 the periods all are periods beginning with the date of service of the PCN.

In the case of this PCN these would be. the 14 day period would be PCN posted on the 18th July, deemed served on the 20th July last day of 14 day period would be the second of August. For the 28 day period for payment and to file representations it would be the 16th of August.

Page two however confuses this period. It uses the term within 28 days of the date the notice was served. The term beginning with is clear and unambiguous, it allows for easy calculation of the date by which action is required. The term within does not by legal convention mean the same, the calculation must start the next day, adding one day to the period.

Although it could be said that the correct period is shown. Ambiguity is created by showing two conflicting periods by which an action should be taken, and secondly.

Any ambiguity must by legal convention be found in favour of the disadvantaged party. In this case the appellant, from whom a penalty is demanded.

I respectfully refer the adjudicator to the finding of Mr Justice Jackson in the high court neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 2357(admin) The queen on the application of London borough of Barnet council v the parking adjudicator

paragraph 39 (last sentence) “there must always be certainty of the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payment expire.”

It was argued in this case that no prejudice was caused . Mr justice Jackson dealt with this as follows

paragraph 41 he says.

“Me Lewis submits that even if there was non compliance in this respect nevertheless no prejudice was caused, PCN's 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.


The Notice of rejection contains an error so similar it's effect is the same.

At page two paragraph 3 the statement “ This notice of rejection will be taken to have been served on the second day after the day of posting (as shown above) unless you can show it was not. The correct term should be Second working day.

Finally under the same ground.

The Notice of rejection in the final paragraph states. To paraphrase. If an appeal or payment is not made whithin the correct period then the authority WILL serve a charge certificate.

The regulations at10(4)(g) allow only that they MAY serve.

The words WILL and MAY have entirely different meanings, The word MAY being chosen by the draftsman to allow for the authorities absolute discretion not to continue on to this next stage in the enforcement process..

Common law dictates that the authority must not fetter this discretion.

In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below

216022028A

Belinda pearce

. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
2160211959

John Lane


Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection shall:
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an Adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
2160210490

Sean stanton-Dunn

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 Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served 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. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.
2160211926

Christopher Rayner


Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis
2160422149

Michael Lawrence

The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
2150379790

Joanne Oxlade


The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not
2150479729

Neeti haria

In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.

I contend that this failing to follow the statutory wording, thus importing a different meaning is a failure To comply with the registrations and a further reason for cancelation of this PCN



Mr Justice Burnett on surcharge

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...)+AND+(parking)

Mr justice Jackson on the extra day

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...gust%202006.pdf

And Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson on the WILL vs MAY You will need to screenshot this and print it's at post 57

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...00003&st=40

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 20:38
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Wow. Thank you so much PMB. This is brilliant.

I have a just a few questions on this:

1 - Do you recommend I attend the appeal?

In the lead up to the WILL vs MAY contention you say:
"In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below"
2 - Could you clarify what "head" means in this context?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 22:02
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:38) *
Wow. Thank you so much PMB. This is brilliant.

I have a just a few questions on this:

1 - Do you recommend I attend the appeal?

In the lead up to the WILL vs MAY contention you say:
"In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below"
2 - Could you clarify what "head" means in this context?



Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

it's a legal term, in the context I 've used it. It means that particular argument

But make sure you send the appendices

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 22:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:16
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:02) *
Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

Are TPT still doing telephone hearings?
Slight downside is that Council are more likely to take part over the phone.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:30
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 00:16) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:02) *
Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

Are TPT still doing telephone hearings?
Slight downside is that Council are more likely to take part over the phone.



think they are, but would stick with postal, if you don't feel confident. I think the points are sound, and clearly constructed and should be able to speak for themselves. But as always welcome imput
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 08:58
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



I feel comfortable with the points made and the reasoning behind them. It is more the legal terminology (E.G. prejudice and how it relates to dates) that I might fall down on.

Having never been to one of these before I am both curious and apprehensive about attending. I have no idea what sort of questions might be raised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 10:08
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,255
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:58) *
I feel comfortable with the points made and the reasoning behind them. It is more the legal terminology (E.G. prejudice and how it relates to dates) that I might fall down on.

Having never been to one of these before I am both curious and apprehensive about attending. I have no idea what sort of questions might be raised.



Just made a couple of edits to remove typos.

The major issues are pretty well covered, the adjudicator is likely to ask questions relating to other parts of the judgements so a read up on them would help. You have a bit of time, once filed a case will not be listed for hearing for at least 28 days.


The first part re the surcharge should win on it's own. The ruling by the high court is binding,

That they failed to consider the point when you made it in your reps is a failing to comply with the bus lane regs here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made

I've quoted the regulation and sub paragraphs in the appeal.

same with the dates the regulations set down what they are. The calculation is legal principal so when the say you must pay" within" the calculation starts the next day
Effectively telling you you have one day more than the regs allow. So if you want to pay on what you believe is day 28 but as regards the regs is day 29 you could find the penalty has increased Jackson covers this in the barnet judgement

The WILL/MAY issue has never been tested at the high court The cases linked explain it well.

Have a good read up see how you feel. You can opt for a personal hearing but change your mind later

There is another issue re the having to phone to get a paper form to appeal in that manner, but it might over gild the Lilly as the TPT are complicit in this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Morrowitz
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 19:39
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,101



Thank you.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Things have been somewhat manic here.

I have just submitted the appeal online. It was word for word apart from adding in a link to the legislation and quoting the relevant passage from your last post. I attached pdfs of the relevant cases to the online appeal.

I had to choose an option for why I was appealing and the only one that covered any of the points was "The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount". Since this is the first point I guess it will be OK.

There was no option to attend a hearing. This was the message I got at the end of the process.

By submitting my appeal online through this website, I agree to receive the adjudicator’s decision and all communications, from the Tribunal and authority, through this website. I also agree that I am either:
a) The person named on the authority’s Notice of Rejection or the person who made the Witness Statement
b) Authorised by this person to complete this appeal on their behalf


No option other than to do it all online so I continued and these are the next steps

What happens next:
The details of your appeal will be checked and confirmed. The Authority will then get an opportunity to upload their evidence for this appeal.
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal will contact you via email with updates, or when we need you to do something.

What you need to do:
Keep an eye out for any emails relating to your appeal and follow the instructions given.
You can access your appeal at any time by logging into this portal. Here you can see the current status of your appeal and check any actions required by you. You can also add more evidence to support your claim if you wish by selecting the Evidence tab at the top of the page.
If you don’t hear from us within 48 hours, please email help@trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk or call us on 0800 160 1999.


So I guess that answers whether or not I will be attending in person!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 19:55
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,865
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
There was no option to attend a hearing


???
There should have been

Options for TPT (unlike LT, which has no telephone hearings) are postal, telephone or personal.

Even if you want a postal, I would telephone TPT tomorrow for guidance.

It may be that they want apostal submission for a personal hearing??? but seems unlikely.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 16:18
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.