PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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


Member


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



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

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

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

Charge Certificate: premature issue

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

Evidence not served in time

2110144328, 2130131442, 2120451094, 2130259672.


Will/may cases

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

Legitimate expectation

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

Mandatory info missing from Reg. 10 PCN

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

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

Representations treated as requests

2120488345, 2100587978, 2120408958, 2110494261.

Multiple choice decision: Code 12

2120562288

Failure to consider

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

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

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

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

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

Fettered discretion: I am unable to cancel

2130316200, 2130521902, 2130497615.

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


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

Donald Rumsfeld

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

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
13 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Enceladus
post Sat, 24 May 2014 - 16:34
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,326
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



A very useful thread. And my thanks to Hippocrates for starting it.

I would like to suggest that when quoting an adjudication verbatim, as distinct from simply quoting the case number, that we edit out the appellant's name and vehicle reg. Although these details are a matter of public record some people might take offence as their name and/or vehicle reg will now be directly returned by a google (or similar engine) search. I simply suggest that it is good manners not to name a private individual or company when it is not directly relevant.

That said quoting a key case or high court decision is different as these cases are habitually referenced by the parties involved and are usually already in the public domain.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Sat, 24 May 2014 - 17:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Sat, 24 May 2014 - 19:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



unconscionable level of delay before obtaining registration of the debt at Court: 2140188388

council to re-serve PCN - wrong box ticked on Witness Statement/change of address: 2140217191

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Sat, 24 May 2014 - 19:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 24 May 2014 - 23:49
Post #23


Member


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



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sat, 24 May 2014 - 17:34) *
A very useful thread. And my thanks to Hippocrates for starting it.

I would like to suggest that when quoting an adjudication verbatim, as distinct from simply quoting the case number, that we edit out the appellant's name and vehicle reg. Although these details are a matter of public record some people might take offence as their name and/or vehicle reg will now be directly returned by a google (or similar engine) search. I simply suggest that it is good manners not to name a private individual or company when it is not directly relevant.

That said quoting a key case or high court decision is different as these cases are habitually referenced by the parties involved and are usually already in the public domain.

Point taken and have edited two last posts of mine. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 24 May 2014 - 23:49


--------------------
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
2cupsofcoffee
post Thu, 29 May 2014 - 16:05
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



sending correspondance to address other than that specified: 214017906A

Case Reference:214017906A
Appellant:

Authority:Camden
VRM:
PCN:CU38562559
Contravention Date:
04 Feb 2014
Contravention Time:12:05
Contravention Location:
Guildford Street WC1
Penalty Amount:£80.00 Contravention:Parked after the expiry of paid for time
Decision Date:28 May 2014
Adjudicator:
John Lane
Appeal Decision:
Allowed
Direction:
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:
It is a procedural impropriety to send the evidence to the wrong address specified.
It is contrary to the provision in paragraph 17(6) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.
The notice of appeal states that correspondence be sent to xxxxxxx.
The evidence shows it was sent to yyyyyyyy.
I will therefore allow the appeal.


This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Thu, 29 May 2014 - 16:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 29 May 2014 - 22:02
Post #25


Member


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



Sending correspondence to wrong address courtesy of Mr Mustard:


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

This decision was corrected by the Proper Officer on the direction of the Adjudicator as per Paragraph 16 of Part 2 of the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

Case Reference: 2130093365
Appellant:
Authority: Barnet
VRM:
PCN: AG19026290
Contravention Date: 25 Nov 2012
Contravention Time: 11:37
Contravention Location: West Heath Road
Penalty Amount: £110.00
Contravention: Parked in a residents or shared use pay without displaying a permit, voucher or Pay & display ticket
Decision Date: 09 Aug 2013
Adjudicator: Anthony Chan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: This is an application for review of the decision of the original Adjudicator. Mr Levy represents the Appellant and attended on his behalf. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented.

Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations'). The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal on one or more of the following grounds:

(i) the decision was wrongly made as the result of an administrative error;
(ii) the adjudicator was wrong to reject the notice of appeal;
(iii) a party who failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his failure to appear;
(iv) where the decision was made after a hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen;
(v) where the decision was made without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen; or
(vi) the interests of justice require such a review.

A review is not an opportunity for a party to attempt to get another decision when the first one is not as they wished. An Adjudicator considering such an application must do so within the provisions of Paragraph 12 of the Schedule and be mindful of the guidelines in Ross -v- London Borough of Enfield (PATAS 1950094429) where, in particular, it was held that: "Where one of the grounds set out in the Regulations is proved, that merely gives an adjudicator a discretion whether or not to review the decision. Even if a ground is proved, the adjudicator is not bound to exercise that discretion to review the decision.

Mr Levy, who had appeared before the previous Adjudicator, was essentially seeking to re-argue his case. This is not a reason for a review. I can only review the decision if I find that the adjudicator was not entitled to come to the decision that he reached.

I have read Mr Levy's written submission and listened to his oral arguments. The first point that he took was that there had been a procedural impropriety because the Authority's evidential bundle had been sent to the Appellant rather than Mr Levy. This is not disputed as a matter of fact. The issue is whether this amounted to a procedural impropriety.

Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the appeals regulations) deals with the service of documents i.e. the service of any notice or other document required or authorised by the Regulations to be sent to a party to an appeal. The Authority's submissions lies in the case summary so the case summary is required to the Appellant. Its service is therefore covered by Regulation 17.

Paragraph 17 (2)(b) provides that any document shall be regarded as having been sent to that party if it is left at his proper address. Paragraph 17 (6) goes on to provide that the proper address of the appellant is the address for service specified pursuant to paragraph 2(2)© or, if no address is so specified, the address specified pursuant to regulation 2(2)(b).

Paragraph 2 (2)© provides that the proper address is a address which the Notice of Appeal may specify as being the address to which the appellant wishes documents to be sent to him in connection with the appeal. The Appellant has specified on the Notice of Appeal that the service of documents should be upon Mr Levy at Mr Levy's address. Mr Levy's address is therefore the proper address to which documents should be sent.

Sending the Authority's case summary to an address which is not the proper address is therefore a procedural impropriety. The previous Adjudicator indicated to Mr Levy that he would allow an adjournment so that Mr Levy can look at the evidence bundle and as Mr Levy had chosen to continue with the hearing, no prejudice was caused.

It seems to me, and it is not clear whether the point has been pressed on the previous Adjudicator, that once he found that the evidence bundle was served on the Appellant rather than Mr Levy, the first question that must be asked is whether there was a procedural impropriety, not whether there was prejudice. Regulation 7 (2) of the appeals regulations provides that if, on an appeal under this regulation, the adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in regulation 4(4) applies, he shall allow the appeal. I hold that this means that once the Adjudicator finds that there had been a procedural impropriety, he must allow the appeal irrespective of whether prejudice had been caused.

Having read the previous decision I am not satisfied that this approach had been taken.

Regulation 4 (5) of the appeals regulations provides that a procedural impropriety means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations and includes in particular the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required by the General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.

The requirement is that service of the case summary must be at the proper address. The delivery of the papers to an address other than the proper address is therefore a procedural impropriety. The fact that prejudice can be avoided by Mr Levy giving an opportunity to read the papers does not cure the impropriety.

The previous Adjudicator had taken a route that was pragmatic and which could not be said to be unfair. However, it would appear that he had not directed himself to the relevant regulations and in particular the need firstly to make a finding as to whether there had been a procedural impropriety and then the implication of this finding.

Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the appeal is allowed.




Original Decision Subsequently Reviewed Under Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

Decision Date 21 Jun 2013
Previous Decision Refused
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Direction None
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a residents or shared-use parking place or zone without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place. On behalf of Mr. Hackenbroch his representative Mr. Levy states that he did not receive any evidence bundle. The Enforcement Authority have stated that the evidence bundle was sent to the Appellant on 07.03.13 and I am satisfied that this is the case. In the circumstances I indicated to Mr. Levy that I would allow him an adjournment to consider the evidence should he wish it. He chose to proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Levy advances a number of technical arguments. He asserts that the PCN fails to comply with Paragraph 1. (g) and (h) of the Schedule to the General Regulations in the manner in which it sets out the 14 and 28 day periods for payment of the penalty charge. However, when asked he was unable to identify any material difference between the periods as described on the PCN in this case and as set out in paragraph1. above.
The PCN in this case sets out the periods for payment as 'before the end of the period of 28 days (or 14 days) beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice was served'. I am not satisfied that there is any material difference between the words used on the PCN and those in Paragraph 1. I am satisfied that the PCN was substantially compliant.
Mr. Levy asserts a procedural impropriety in the failure by the Enforcement Authority to honour the indication given on the PCN that if informal representations were refused the Enforcement Authority would offer a further opportunity to pay the reduced amount of £55.
'Procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by the Appeals Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum. Mr. Levy was unable to identify the requirement of the Act or Regulations which the Enforcement Authority had failed to observe. He relies on 3 decisions of Adjudicators to allow an appeal in these circumstances. None of these decisions identifies a procedural impropriety and I am not satisfied that there has been any procedural impropriety.
Mr. Levy asserts that the Notice to Owner is defective in that it fails to comply with Regulation 4 and 5(2)(b)(i) and (ii). However, neither of these provisions sets out formal requirements for a Notice to Owner. Again he relies on 3 decisions of other Adjudicators but PATAS case reference 2080351250 relates to a defective PCN, 211061246A a defective Notice of Rejection and 2120342259 was concerned with a Regulation 10 PCN, whereas the case I have to consider involves a Notice to Owner issued following a Regulation 9 PCN.
Mr. Levy complains that the Enforcement Authority did not provide him with a copy of the Traffic Management Order at his request. They have as required provided a copy extract with their evidence bundle. As indicated above I would have allowed Mr. Levy an adjournment but he chose to proceed with the hearing. He has not therefore established any prejudice.
As to the allegation in this case has provided evidence of 3 attempts made to pay for parking of the vehicle, none of which were successful.
Anyone who has used automated payment facilities with any regularity will be familiar with intermittent malfunctions. Where this happens the motorist must find a way to park legally, whether this be to keep trying or to find an alternative method of payment, or an alternative parking place. There would come a stage when I could properly say that the motorist had taken all reasonable steps to pay for his parking but I do not feel able to say it was reached in this case.
Mr account amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. The Law does not give Adjudicators the power to allow an appeal which establishes mitigating circumstances only.
Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies and there is no proper basis on which I could allow the appeal. Nevertheless, on 07.07.13 I wrote to the Enforcement Authority in the following terms:
'The PCN in this case indicated that if informal representations received within 14 days of the day of issue were refused a further opportunity would be given to pay the reduced amount. The letter of 31.12.12 did not allow a further opportunity to pay the reduced amount. The email representations are stamped 'Date Received: 13 December 2012' which would have been outside the 14 day period. However, the email header shows 'Sent: 06 December 2012 14.22'. On the face of this evidence it appears the email was received within the 14 days and that when the representations were refused a further opportunity to pay the reduced amount ought to have been afforded. The Adjudicator will assume this is the case and allow the appeal to the extent of a further opportunity to pay the reduced amount unless you send full written reasons as to why you pursue the full penalty charge.'
In the meantime Mr. Levy has written indicating that he wishes to attend 'the hearing'. Mr. Levy had nearly an hour and a half at the personal hearing to advance the arguments he wished to advance. This is exceedingly generous for an appeal against a PCN. There is no further hearing for him to attend.
I am grateful to the Enforcement Authority for the indication that they are prepared to accept the reduced amount of £55 in full and final settlement. This must be paid within 21 days of today or the full penalty charge will fall due.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 29 May 2014 - 22:03


--------------------
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
Hippocrates
post Fri, 30 May 2014 - 18:06
Post #26


Member


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



Wrong appeal form sent with NOR: (2120221618), 2120089430, 211013314A, 2120039979, 2100488397.

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

Many thanks to Bogsy for a couple of those cases. And OP on this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry689742

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 30 May 2014 - 18:09


--------------------
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
Enceladus
post Fri, 30 May 2014 - 23:19
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,326
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



@Hippocrates

In your magic catalogue do you have any more cases on legitimate expectation similar to 2120088937 above? IE. where the appellant relied on advice from a CEO as to where to park, as distinct from lack of enforcement by the EA.

Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 30 May 2014 - 23:57
Post #28


Member


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



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sat, 31 May 2014 - 00:19) *
@Hippocrates

In your magic catalogue do you have any more cases on legitimate expectation similar to 2120088937 above? IE. where the appellant relied on advice from a CEO as to where to park, as distinct from lack of enforcement by the EA.

Thanks,

Fraid not. They are the only ones I have at present: trying to lead a normal life and avoiding PATAS registers etc! I stand corrected: here is another one 213031735A but this may not fit your requirements.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 31 May 2014 - 00:27


--------------------
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
2cupsofcoffee
post Sat, 31 May 2014 - 07:52
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



This may be of help in cases regarding loading where the item is small - involves a locksmith collecting/dropping off keys: 2140199205, 2140199216, 2140199227

late service of evidence (3 clear days): 2140177676

The Notice to Owner does not describe in general terms or at all the form and manner in which an appeal may be made. 2140008668

multiple choice offence: in a bay for a special class of vehicle: 2140170917

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Sat, 31 May 2014 - 08:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Sat, 31 May 2014 - 08:12
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sat, 31 May 2014 - 00:19) *
@Hippocrates

In your magic catalogue do you have any more cases on legitimate expectation similar to 2120088937 above? IE. where the appellant relied on advice from a CEO as to where to park, as distinct from lack of enforcement by the EA.

Thanks,


Enceladus - 2140075643

Case Reference:2140075643
Declarant:

Authority:Transport for London
VRM:

PCN:GF62949714
Contravention Date:
09 Aug 2013
Contravention Time:
18:50
Contravention Location:
Mile End Road
Penalty Amount:
£130.00
Contravention:
stopped where prohibited
Referral Date:
18 Feb 2014
Adjudicator:
Carl Teper
Appeal Decision:
Allowed
Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons:The Appellant has attended his appeal I find him to be an honest, consistent and convincing witness I believe what he tells me.

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped where prohibited in Mile End Road on 9 August 2013 at 18.50 having exceeded the permitted hour as he had been seen parked at 17.39.

The Appellant's case is that he had just arrived and had spoken to the two Civil Enforcement Officers at the location and asked if it was alright to collect some food. He was told that as long as he was no more than an hour it would be ok. On his return 6 or 7 minutes later he was astonished to see them issuing a Penalty Charge Notice.

I have also considered the evidence in this case and I find the Appellant's evidenc to be credible and stronger than that of the Enforcement Authority's.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.


This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Sat, 31 May 2014 - 08:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qafqa
post Sat, 31 May 2014 - 08:56
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



Three more where the appellant checked with a CEO before parking.
2110170441
2110613600
2110508322

This post has been edited by qafqa: Sat, 31 May 2014 - 08:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Sun, 1 Jun 2014 - 16:42
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



another asked the CEO first 2140203335
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 4 Jun 2014 - 00:49
Post #33


Member


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



An interesting continuous contravention case: 2140184092




--------------------
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
Hippocrates
post Wed, 4 Jun 2014 - 01:00
Post #34


Member


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



Legitimate expectation: 2140205217


--------------------
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
Hippocrates
post Thu, 5 Jun 2014 - 20:38
Post #35


Member


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



Fettered discretion and not true copy of PCN: 2140124818


--------------------
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
Enceladus
post Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 10:59
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,326
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Where a Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement has been successful on the specified grounds then the EA is supposed to "refer the case to the adjudicator who may give such directions as he considers appropriate and the parties shall comply with those directions". Normally an appeal is scheduled.

Both TMA2004 and RTA1991 are silent on the time limit allowed for the EA to refer the matter. The PATAS Chief Adjudicator's Practice Manual for London Enforcement Authorities says this at paragraph 20.5 in Section 20.

QUOTE
20.5 The EA should comply with the statutory duty to refer the case promptly. Failure to do so may result in the Adjudicator finding that delay in doing so debars the EA from enforcing the penalty and directing cancellation of the PCN and/or NTO.


Has your research thrown up any cases where "promptly" in the above context is discussed? IE what is a reasonable time and what is unreasonable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 12:46
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



E, not a discussion, but an example. Found in the "closed" section.

Case Reference: 2140148780
Declarant:
Authority: Enfield
VRM:
PCN: EF02306389
Contravention Date: 30 Aug 2013
Contravention Time: 17:00
Contravention Location: Woodcroft N21
Penalty Amount: £110.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Referral Date: 25 Mar 2014
Declaration Direction Date: 05 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Monica Hillen
Appeal Decision: Closed
Direction: the Enforcement Authority to re-serve the Notice to Owner within 28 days
Reasons: Enforcement Authority has referred a witness statement made by Mr Butler on 25 February 2014. The ground relied on is clearly wrong as he indicated to the Enforcement Authority he neither received the Penalty Charge Notice served on the vehicle or the Notice to Owner posted on 1 October 2013. The following direction is made in the interests of justice. Direction 1. The Enforcement Authority to re-serve the Notice to Owner within 28 days. 2. Mr Butler to make formal written representations to the Enforcement Authority within 28 days of receipt of the said Notice. Direction made under Reg.23 (7) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007

2140104264 witness statement 13 Feb, referred 28 Feb

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 12:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 15:35
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



Case Reference: 2140252454
Declarant:
Authority: Merton
VRM:
PCN: MT80267607
Contravention Date: 24 Jun 2013
Contravention Time: 12:21
Contravention Location: Windermere Avenue SW19
Penalty Amount: £110.00
Contravention: Parked in a restricted street
Referral Date: 02 Jun 2014
Declaration Direction Date: 10 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Austin Wilkinson
Appeal Decision: Closed
Direction: the LA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice

Reasons: draw the local authority's attention here to the PATAS User Manual issued to all Enforcement Authorities in December 2008 at paragraph 20.5 where there is reference to the statutory duty to refer cases promptly to this Tribunal once the Court has made its Order upon presentation of a Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement. Failure to do so may result in the Adjudicator finding the delay in doing so debars the Enforcement Authority from enforcing the penalty charge notice and directing cancellation of the penalty charge notice and the Notice to Owner. In addition, in exercising its functions under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 the local authority has a duty to act fairly. I note the case of R-v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex p. Doody (1994) (House of Lords) per Lord Mustill : "Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances" . I have also considered Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ( PAS 1970198981) where it was considered that a delay of more than 2/3 months in responding to an appellant's representations was prima facie evidence of unfairness in the absence of explanation . Here, the Date of referral of the Witness Statement is 23rd May 2014 but the Order of the Court is 30th October 2013 and I have no explanation for this level of delay. This is an unreasonable and , in my view, an unfair delay causing potential evidential prejudice to the Appellant. Enforcement cannot be permitted in these circumstances.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 17:05
Post #39


Member


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



Legitimate expectation: 2140212143

Photographic evidence wanting: 2140213463, 2140213430.

PCN inaccurate re description of loading bay: 2140213758

Wrong time on PCN by 19 seconds: 2140214193

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 17:13


--------------------
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
2cupsofcoffee
post Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:07
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,449



possibly useful for loading cases - 2140116172 " In my view, the placing of a large item of dry cleaning into a vehicle is just as much an act of loading as would be, for example, the placing of a box or a suitcase. "

another "did not receive evidence 3 clear days before" 2140161712

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Friday, 17th August 2018 - 07:45
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.