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
12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12  
Start new topic
Replies (220 - 223)
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, 15 Dec 2017 - 13:41
Post #221


Member


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



Notice Of Rejection ----Procedural Impropriety -----Kensington and Chelsea

"Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.

2170537351

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay in Kempstead Gardens at 9.09am on 5 May 2017 without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

I am allowing the appeal because there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council. 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 Mr Brandt and dated 13 October 2017 stated that a charge certificate may be issued 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. "Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.
------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 14:32
Post #222


Member


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



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 13:41) *
Notice Of Rejection ----Procedural Impropriety -----Kensington and Chelsea

"Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.

2170537351

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay in Kempstead Gardens at 9.09am on 5 May 2017 without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

I am allowing the appeal because there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council. 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 Mr Brandt and dated 13 October 2017 stated that a charge certificate may be issued 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. "Issue" and "service" are two separate and distinct legal processes.
------------------------------------

Mick


Would be nice to see one of these by an adjudicator other than SSD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:25
Post #223


Member


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



Footway parking, the definition of road and what comprises public land

2170551476

Dr. Osment appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the prohibition on parking a vehicle “in or on any urban road in Greater London … so that one or more of its wheels is resting on—

(a) any footway;

(b) any land (not being a footway) which is situated between two carriageways in any such road; or

© any grass verge, garden or space not falling within the foregoing paragraph (a) or (b)”, to quote from the relevant legislation, namely s.15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

The definition of a road is to be found in s.192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is defined as a “highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Accordingly, whether a vehicle’s wheel or wheels are resting on any of the spaces in paragraphs (a) to © of s.15(1) only falls to be considered if the vehicle is parked “in or on” a road as defined in s.192 of the 1988 Act. Whether a given place is a road is a matter of fact, in accordance with the principles in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647.

Dr. Osment helpfully produced a skeleton argument. Although I rejected summarily most of the grounds, an argument raised at point 2 had real merit and warranted consideration. At point 2 he argued: “The photos clearly show that I was on a void space further on and well clear of the footway.” This was foreshadowed in his representations to the Enforcement Authority (EA), which included the following: “I was not on a footpath. I was on an area of hardstanding forming no other purpose, other than suitable for parking.” I am afraid I disagree with the second point raised there; the area on which, the photographs show, the vehicle was parked was plainly not designed, or suitable, for parking. Whether it forms part of a road, however, is a different matter. Dr. Osment argues he was not parked in or on a road at all. Rather, he says, his vehicle was parked wholly on an area of land that does not comprise part of the road. It is the EA’s case that the vehicle was parked (at least partially) on the footway of North Street and was thus in or on a road with one or more wheels on the footway.

I have not been provided with any map showing the parameters of North Street, or the road which is parallel to it. I have, however, studied the photographs in some detail. There is a footway, which I accept is part of North Street. There is a parallel road, which has parking spaces next to it. In between those two roads is a space which, to my mind, is a pleasant open space for people to enjoy, paved differently from the footway, containing trees and benches. Bearing in mind the reasoning in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647 I find that it is a place to which the public have access, but not a road. In particular, it is not an area of the road that is between two carriageways; the other road is separate and is not merely a carriageway of North Street.

I turn then to whether Dr. Osment’s vehicle was parked on the road, namely North Street, or the area that is not a road. I have looked at the photographic evidence provided. It is clear to me that no wheels of Dr. Osment’s vehicle were resting on the footway, which is paved distinctly. Rather, his vehicle was wholly within that area that I have deemed on the evidence to be public land but not a road.

It follows from that that I am not satisfied that the vehicle was parked on a road. Section 15(1) is not engaged and the contravention did not occur.

Dr. Osment was aggrieved that the EA’s rejection of his representations contained an allegation that he had caused an obstruction; perhaps it might have been better not to mention this given it is not a necessary element of the contravention (or offence, as it used to be). However, the allegation was not wholly unreasonable given that, as I find, Dr. Osment should not have parked on that area of public land. Although Dr. Osment applied, partly for that reason, for his costs, I am not satisfied that the EA has conducted this appeal is such a way as to warrant an order for costs.
----------------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 18:11
Post #224


Member


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



Transfer of liability of a hire agreement

This case spells out what is required but also gives the Council leave to seek costs against the Appellant.

2170551523

On 19.01.18 I refused 5 of the Appellants’ appeals in cases similar to this one.

The Appellants seek to transfer liability for this PCN by virtue of a vehicle hire agreement. They refer me to decisions of other Adjudicators but the decision of one Adjudicator is not binding on another.

Liability for PCNs may be transferred where the contravention occurs at a time when the vehicle is the subject of a vehicle hire agreement of less than 6 months. However the document relied upon must satisfy The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000, which require a statement of liability signed by the hirer and the inclusion of the following details:

'A. Particulars of person signing statement of liability*

1. Full Name.

2. Date of birth.

3. Permanent Address.

4. Address at time of hiring (if different from 3 above and stay is likely to be more than two months from date of hiring).

5. Details of driving licence:

(a) country where issued (if not UK),

(b) serial number or driver's number,

© date of expiry (which should be no later than date specified in B7 below).

* Where the statement of liability is in Part II of form H, the full name and address of the person by or on whose behalf the statement of liability was signed should be supplied together with the date on which it was signed. If the person taking possession of the vehicle is not the same as the person by or on whose behalf the statement was signed, the full name of that person should also be supplied (if known).

B. Particulars of hiring agreements

1. Registration mark of vehicle hired under the hiring agreement.

2. Make and model of vehicle hired under the hiring agreement.

3. Registration mark of any vehicle substituted for the above during the currency of the hiring agreement.

4. Make and model of any vehicle substituted for the above during the currency of the hiring agreement.

5. Time and date of any change of vehicle.

6. Time and date of commencement of original hiring period.

7. Expected time and date of expiry of original hiring period.

8. Time and date of commencement of authorised extension of hiring period.

9. Expected time and date of expiry of authorised extension of hiring period.

10. Actual time and date of return of vehicle (or when vehicle returned out of hours time and date on which vehicle-hire firm next opened for business).

This requirement applies only to the vehicle hire firm's copy of the hiring agreement.'

The Appellants may only transfer liability under the above provisions if they are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ which is defined as ‘any person engaged in hiring vehicles in the course of a business.’

Even if I were satisfied the vehicle hire agreement provided by the Appellants represented a genuine transaction it does not contain all the above requirements and is non-compliant in any event. However, I have further concerns about the document.

The vehicle hire agreement provided by the Appellants purports to show the hirer of the vehicle as ‘Surrey Car and Van Hire Ltd.’ which, despite the name, has an address in Edinburgh. The Enforcement Authority’s case is that this is not a genuine vehicle hire agreement, that the person signing the statement of liability is Mr. Clive Palmer who is Managing Director of the Appellants and that the Edinburgh address is an address of convenience, out of the jurisdiction and therefore presenting extra difficulty in enforcement.

The Enforcement Authority state that Companies House gives the Appellants’ business as ‘Taxi operation/Freight transport by road’.

By letter of 28.11.17 Mr. Palmer complained that the Enforcement Authority allegation of ‘fraudulent behaviour’ was unfair. He did not answer the charge.

The Appellants have not provided any evidence which might support the assertion that they are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ within the above definition and I am not satisfied that they are.

An allegation of fraud is a serious matter and I do not feel able on the evidence provided to make a finding of fraud against the Appellants. However, it is for the Appellants to establish that the vehicle was subject of a valid vehicle hire agreement. I am not satisfied that the Appellants are a ‘vehicle hire firm’ or that the vehicle hire agreement provided represents a genuine transaction. It follows that there is no proper basis for the transfer of liability in this case and I refuse the appeal.

In 2 of the cases decided on 19.01.18 the Appellants chose to go further than merely challenging enforcement and to apply for costs. Clearly there is no question of a costs order in their favour but I am minded to consider a costs order against the Appellants in the present case, on application by the Enforcement Authority which should set out all costs to which the Enforcement Authority have been put. Should an application for costs be submitted, the Appellants will have a further opportunity to make representations before I make any such order.
---------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Mad Mick V

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 17:51
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.