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  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28
Post #41


Member


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



wording in Kingston upon Thames pcns in regard to the 28 day payment period not compliant - 214020982A referring to 2130497615. They're different contraventions too.

Blimey! appellant is TOLD by adjudicator to ask for costs because council had 2 versions of NoR!! 2140217602

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 08:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 13:58
Post #42


Member


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



QUOTE (2cupsofcoffee @ Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 09:28) *
wording in Kingston upon Thames pcns in regard to the 28 day payment period not compliant - 214020982A referring to 2130497615. They're different contraventions too.

Blimey! appellant is TOLD by adjudicator to ask for costs because council had 2 versions of NoR!! 2140217602

The RBK wording issue is being decided by a panel decision soon. Frankly, I think the two expressions mean the same . The NOR case warrants investigation. Appellant must have raised the issue of costs which explains the direction.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 - 14:19


--------------------
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 Sun, 15 Jun 2014 - 11:08
Post #43


Member


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



Legitimate expectation: 2140095775


--------------------
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 Sun, 15 Jun 2014 - 11:21
Post #44


Member


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



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 23 May 2014 - 13:26) *
Premature issue of Charge Certificate:

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

Case Reference: 214008540A
Appellant:
Authority: Lambeth
VRM:
PCN: LH57834750
Contravention Date: 29 Oct 2013
Contravention Time: 18:23
Contravention Location: Westminster Bridge Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Decision Date: 22 May 2014
Adjudicator: Michael Burke
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons: The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 28.01.14 and the Notice of Appeal in this case was received by PATAS in time on 20.02.14. I am satisfied that by 06.03.14 the Local Authority would have been aware there was a live appeal before PATAS. Despite this, they issued a Charge Certificate to the Appellant on that date.
The Local Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator's decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated:
'The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.'
I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal.


2140192669


--------------------
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 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 - 00:07
Post #45


Member


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



Failure to serve evidence pack upon person nominated on Notice of Appeal. Courtesy of Mashkiach:

Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade 213019425A, 2130369739, 2130292270
Adjudicator Anthony Chan 2130189216, 2120075786, 2130093365
Adjudicator Andrew Harman 2130169183
Adjudicator Austin Wilkinson 2120194978
Adjudicator Mark Eldridge 2130062496 and 2130060592
Adjudicator John Lane 2130521913, 2130440662, 2130521913, 2140023617, 2140114086
Adjudicator Andrew Harman 2130169183
Adjudicator Carl Teper 2110705232
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce 2130221782, 214010820A
Adjudicator Anthony Edie 213042389A
Adjudicator Alastair McFarlane 2130421227, 2130603665
Adjudicator Michael Burke 2130375072
Adjudicator Jennifer Shepherd 2140126052
Adjudicator Michael Nathan 2130074043

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

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 - 00:55


--------------------
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, 19 Jun 2014 - 16:30
Post #46


Member


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



legitimate expectation - on advice of CEO - 2140213532

failure to consider (unable to) 2140226170

This post has been edited by 2cupsofcoffee: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 - 16:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 20 Jun 2014 - 23:40
Post #47


Member


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



Yellow Box Junction de minimis: 2140226090

In the light of the very small amount by which the vehicle is seen to be in the entrance to the junction and the brief time it is in this position I treat this on its facts as a case where the principle of de minimis ( i.e legal insignificance) should be applied, and on that basis no contravention occurred. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


Viewing evidence re Reg 10 CCTV issued PCNs: 2140232457

The case also raises the question as to whether the wording on the Council's PCN complies with the requirement of Regulation 3(4)(e) to state the effect of 3(5) and (6) - again a matter which seems on the face of it a little doubtful but which may await some future decision of the point is raised.




This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 - 23:52


--------------------
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 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 01:16
Post #48


Member


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



Continuous contravention: 2140234882


--------------------
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 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 19:35
Post #49


Member


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



failure to consider: 2140233369

failure of authority to provide means of payment in good working order: 2140218343
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 22:41
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,008
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



QUOTE (2cupsofcoffee @ Tue, 24 Jun 2014 - 20:35) *
failure to consider: 2140233369
most important the Notice of Rejection contains clear and accurate reasons to explain why the Penalty Charge Notice is to be enforced.
Though not as far as Makda, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudictor [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin)
Para 8
A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2cupsofcoffee
post Sun, 29 Jun 2014 - 08:01
Post #51


Member


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



could be of use for close together bus lane cases:

Case Reference: 2140244922
Appellant:
Authority: Barnet
VRM:
PCN: AG80947821
Contravention Date: 25 Jul 2013
Contravention Time: 18:46
Contravention Location: The Hyde, West Hendon Broadway
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Decision Date: 28 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Gerald Styles
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

Reasons: The appellant has attended today at the Angel with her husband Mr F. The Council was not represented at the hearing.

I am asked to overturn this penalty charge notice which the appellant emphasises was one of a pair of bearing the same time and date.

Mr F tells me that he calculates there is approximately some 250 metres between what is recorded.

The other penalty charge has been paid at £130 and I regard that as a closed file.

Given the proximity in time and space between the two occurrences I am not persuaded to uphold Barnet's claim to the second penalty charge under appeal today. Any Council arguments that separate bus lanes have a discrete legal status and thus justify two separate penalty charges on the facts of this case appear to me artificial and I do not accept them. I consider the appellant case stronger.

These considerations have resulted in me recording this appeal as allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Tue, 1 Jul 2014 - 20:39
Post #52


Member


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



will/may: 2120448511


--------------------
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 Tue, 8 Jul 2014 - 15:23
Post #53


Member


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



parked following instructions of CEO 2140260102
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 8 Jul 2014 - 22:03
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 887
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



2140263304 Multiple PCNs. Bus lane
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Thu, 10 Jul 2014 - 23:54
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,008
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



2140265569
signing scheme as a whole meets the criterion of providing "adequate information
and this 2140250889

This post has been edited by mashkiach: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 00:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 00:09
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,008
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



Parked in bay cos broken mirror 2140252057
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Thu, 17 Jul 2014 - 15:13
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,008
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



Just gone over 14/15/16 Jul cases
Case Reference: 2140167322 Regulation 3(4) (e)
Case Reference: 2140278017 unable to cancel
Case Reference: 2140089499 Notice of Rejection failed to deal
Case Reference: 2140126744 not criminal but penal prove appropriate standard
Case Reference: 2140264078 signage temporarily rendered unclear
Case Reference: 2140208849 failure to comply occurred prior to that stated in PCN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 09:44
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,309
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



No signs or markings are required for so called dropped kerbs. Parking adjacent is a contravention anywhere in a Greater London and anywhere within a Special Enforcement Area.
Case 2110067442 concerns parking by such a dropped kerb where the area is marked by a yellow line. The presence of the line is held to "confusing and misleading" and the appeal allowed.

Does anyone have any further examples?

QUOTE
Case Reference: 2110067442
Appellant:
Authority: Westminster
VRM:
PCN: WM64562084
Contravention Date: 31 Oct 2010
Contravention Time: 17:52
Contravention Location: North Audley Street
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway
Decision Date: 12 Apr 2011
Adjudicator: Neeti Haria
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The appellant does not deny parking at the location but states that she was misled by the single yellow line marked at the location into thinking that the area was subject to the single yellow line restrictions.

The Appellant states that she was misled by the single yellow line road marking alongside the dropped kerb. She states that as parking on a Sunday is permitted on the single yellow line on North Audley Street, she thought he was permitted to park at the location. The Appellant states that had the Authority marked the dropped kerb with a double yellow line as opposed to a single yellow line she would have had no doubt that parking was prohibited and would not have parked at the location.

The Authority relies on the copy Penalty Charge Notice and the civil enforcement officer's contemporaneous notes and photographs.

It is the Authority's case that there is no legal requirement for a dropped kerb to be signed. The Authority is of the view that as there is no legal obligation to indicate a dropped kerb with any sign or road marking the fact that they marked the area with a single yellow line is irrelevant.

I adjourned the appeal with a request that the Authority provide an explanation as to why it has chosen to mark the area with a single yellow line as opposed to a double yellow line when as a result of the dropped kerb parking is prohibited at all times. The Authority has responded by simply reiterating its view that as there is no obligation on them to sign the prohibition it is irrelevant that the area is marked by a single yellow line.

I accept that there is no requirement to sign the prohibition against parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 11:28
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 887
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Location: YBJ - two or more possible locations, and not at location stated

2060381000 Inadequate information on PCN
210056419A
2120507905
2130069145
2140187691

2140111099 No YBJ at location stated on PCN (or on photos)
2140200836

Not sure whether any of the above are already in other posts - but maybe useful together.


This post has been edited by astralite: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 - 22:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
astralite
post Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 11:41
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 887
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,352



Time: YBJ

2140214193 not as stated on PCN (alleged contravention would have occurred later)

And
2140201293

The PNC alleges a contravention at 10:13. One of the issues raised in representations was that any contravention occurred at 10:12 and not 10:13.
The local authority did not refer to this issue at all in the Notice of Rejection. In the case summary the local authority states that the car stopped at 10:13.
… the CCTV. .. shows that Mr xxx's car enters the box at 10:12:48. It stops at 10:12:56. It moves off at 10:13:36 and then exits the box.
The contravention occurs if a vehicle enters and then stops in a box junction and the stopping is due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
I find that the car stopped before 10:13. Therefore I am not satisfied that any contravention occurred at the time alleged.


This post has been edited by astralite: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 - 12:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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.