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
16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (180 - 199)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 May 2014 - 23:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
astralite
post Thu, 23 Feb 2017 - 20:04
Post #181


Member


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



The decision (2160509189) I noted is a reminder about a basic requirement re a yellow box junction (except outside fire stations and similar).
As things stand only a few of the cases allowed (which we know are in the minority) are picked up and noted on the thread by Pepipoo members. Mostly that simply depends on their own interest, the day they looked at the register, or when they looked for a particular contravention, location etc. And, what about the workload? We all know how time consuming it is to look regularly at every appeal for even just one location. Maybe easier simply to remember to add caveats about disallowed cases and the independence of adjudicators? Appellants also can and do access the register to look at Key Cases and search for cases which relate to their alleged contravention...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 24 Feb 2017 - 17:22
Post #182


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Surbiton Crescent PCNs do not comply --Types of vehicle unspecified

2170021610

The Appellant and his representative, Mr D, attended this hearing.

Mr D argued that the Penalty Charge Notice was defective because it failed to mention the type of vehicle that was prohibited.

The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles. However, the PCN fails to particularise the vehicles to which this applies, namely all motor vehicles (including motor cycles) except buses and taxis. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see from them any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have contravened or 'offended' against and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN. It is also impossible to see or read any markings on the carriageway that might indicate the type of vehicle.

In the circumstances I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


More Kudos to Mr. M

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 25 Feb 2017 - 00:03
Post #183


Member


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



They have changed the wording. Sometime before this decision, actually, so that it is extremely unlikely they will ask for a review.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 6 Mar 2017 - 10:22
Post #184


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



"No Return" prohibition triggered once original pay by phone session had expired. Unable to extend by phone.

This is a Camden case

217005313A

The Appellant said that he tried to renew his paid for parking vi RINGO but the system would not allow an extension within two hours of the original.

The Authority's records show that the Appellant purchased 45 minutes of parking at 16:26. At 17:11, the Appellant sought to renew his parking but the system would not allow it.

The Authority's case is that as the parking session finishes, the vehicle must be driven away. It would then be subject to a no return provision. It follows that parking cannot be be extended at or after 17:11.

The Appellant's submission is that the no return condition has not been stipulated on the sign. The Authority disagrees. It says that there is a sign indicating that one may only renew before paid for parking expires. After paid for parking expires, motorists must relocate their vehicles and not return within one hour.

The issue here is not whether the Appellant drove away and returned before he was allowed. The Authority's case is that he should have left when his paid for session expired thereby enabling a no return condition to bite, and the system's refusal to allow a further session was justified.

I have some concerns about this approach. First, the Appellant paid for his parking up to 17:11. It is arguable that the sessio0n had not expired at 17:11 when he tried to extend his session.

Secondly, while I can take notice that time-limited parking tends to have a no return condition, the Authority has not satisfied me that the Traffic Management Order provides for a condition requiring motorists to leave the save upon expiry of a parking session.

Thirdly, the Authority has not produced a clear image of a sign which informs motorists that they must relocate their vehicle when the parking session has lapsed so I am not satisfied that this condition has been brought to the attention of the Appellant.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.

The Appellant seeks his costs. I do not consider the Authority's action in this case to be vexatious or frivolous, or any of its decisions to be wholly unreasonable.

As a matter of law generally and common sense would dictate that one must extend a parking session before it expires.There is a distinct possibility that the parking session has expired. The Appellant was therefore not extending his parking session but starting a fresh one. Just because one can extend by phone does not mean that one can start a fresh session by phone. The Appellant had no legitimate expectation that it is allowed. I would refuse the application for costs.

Mick





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 20:44
Post #185


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Enforcement Authority must provide its evidence to an Appellant no later than 4 days before the Hearing

2170037563 (Extract)


As I started to go through the Enforcement Authority’s evidence on screen Mr C stated that he had not received any copies of this evidence by post prior to the hearing.

In February 2009 the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) issued the Practice Manual for London Enforcement Authorities (the Manual), which gave guidance on the practice to be followed by Enforcement Authorities (EAs) in relation to appeals to PATAS. Whilst PATAS has now been succeeded by the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA), the principles and practices set out in that guidance are equally applicable to appeals to the ETA.

Section 9 of the Manual is headed, “Sending Evidence to the Appellant”, and Section 9.3 provides as follows:

“9.3 It is the responsibility of the EA to serve evidence by first class post on the Appellant at their correspondence address, so that it would in the ordinary course of post arrive no later than 4 days before the hearing. Compliance with this requirement means that the Appellant will have advance notice of the EA’s case, and be in a position to decide what evidence to call and submissions to make. Failure to comply with the requirement may result in the appeal being adjourned or allowed on the basis that the Appellant’s right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.”

On examining the chronology of this appeal, it is evident that the Authority were notified of the hearing date on 3 February 2017. However the Evidence Checklist shows that they did not send copies of their evidence to Mr C until 7 March 2017, i.e. the day before the hearing. Whilst the evidence is before me, because it was uploaded electronically, it is not surprising that it had not been received by Mr C before he had to set off to be at his hearing at ETA at 9 am today. Even if it had been, that would clearly not have been 4 days before the hearing.

As the guidance above makes clear, it is an essential element of an appellant’s right to a fair trial that he should have the opportunity to consider the evidence in advance, and should not have to do so for the first time at the hearing itself. As Mr C and his barrister had taken the trouble to attend in person today, I was not prepared to adjourn the case to give them that opportunity, as it would have involved them having to make another trip to the hearing centre for the adjourned hearing.

In those circumstances I have decided that this appeal must be allowed. I made clear to Mr C that I do so without consideration of the merits of either party’s case,

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 20:57
Post #186


Member


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



Others may say 3 days! They are updating the old PATAS Guidance Manual. Personally, if an appellant has access to his online appeal, this argument would not hold water any more unless what they send by hard copy is substantially different from what they file online.

I started a thread on this 3/4 years ago. Total disparity.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 21:05


--------------------
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
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 22:34
Post #187





Guests






QUOTE
may result in the appeal being adjourned or allowed on the basis that the Appellant’s right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.
To play devil's advocate....

(2) If, on an appeal under this regulation, the adjudicator after considering the representations in question together with any other representations made to the effect referred to in regulation 4(2)(b) and any representations made by the enforcement authority, concludes that a ground specified in regulation 4(4) applies, he shall allow the appeal and may give such directions to the enforcement authority as he may consider appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to his decision, and such directions may in particular include directions requiring—

(a)the cancellation of the penalty charge notice;

(b)the cancellation of the notice to owner; and

©the refund of such sum (if any) as may have been paid to the enforcement authority in respect of the penalty charge.


there is no such ground for cancellation as a right to a fair trial under 4(4)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/4/made

And the PATAS guidance is not statutory guidance so failing to follow it is not a procedural impropriety as defined. One could also argue that the PATAS guidance is void since PATAS no longer exists.

Funny how adjudicators like to apply human rights law when it suits but ignore it when it does not suit. I'm glad the appellant won though.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 22:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 12 Mar 2017 - 09:23
Post #188


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,121
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Nottingham Bus Lane/Pedestrian Area. High Court Judgement.
Basic that enforcing via Bus Lane legislation when pedestrian zone signs are used may not be allowed (Case dependent)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/430.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Mon, 13 Mar 2017 - 11:41
Post #189


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,419
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



Inadequate suspension signage in City of London

(See also 2160127207 in full below - the appellant also referenced these cases
Case Reference Adjudicator
2160435978 Gerald Styles
2160444753 Edward Houghton
2160341670 Edward Houghton
2140130184 Edward Houghton
2160346142 Carl Teper
216037270A Mamta Parekh
2160446136 Carl Teper
2160042614 Edward Houghton
2160047039 Edward Houghton
2160078305 Christopher Rayner
2160128196 Edward Houghton
2160153422 Sean Stanton-Dunne
2160160993 Sean Stanton-Dunne
2160236199 Andrew Harman
2150281277 Neeti Haria)
----------------------------------------------------

ETA Register of Appeals

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 Details
Case reference 2170053399
Appellant Andrew ----
Authority City of London
VRM ----
PCN Details
PCN ----
Contravention date 17 Dec 2016
Contravention time 08:04:00
Contravention location Gresham Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Decision date 08 Mar 2017
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The appellant attended the hearing.
The issue of the appeal is essentially signage.
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading is to give false or confusing information.
The appellant provided photographs of other suspension signs to support his case. There was also a photograph of barriers that had been erected on the carriageway around the bay, in which his vehicle had been parked. I have caused these to be scanned onto the system.
Mr ---- also provided a list of decisions, in which the appeals had been allowed on this issue.
Although I am not bound by these decisions I found the decision in one of them, appeal 2160127207, most persuasive and relevant to this issue.
I will adopt the reasoning in that case and allow this appeal.

------------------

ETA Register of Appeals

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 Details
Case reference 2160127207
Appellant -----
Authority City of London
VRM -----
PCN Details
PCN -----
Contravention date 01 Feb 2016
Contravention time 10:20:00
Contravention location FINSBURY CIRCUS
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in a suspended bay/part of bay
Decision date 23 May 2016
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons

The Appellant’s case is that the suspension relied on was not clearly and correctly signed; and refers me to my decision in case 2160042614. In that decision I said this:-

The Council insists that the small yellow notice is not a "traffic sign". I would agree, as it does not comply, even substantially, with any sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. However this does not assist the Council at all; quite the reverse. The Traffic Management Order for this designated parking place requires (as they invariably do) that on the suspension of the parking place a "traffic sign" be erected; and the contravention relied on by the Council only occurs if the vehicle is waiting in a bay where there is a traffic sign in place (see Article 20). The various powers granted in the Crossrail legislation to stop up highways etc. have no bearing on this. Whether or not the suspension was clearly indicated (and I am by no means convinced that these little signs have the impact of a proper standard, three sided sign) in the absence of a traffic sign no contravention can occur and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

The sign does not comply with any sign in the 2016 incarnation of the TSRGD, the Department for some reason remaining unwilling to include a prescribed form of suspension sign. I remain of the view that this very small and unusual form of suspension signage requires authorisation. I would only add that it seems the Council might have difficulty in obtaining it for what appears to be a three year suspension since the standard triangular signage authorised for many Councils nationwide is normally subject to a period of use of a maximum of six months. As I am not satisfied the suspension was correctly and clearly indicated and/or that no “traffic sign” was in place as required by the TMO the Appeal is allowed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 13:50
Post #190


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,548
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



adjudicator interprets LLAA 2003 re TMO and section 36 sign to discount the prescribed wording of a contravention (code 33C)

2170103395


Miss Wilkinson asserts in her Notice of Appeal that the photographs taken by the Enforcement Authority do not show a contravention occurring. “They show my vehicle on the approach to the location and not within any bus lanes…At the point the photograph was taken my vehicle is about to turn left.” She claimed that the daytime photographs were taken from a different direction, and that they show that the “bus and bike only” sign is located after the point where the bus lane begins. “I believe that this causes drivers to turn left slightly later than they would if the signage was located earlier.”
Where moving traffic contraventions are enforced by the use of CCTV cameras there is no statutory requirement to show in the same recording both the vehicle allegedly breaching a prohibition and the signage of that prohibition, and indeed it is often not possible to do so. In this case the Authority have provided footage of Miss Wilkinson’s car heading south along Rye Lane and clearly passing beyond the words, “Bus and (cycle symbol) Only” marked on the road surface to the left of the triangular island. When viewed alongside the “sweep” video footage, taken from a vehicle moving in the same direction as Miss Wilkinson’s, and the still images provided for the appeal, it can be seen that those road markings are beyond the blue signs which indicate the prohibition in force. It is clear from the video footage that Miss Wilkinson’s car was not about to turn left – and indeed the traffic lights also have an “Ahead only” sign implicitly prohibiting such a manoeuvre.
I am aware that Miss Wilkinson has cited another Adjudicator’s decision, but no Adjudicator binds another, and in any event I have looked at that case, and it involved a vehicle driving north, i.e. in the opposite direction to Miss Wilkinson, so I do not find it persuasive in relation to this appeal.
It follows that if this were the only issue in this appeal I would refuse it. However, in another case involving the same alleged contravention (Case No 2170058483) I concluded that I must allow the appeal on different grounds, based on the wording of the allegation contained in the PCN, which is as follows.
“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”
I am satisfied that Miss Wilkinson acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,
“(1) This section applies where
(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or
(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.
(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice
(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and
(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following
(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and
(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle
(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.
(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where
(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”
What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.
Whilst I accept that the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)
I find therefore that the PCN issued in this case was not a valid PCN, and so I must allow this appeal.
[I should add that I am aware that the Enforcement Authority have sought a review of my decision in Case No 2170058483, but unless and until that review is heard and allowed in their favour, I believe that the above application of the law is correct. I should nevertheless warn Miss Wilkinson that the Authority may seek a similar review in her case.]

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 13:51


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 1 Jun 2017 - 08:18
Post #191


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Pay by Phone --Wrong Registration Number ---DPA Issues

(Via aggreviedofBrighton)

In case it is helpful to anyone who has fallen into the trap of the Ring-go app defaulting to a previous vehicle, we have just won an appeal at the second stage (formal representations) with East Sussex County Council.
My wife downloaded the Ring go app and registered as a new user, inputting the correct vehicle registration details etc. Apparently she had also downloaded it 4 years ago on a different vehicle no longer owned, different phone etc which had no recollection of, but the app defaulted to the old vehicle.
We argued the PCN should be cancelled because the app was misleading - it sent my wife a welcome email clearly treating her as a new user with no reference to previous vehicles or the possibility it would default to one. It was only when my wife proceeded to input the parking session and pay for two hours parking that the old registration apparently appeared in the fine print - however my wife didn't notice or think to look for this as the app had registered her as a new user and she'd put in correct details for the current vehicle.
ESCC accepted that this was misleading and cancelled the PCN - but only at the second stage. The comment from the Council was that user error is not usually accepted as a valid ground, but as the app was misleading, they would cancel.
We argued the procedural impropriety ground (citing the Secretary of State guidance re approaching enforcement fairly and proportionately etc and statutory obligation to take account of it) and threw in an "other ground" arguing data protection breaches - i.e. the 1st data protection principle requires data controller to process personal data (including the details entered on the app) fairly and lawfully, but the misleading nature and poor design of the app meant that my wife's personal data was processed unfairly; the fourth principle - data not kept up to date; the seventh principle - appropriate technical measures not taken against unlawful processing due to resulting DPA breaches and finally the 8th principle - personal data held outside the EEA - we noticed the Ring-go privacy policy used to say that personal data is not held outside the EEA but current version doesn't say that, so part of the grounds was that we could only assume that personal data was held by Ring-go on behalf of the Council outside the EEA and depending on which jurisdiction was involved was a further potential DPA breach (i.e. it's usually the US, which is no longer covered by the Safe Harbour agreement). We said we weren't minded to complain to the ICO at this stage as we hadn't suffered financial loss at this point.

On the DPA points the Council denied it was the data controller and told us to take it up with Ring-go - I don't think that is right, but as our objective was to get the PCN cancelled we won't pursue the DPA breaches. might be useful additional arguments however to support the primary argument that the design flaw in the app means that it is misleading.

Evidence attached to appeal - Ring-go VAT receipt proving payment for parking (ask Ring-go for this); a copy of the welcome email sent by Ring-go evidencing that my wife was treated as a first time user; screen shots of the screens that come up during the registration process to demonstrate no reference to an old vehicle or the prospect of an automatic default to one and an exchange with Ring-go where they explain that the old vehicle registration appeared for the first time as part of the payment process.

The take-away lesson from this is to attach robust evidence and pinpoint precisely what it was about the app design that is misleading, arguing that no reasonable user exercising a reasonable amount of caution should have been expected to forensically searched through the fine print on the payment page on a mobile phone to find a reference to a previously owned default vehicle when the app had ostensibly registered the user for the first time and sent a welcome email to her as a new user. The misleading aspect was that the text about the default vehicle was not reasonably accessible to the user and the welcome email meant no reasonable person would have looked for it.

Mention that you've deleted the old vehicle and warned others so they don't fall into the same trap.

There was also a reference to our assumption that the Council is probably dealing with a fair few of these (a few of the mums on the school run had had the same experience so guessing it's not uncommon) and that we would be keen to see Ring-go improve the design of their app so that precious and scarce council resource is not unnecessarily expended on dealing with aggrieved drivers who have already paid for their parking and exercise reasonable care but still received a PCN.

Good luck to anyone fighting something similar. Hope you experience the relief we did when we got the notice of acceptance yesterday, although we would have been prepared to go to independent adjudication on this.

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 - 08:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 2 Jul 2017 - 08:38
Post #192


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Clapham Park Road Bus Lane--A very rare win

2170238667

The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle at Clapham Park Road was in a bus lane.

I refer to the council's images of this bus lane provided at section J of the evidence tree.

On the appellant's case she took the route she did through this junction (she thus entering the bus lane to do so) in order to turn left at it she making submissions as to on her case the inadequacy of signage and markings.

I recognise that this bus lane is correctly marked and signed but the road layout at this spot is in my view confusing the motorist it seems to me being encouraged by it to approach the junction in the bus lane in order to turn left at it and in the absence of additional signage being posted - on, for example, the traffic island at the junction - I am not satisfied that adequate warning is given to the motorist that they should not pass to the left of the traffic island to turn left.

I find for this reason that the contravention has not been proved.

The appeal is allowed.
----------------------------------
Be careful with this one I expect the Council to ask for a Review.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 - 08:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 5 Jul 2017 - 09:31
Post #193


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Pro forma rejection letter does indicate consideration of representations

2170256432

The PCN was issued on the basis that the permit displayed in the vehicle only allowed the vehicle to park in North Road. The Appellant believed that it entitled him to park in any bay with an EC indication. Whether he was correct about this, or, if not, whether the limitation was made sufficiently clear to him on the permit or otherwise, is something that could only be determined from the permit itself which is not in evidence.

It is, however unnecessary to pursue this further since the Appeal falls to be allowed on other grounds. The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 7 Jul 2017 - 22:11
Post #194


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,119
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 23 Feb 2017 - 20:23) *
Appeals refused: I think that cases refused should also be placed on this thread as they will also assist. Also, since a panel decision decided re the box junction some years ago, representatives must make adjudicators aware of cases lost when presenting their appeal. Personally, I like the idea of encouraging an adjudicator to feel so independent that sometimes it is not necessary to even seek support from other cases. In my experience, they have made their minds up already so that any case presented will only confirm their decision rather than influence it. Indeed, it is almost an insult to an adjudicator to turn up with successful appeals from other decisions.

+1

PMB me mucker, take note?

I would add that refused cases can also aid an appeal: That is, forewarning of a related matter or interpretation that may crop up and hence
having a counter point ready, or directly addressing the flaw of a previous refusal in written submissions.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 - 22:12


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 08:39
Post #195


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,529
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Illegal yellow box Richmond on Thames (beyond the junction)

York St Junction With Arragon Rd. Twick

2170285940

I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence3 that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.

The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.

The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.

I allow the appeal.
________________

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 09:11
Post #196


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,548
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 09:39) *
Illegal yellow box Richmond on Thames (beyond the junction)

York St Junction With Arragon Rd. Twick

2170285940

I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence3 that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.

The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.

The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.

I allow the appeal.
________________

Mick


looked at this in relation to a live case but can find no legal basis for the finding, can anyone?


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Sun, 23 Jul 2017 - 12:14
Post #197


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 10:11) *
2170285940
looked at this in relation to a live case but can find no legal basis for the finding, can anyone?

Acording to what diagram does this box relate to?
https://binged.it/2eFlzqG
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 24 Jul 2017 - 10:19
Post #198


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,207
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Interesting.

The offence is stopping etc.. within the 'box junction'.

NB. nothing to do with yellow markings per se, but of course it is provided the markings mark the 'box junction'.

And 'box junction' is defined as being 'a junction between two or more roads'.

So, the adjudicator's analysis seems sound i.e. was the vehicle stopped within the box junction? If the car is within, but the markings do not extend that far, then no contravention. Conversely, if not within a junction between two or more roads, irrespective of yellow markings, then no contravention.

Was the adjudicator able to find as a fact that the car was not stopped within a junction between two or more roads? Who knows, there's no evidence. But simplistically, within a junction in the case of a minor road entering from the left must surely mean no further along the major road than the limits of the radiused footway of the side road.

In the GSV linked to the thread IMO the junction ends at the lamp column and the yellow paint extends too far.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 24 Jul 2017 - 11:46
Post #199


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,548
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 24 Jul 2017 - 11:19) *
Interesting.

The offence is stopping etc.. within the 'box junction'.

NB. nothing to do with yellow markings per se, but of course it is provided the markings mark the 'box junction'.

And 'box junction' is defined as being 'a junction between two or more roads'.

So, the adjudicator's analysis seems sound i.e. was the vehicle stopped within the box junction? If the car is within, but the markings do not extend that far, then no contravention. Conversely, if not within a junction between two or more roads, irrespective of yellow markings, then no contravention.

Was the adjudicator able to find as a fact that the car was not stopped within a junction between two or more roads? Who knows, there's no evidence. But simplistically, within a junction in the case of a minor road entering from the left must surely mean no further along the major road than the limits of the radiused footway of the side road.

In the GSV linked to the thread IMO the junction ends at the lamp column and the yellow paint extends too far.


I would suggest 12.8(iv) TSM 5 covers that scenario but a finding of fact for adjudicators


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashkiach
post Mon, 24 Jul 2017 - 13:24
Post #200


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 27 May 2008
Member No.: 19,872



The offence can only be not complying with the restriction of a valid yellow box within a junction. This box can only be either tsrgd diagram 1043 or 1044 and nothing more. Any other markings are either conveying an existing valid order (since Herron need not be compliant) that does not exist for box junctions or is mere paint.
In fact as the regulations give maximum and minimum allowance it is not up to the adjudicator to deem it substantial compliance or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
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: Monday, 24th June 2019 - 14:33
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.