PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Cambridge, 0845 Premium Rate Number
bluenotblack
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 08:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 7 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,193



Hi all,

I was rushing to work yesterday and couldn't find any parking so have had to park at DYL in a dead end. Appreciate that it is completely my fault! However I am aware that there's an ongoing debate regarding the 0845 premium rate number that the council uses and I'm quite willing to get this point cleared up with adjudicators, if anyone's willing to help.

PCN:




Photos: (there're more which I am happy to attach if you want)




1. Anyone noticed any issue with PCN?
2. I am pretty sure that the council won't bulge on the premium rate issue but I am guessing it is still worth doing informal representations just in case they commit additional procedural impropriety?
3. Anyone willing to help?

- bluenotblack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 08:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 08:50
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,069
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



we will help if you want to go that route. there is nothing else that you can realistically argue so might as well not try


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 15:48
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'd be happy to represent you at a personal hearing before the tribunal if it gets that far. In the first instance, you might as well send an informal representation, you can use the one I've just put in ground 2 here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1490767

Obviously you must understand that if we go to the tribunal with this, the discount option will be gone. You will either win and pay nothing, or lose and pay the full penalty.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenotblack
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 09:35
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 7 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,193



Reply received following informal reps:




So pretty much as expected and conveniently skipped the fact that a service charge is payable for a 0845 number. However it appears that there was another TPT decision on 4/6/2019. I will email CCC for a copy, if nobody here has one.

Will post again when a NtO is received - I am assuming that from previous posts the formal representation should be drafted by you guys?

This post has been edited by bluenotblack: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 09:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 11:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,117
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



There is no personal hearing option with TPT as far as I know, therefore personal representation does not apply unless this can be engineered as a 3-way tel call.

And when it comes to reps - are you carrying on - these have to be smart and undermine the so-called logic of the adj's reasoning and draw on the words of the authority's response.

Do not just launch in with a regulation-led quote, the argument can be put smarter.

Firstly, establish the length of the tel call - don't pay but take it as far as you can without doing so.

When it comes to the adj's quoted decision, this is ludicrous. Yes an owner pays for a stamp or fax, but in either case the authority are not enriched, postage etc. is just part and parcel of life. You would respectfully disagree with adj ***'s reasoning which by virtue of the argument you would advance could not withstand rigorous scrutiny.

But an authority which sets out as a matter of policy to enrich itself is something else entirely. And the proof of intent on their part is their words: 'Our charge.....'

IMO these are the points on which you should focus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 17:34
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,756
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The adjudicator got it wrong, basically. Yes there are costs in life as stated, but the distinction here is that part of the 0845 fee goes to the council who thus collect more than the penalty laid down by law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 19:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 12:46) *
There is no personal hearing option with TPT as far as I know, therefore personal representation does not apply unless this can be engineered as a 3-way tel call.

The regulations provide that a hearing must be held where either party requests one, the adjudicator has no discretion in this regard. The fact that the tribunal administration doesn't tell appellants that they have a right to ask for a hearing is somewhat appalling, but unless Parliament amends the regulations the legal entitlement to a hearing remains.

PASTMBEST is going ahead with a personal hearing of the Trafford case and, to be honest, I think the case with Cambs is stronger because they admit in their FOI disclosure that they gain a financial benefit.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 20:11
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,069
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I've done a telephone hearing, and there is no doubt you are prejudiced. The adjudicator could be looking at the latest addition of playboy for all you know. I cant see a loss in my case because of the late service of the NOR but I will be fighting tooth and nail to get the main point heard


I am hoping that as I will attend their office in Wilmslow and that it would not inconvenience Trafford if they wanted to attend then they will not refuse a personal hearing


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 20:32
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 21:11) *
I've done a telephone hearing, and there is no doubt you are prejudiced. The adjudicator could be looking at the latest addition of playboy for all you know. I cant see a loss in my case because of the late service of the NOR but I will be fighting tooth and nail to get the main point heard


I am hoping that as I will attend their office in Wilmslow and that it would not inconvenience Trafford if they wanted to attend then they will not refuse a personal hearing

They cannot refuse a personal hearing, the regulations are black and white on that. See the schedule to the appeal regs.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenotblack
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 08:57
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 7 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,193



A copy of the decision from TPT is included below for everyone's benefit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Flu_XRi_cI...iew?usp=sharing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 12:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,069
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (bluenotblack @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 09:57) *
A copy of the decision from TPT is included below for everyone's benefit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Flu_XRi_cI...iew?usp=sharing


Cheeky bu**ers its not even a finding on fact it is no more than the musings of the adjudicator.



We learn from this and have strengthened the 0845 point. CP has drafted s couple of additional paragraphs that rebut the view of the adjudicator

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 12:45


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 13:14) *
QUOTE (bluenotblack @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 09:57) *
A copy of the decision from TPT is included below for everyone's benefit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Flu_XRi_cI...iew?usp=sharing


Cheeky bu**ers its not even a finding on fact it is no more than the musings of the adjudicator.



We learn from this and have strengthened the 0845 point. CP has drafted s couple of additional paragraphs that rebut the view of the adjudicator

Well one simple advantage of a personal hearing is that one could draw Mr Knapp's attention to the fact that the enforcement authority is Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:15


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenotblack
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:26
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 7 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,193



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:14) *
Well one simple advantage of a personal hearing is that one could draw Mr Knapp's attention to the fact that the enforcement authority is Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge biggrin.gif


Hang on - I didn't even realise but he's the deputy chief adjudicator of TPT... ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:38
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (bluenotblack @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:14) *
Well one simple advantage of a personal hearing is that one could draw Mr Knapp's attention to the fact that the enforcement authority is Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge biggrin.gif


Hang on - I didn't even realise but he's the deputy chief adjudicator of TPT... ohmy.gif

Yeah, you'd think he'd know the difference between a city and a county, what can I say, standard are falling...


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 22:43
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,756
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Where Mr Knapp is totally wrong in law is to equate the fee for the phone call as just being a cost of using that particular method of payment: -

QUOTE
There is always a cost to an appellant in making a payment whether that is paying for postage, a
telephone call (the cost of which will also vary depending on the device used) or perhaps travelling
to make a payment in person. These costs are part of everyday life and so the cost of a phone
call, even if a proportion, which cannot be ascertained in any particular case unless payment of
the penalty was made and the telephone call timed, is not an additional penalty charge
.


Except it IS an additional penalty charge payment because part of the fee is paid to the council for, presumably, helping the telephone company to make profits. This is different to sending a cheque where postage is paid as the postal fee is retained by Royal Mail, and any account fee for the cheque is retained by the bank, and the council get nothing other than the penalty charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wretched Rectum
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 00:26
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 4 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,189



I agree with the 0845 point. The problem is persuading adjudicators. When was the last time adjudicators made a decision that seriously threatened the councils they are funded by? The Heron credit card case years ago is all I can think of.

This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 06:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 09:34
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,117
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, have you found out how long the 0845 call lasts?

Are you going to appeal?

I find the references to the 'adjudicator's decision' confusing now, it's almost as if it's the adj's decision in this case.

You have arguable points, do you intend to argue them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenotblack
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 11:00
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 7 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,193



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 23:43) *
Where Mr Knapp is totally wrong in law is to equate the fee for the phone call as just being a cost of using that particular method of payment


I suspect he missed out the premium part in premium rate number, much like how he missed out the 'shire' part in Cambridgeshire...

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 01:26) *
I agree with the 0845 point. The problem is persuading adjudicators. When was the last time adjudicators made a decision that seriously threatened the councils they are funded by? The Heron credit card case years ago is all I can think of.


Fair point, but then it does seem that most councils have already switched over to a 0345 number or simply removing the phone payment option. I also can't see stopping councils from using 0845 numbers 'seriously threaten' them.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 10:34) *
OP, have you found out how long the 0845 call lasts?

Are you going to appeal?


I am going to put in formal reps when the NtO eventually arrives.

No I am yet to find out how long the 0845 call lasts, because I wanted to find out the context for the quoted text in the rejection of informal reps before deciding what to do. Forgive me for my ignorance but I wonder how my argument can be strengthened by finding out how long the 0845 call lasts?

This post has been edited by bluenotblack: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 11:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 11:18
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,117
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Because an adj has already pooh-poohed the argument under the principle of de minimis even though they did not know how long the call lasted and the cost to the owner in both absolute and proportionate terms.

And the owner in that case was foolish enough to let the issue of degree hang rather than find out and went in gung-ho on it's unlawful, whatever the degree.

Don't make the same mistake, pl.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 14:11
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 12:18) *
Because an adj has already pooh-poohed the argument under the principle of de minimis even though they did not know how long the call lasted and the cost to the owner in both absolute and proportionate terms.

And the owner in that case was foolish enough to let the issue of degree hang rather than find out and went in gung-ho on it's unlawful, whatever the degree.

I think that case must have been brought by someone who's not posted on here, but simply lifted arguments we've previously drafted and tried going it alone. PMB and I have draft rebuttals for everything the adjudicator has said, but ultimately this illustrates why for this sort of decision, a personal hearing can make all the difference. PMB is going to ask for a hearing for his relative's Trafford case, and I'm happy to represent bluenotblack at a personal hearing as well, I'd hope that between us we can get a favourable outcome.

I appreciate the views of those who are sceptical about this argument, but at least if we don't prevail we will have gone down fighting (and if an OP were willing to do so, I'd take it to JR as well).

I don't think this issue poses any real threat to councils, if you look on the PCN flaws database, only a small minority of councils use 084/085/087 numbers, most councils use 034 or even a local number.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 14:12


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 20th October 2019 - 22:43
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.