PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TfL - Accused of prohibited stopping
CaptainPicard
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Greetings fellow space-farers,

I'm being accused of stopping my starship where I should'nt by those evil war mongers TfL, from the planet Moronia.

So far my dog, woof woof has attempted communications with TfL in their native language - barking and howling. What they call images of evidence, we call foul. Yes that's right, total dog foul. No number plate or even signage was visable in the supposed parked position of the starship that bore resemblance to the image of the starship with the number plate.

However TfL have howled and growled back that they have CCTV video that is available for viewing at their homeworld star system of 'croydonia'. Unfortunately too many black holes exist in this sector to make a holiday there worth while. Alternatively TfL want to extort £10 for the humble privledge of sending the video footage. What saints.

Have a good look at the images and tell me what you think.

Light speed.







This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 10:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
treetrunk
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 11:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 8 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,080



So in English:

You received a PCN for stopping where prohibited.

You appealed and this was rejected.

Please post up both sides of the initial PCN you received and your response to enable the experts to assist further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 19 Jul 2012 - 11:50
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Yes, but let's be honest.

Your warp nacelles appear to be retracted and I don't think that is a position you could possibly have been manoeuvering on impulse or even thrusters. That is, 'stopped'.

So the issue was what exactly? What did your Targ say to TFL?

I think maybe a claim of having stopped only after drifting into a temporal anomaly would be pushing it at Adjudication.

So far, it appears likely that resistance is futile and you will be assimilated.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 09:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Greetings again fellow earthlings!

Using my tricorder, I have scanned in the initial PCN sent to me by Trouble for London (TfL)

Although I can't access woof woofs email account right now, essentially we made it short and simple for their small minds to understand. We made no acknowledgement of the accused transgression occuring either implied or actual. We also pointed out that the image of the parked vehicle has no license plate visable to identify it. Obviously they rejected this and even called it an appeal, as if they even had a case against us in the first place.

So where it stands now is at a bit of an impasse, get extorted for £10 for their video evidence or slog all the way down to Croyden to see it without having to cough up money. Obviously getting to Croyden costs too. So I'm expected to pay to see evidence, as well as being pretty low and pathetic of them, surely that kind of black mail is illegal?

Willing to take this all the way to court of neccessary!

Cheers









This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 09:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 10:56
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



If your sole issue is that you don't yet have a pic with your VRM in it -- then take the opportunity to pay at discount.

They've manage to send a PCN to the RK of a vehicle with VRM XXXX XXX haven't they?

You might cobble together arguments around use of CCTV and maybe camera type/approval but so far all you've done is make it sound very much like you stopped in contravention rather than offered any tangible arguments.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 12:26
Post #6


Member


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



The PCN is defective as it does not contain mandatory information:- 2120293222

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


--------------------
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
CaptainPicard
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 12:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Awesome, thanks fellas. So from what what I can, I should respond to their decision by :

Requesting proof their camera was approved / calibrated properly (last interval or whatever)

Requesting proof that their time was approved / calibrated properly.

Or mention what Hippocrates just said. Their the PCN is defective?

Sorry if I'm over simplifying things here a bit too much. I may just be dumb smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 15:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



look up the case on the PATAS website and cite it - give the same good args for it


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 15:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 13:26) *
The PCN is defective as it does not contain mandatory information:- 2120293222

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


I don't see it failing on the basis actually found in that case; In fact, it clearly doesn't. sub para (6) when in combination with (4)(e)

However, I would agree it fails on the other basis, (5) (a), mentioned by that adjudicator as an alternative that she would, presumably, have used.

These have been a while coming but rather easier now since at least three London Boroughs now use an express statement that complies: From memory it's Camden, Lambeth and I think the other was Wandsworth?

Despite those, the matter remains open to the whim of Adjudicators and the OP should understand that. To make a similar ruling against the monster TFL is rather more political and we've seen how that 'appears' to generate some Adjudicator reluctance.

Actually --- that has brought a realisation: The likely reason the Adjudicator in the cited case found on (6)/(4)(e) is because that is a simple failing of missing info ---- whereas, failings of (5)(a) (which is all you have here) become a little political because the implications are that Councils must spend money on changing the provisions for viewing (and particularly the very limited facilities of TFL)

I'd go further and say that I'm not entirely convinced the draughtsman of the Regs intended them to read and mean quite what they do: It would be quite ridiculous to specify viewing required at any old location of the numerous Council offices that exist. I think that where Councils provide at least some options on locations, maybe 3+, they would be ruled compliant.

-- and then, there's the matter of whether the OP has the slightest idea what we're talking about?

---
At OP,

I'd be far more interested to hear your reasons for apparently stopping in contravention; Always the most crucial element of any appeal and so far a question dodged.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 15:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



viewing is only at the principle offices isn't it ? not all of them.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 16:27
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 16:52) *
viewing is only at the principle offices isn't it ? not all of them.


yes, hence it fails (5)(a) and, IIRC, they used to actually facilitate viewing at other locations, one of them being in Walthamstow.

Croydon is ridiculously out of the way for most and coupled with the alternative £10 charge it should be contestable - but will an Adjudicator want to rule on it? They should -- but you know what we've been seeing.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 10:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



Hi again all,

Sorry but I'm a bit confused, although I can see roughly where your going with your analysis I'm just not too sure how to put it into a defence strategy. What would you guys/lasses specifically do if you were me at this point on this case. Should I let their case play out by itself, let them issue proceedings against me and put together a defence based around the lack of evidence they provided?

Or do something different, ask for evidence that their cameras were approved and configured correctly, etc.

Any template letters I should use?

Much appreciated.
Cheers

This post has been edited by CaptainPicard: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 10:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaptainPicard
post Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 22:49
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,120



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 16:40) *
At OP,

I'd be far more interested to hear your reasons for apparently stopping in contravention; Always the most crucial element of any appeal and so far a question dodged.


Dropped off clothes at a charity shop sad.gif

Such a terrible crime, really. Hope the bankers are enjoying their margaritas on the Bahamas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 23:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 23:49) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 16:40) *
At OP,

I'd be far more interested to hear your reasons for apparently stopping in contravention; Always the most crucial element of any appeal and so far a question dodged.


Dropped off clothes at a charity shop sad.gif

Such a terrible crime, really. Hope the bankers are enjoying their margaritas on the Bahamas.

Perfectly acceptable, if you had, for instance, been on a yellow line or lines, under the loading exemption. On red routes, no I'm afraid but it does show that your intentions were genuine. That doesn't count for anything legally but might get some sympathy from an Adjudicator and hence, maybe a more ready willingness for them to properly consider technicalities that you raise.

Presumably you've had a Notice of Rejection from TFL but I don't think we've seen it so we have no idea of what timescales you are working to -- unless I've missed it?
It isn't a matter of "proceedings" against you; You have to act within timescales - whatever the current ones are.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 23:27


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 23:49
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



NeilB, yes I think you are right.


The only weakness I can see is lack of ' specified by him, '


and

the enforcement authority shall comply with the request



they have put respond to your enquiry

respond means acknowledge not comply.

Sorry if this is all rubbish.

This post has been edited by EDW: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 17:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 08:25
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 16:40) *
I don't see it failing on the basis actually found in that case; In fact, it clearly doesn't. sub para (6) when in combination with (4)(e)

However, I would agree it fails on the other basis, (5) (a), mentioned by that adjudicator as an alternative that she would, presumably, have used.

QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 00:49) *
The effect of para 6 is not shown.


We seem at odds. Can you explain how it fails (6) please?
(I can think of a detailed argument in combination with failing (5)(a) but not an obvious failure of (6) alone)

-

QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 11:02) *
Should I let their case play out by itself, let them issue proceedings against me

IMPORTANT.

See my earlier post. NO, you MUST act but we don't know relevant dates.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 18:15
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



@Hippo'

please see my revised thinking above regarding the word 'respond' not being same as 'comply'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 18:24
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 19:15) *
@Hippo'

please see my revised thinking above regarding the word 'respond' not being same as 'comply'


I have done and have made my views clear re the substantial non-compliance of the PCN.


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 20:33
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Sorry, I missed this earlier.
It's not rubbish; You have a fair point - but I'll address it if i may.

QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 00:49) *
NeilB, yes I think you are right.


The only weakness I can see is lack of ' specified by him, '
Well, also the fact that it's Croydon or a tenner! Hardly a choice for anyone to specify.


and

the enforcement authority shall comply with the request



they have put respond to your enquiry

respond means acknowledge not comply.

Sorry if this is all rubbish.

As I said above, fair point.

Now try the things they've said in combination: Firstly, they will 'respond' and give a definitive time (which I think you'll agree would satisfy an Adjudicator on the timescale being 'reasonable'). They then go on to say they will supply whatever is requested - which equates to complying. Meanwhile the case will be put on hold, maintaining the aforementioned 'reasonable time'.
Hence it doesn't fail.

Beyond that though, you can get into the £10 argument territory. Could that charge itself mean a failure of (6)? - because they won't comply with one of the optional requests without payment.



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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 20:51
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



They then go on to say they will supply whatever is requested


Dont agree, 'supply' means sending stuff to you, not arranging the viewing.

Its a narrow point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:39
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here