Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for unloading upheld by Adjudicator
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
SinfulDesign
In moment of desperation, I seek the advice from this very useful forum.

Feb last year I received a PCN for parking on double yellows for unloading shopping. I contested the ticket on the grounds of the above, coupled with the fact that most of the second yellow line was not visible at 10.30pm on a Saturday. I also stated that I circled the area at first trying to find a space. This was used by the adj to incriminate me further in stating that "he knew there were yellow lines". Surely this proves that I try to prevent this sort of **** from happening!!

A month later the council asked me to prove that I was unloading my Tesco shopping by way of a receipt. Of course, I did not keep this, so could not supply.

Now the tribunal has upheld the council's decision on the fact that I could not prove that I was unloading. They also threw out the yellow line despite my photos.

My question: is it worth pursuing this on the grounds that I do not know the law THAT well that I should have retained my Tesco receipt!! I unfortunately did not pay by card. I do however have a passenger (albeit the wife) who could sign a witness statement to testify the circumstances. I also took a friend on the same shopping trip and dropped him home before I got the ticket, so he could also provide this proof.

Will this hold water in an appeal? I did absolutely nothing wrong and I refuse to pay £70 for parking 10 minutes to unload my shopping!!

Thanks to all in advance.

Neil B
Can we have a look at the full decision please.
DancingDad
State of lines.
Adjudicator can decide on substantial compliance, lines do not need to be perfect.

Loading exemption.
Is down to the motorist to prove if council do not accept.
If adjudicator believed you were loading, they would apply the exemption, receipt or not.
So it would seem they did not believe.

Personal hearing or what ?
SinfulDesign
Thanks Neil - yes...

Click to view attachment

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 15:23) *
State of lines.
Adjudicator can decide on substantial compliance, lines do not need to be perfect.

Loading exemption.
Is down to the motorist to prove if council do not accept.
If adjudicator believed you were loading, they would apply the exemption, receipt or not.
So it would seem they did not believe.

Personal hearing or what ?


Thank you Dancing Dad. No hearing - and info regarding lines is useful.

Even so. I was still unloading. I don't like being called a liar - nor paying £70!!
Neil B
Ok and, based something I see the adjudicator has said, your written appeal
to TPT please.
peterguk
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 15:11) *
parking 10 minutes to unload my shopping!!


Where were you for those ten minutes? Doing what?
southpaw82
If evidence, such as a witness statement, was available for the first hearing why wasn't it presented then?
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 15:40) *
Ok and, based something I see the adjudicator has said, your written appeal
to TPT please.


Click to view attachment
PASTMYBEST
the clock does not stop whilst you decide to ask for review. "8 days from the adjudicators decision being served the council may issue a charge certificate. this increases the penalty by 505 to £105
then 14 days later an order for recovery. then the bailiffs are set loose. don't hang about, you have 14 days to apply for review

Post up in chronological order Your representation against the NTO
The council notice of rejection
Your appeal to the TPT
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:01) *
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 15:11) *
parking 10 minutes to unload my shopping!!


Where were you for those ten minutes? Doing what?


The car was still parked a short walk from the property, and the flat is up 4 flights of stairs! In the future, I will just double park with hazards.... but this in itself a hazard, and I don't want my car to be the reason for an accident


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:14) *
If evidence, such as a witness statement, was available for the first hearing why wasn't it presented then?


I didn't think it was at all necessary. I don't know the law that well.
Mad Mick V
If the OP has missed the 14 day window to seek a Review I doubt we can help. So what was the date of the adjudicators decision?

In terms of evidence, a signed statement from the Mrs should surely suffice.

Mick
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:15) *
the clock does not stop whilst you decide to ask for review. "8 days from the adjudicators decision being served the council may issue a charge certificate. this increases the penalty by 505 to £105
then 14 days later an order for recovery. then the bailiffs are set loose. don't hang about, you have 14 days to apply for review

Post up in chronological order Your representation against the NTO
The council notice of rejection
Your appeal to the TPT


Thanks for addressing the time factor...

I have posted the first correspondence, the remainder of the emails is the council sending more requests. I said all I could in the above.
peterguk
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:19) *
I will just double park with hazards.... but this in itself a hazard,


And illegal. PCN for being more than 50cm from kerb and obstruction from passing BiB.
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:22) *
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:19) *
I will just double park with hazards.... but this in itself a hazard,


And illegal. PCN for being more than 50cm from kerb and obstruction from passing BiB.


Good thing I didn't - thank you for clarifying. Good to know.

You guys know an awful lot!! Just hope a solution can be found...
nextdoor
Seems your reps concentrated on whether DYL's could be seen in the dark in a location yards from your residence, yet no mention of having to carry shopping up 4 floors to explain why CEO saw no loading.

frankly not surprised at the Adj. decision based on your reps.
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:27) *
Seems your reps concentrated on whether DYL's could be seen in the dark in a location yards from your residence, yet no mention of having to carry shopping up 4 floors to explain why CEO saw no loading.

frankly not surprised at the Adj. decision based on your reps.


All due respect, I am seeking answers. I cannot change what is already written.

But in response, I felt that there was extra weight behind the above argument for the DYL's, hence the content.

Your response is acknowledged however, and with new knowledge will be considered should the same occur.


QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:20) *
If the OP has missed the 14 day window to seek a Review I doubt we can help. So what was the date of the adjudicators decision?

In terms of evidence, a signed statement from the Mrs should surely suffice.

Mick


Thank you Mick. I sincerely hope you are right. I
Incandescent
Frankly, I think you've lost this one. I doubt a review request will be accepted, assuming you still have time left, but if you have, submit it soon. Also, you really must consider paying the penalty now, as the process doesn't stop if you submit a review request. If you get and win a review, then the council have to give you your money back.

Essentially, you would seem to have produced a poor appeal that made no mention of the flat and 4 flights of stairs. If you had described the full circumstances you might have won, but having not done so, the council won. The adjudicator doesn't know you from Adam, he just looks at the papers and makes a decision based on "the balance of probabilities".

Anyway, now you know about this forum, if you get a PCN again, come on here first before challenging or appealing it.
DancingDad
Hate to say it but I think you are stuffed.

As said before, the lines are a matter of judgement and the adjudicator is within their rights to apply substantial compliance.
I can see no relief on that issue.

Similar on the loading.
Reading what you wrote and what the decision said, hate to say it but you were the architect of your own downfall.
The decision was one that is within the adjudicator's power given the facts provided and would not be overturned without new evidence that could not have been provided at the original hearing.

For future.
No problem offloading heavy or bulky goods on a DYL.
But you must justify and provide evidence for this to be accepted.
Time allowed is as long as needed but not one second more.
So time to carry up 4 flights, unlock door and carry in would be justifiable.
Extra time to carry to kitchen and leave there, questionable
Extra time to unpack and put away is not included in unloading.
Nor is stopping for a cuppa or to take the dog for a walk, even if the poor s0d is plaiting itself.

These may help you understand
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...ses/LOADADJ.pdf
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...r%20Hamlets.pdf

I'd write this off to an expensive lesson and pay.
Not paying will lead to further penalties and possibly bailiffs and their costs, don't go there.

Final word of advice, next PCN, come here for advice.
That may be pay it but this one we could have beaten with ease.
And keep receipts, especially if you want to prove loading after finding a PCN.
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:57) *
Frankly, I think you've lost this one. I doubt a review request will be accepted, assuming you still have time left, but if you have, submit it soon. Also, you really must consider paying the penalty now, as the process doesn't stop if you submit a review request. If you get and win a review, then the council have to give you your money back.

Essentially, you would seem to have produced a poor appeal that made no mention of the flat and 4 flights of stairs. If you had described the full circumstances you might have won, but having not done so, the council won. The adjudicator doesn't know you from Adam, he just looks at the papers and makes a decision based on "the balance of probabilities".

Anyway, now you know about this forum, if you get a PCN again, come on here first before challenging or appealing it.


Thank you for your reply.

I am trying to approach this on the grounds of simple and honest justice. On the grounds that I can provide proof on this shopping trip via the aforementioned witness statement, the law is in my favour. What other evidence can I produce? If I could have provided other proof, the council made it their business not to mention this, I am sure, such that I dig my own grave.

I am sick of my council. I have had four parking tickets in the last 2 years - all of which have been overturned as I have done nothing wrong. We are talking about a council who has repeatedly issued emergency vehicles with tickets for parking on DYL (now public knowledge courtesy of local press), given a ticket to someone who had his tyre touching a white line in the car park.. for the parking offices... whilst he was paying a previous ticket!! They even give Argos vouchers to ticket attendants who "reach their target"!!

Apologies if I appear to be sounding off, but the public are paying for an overtly greedy and inconsiderate council. Do I need further reason to be holding my position on this.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 17:07) *
Hate to say it but I think you are stuffed.

As said before, the lines are a matter of judgement and the adjudicator is within their rights to apply substantial compliance.
I can see no relief on that issue.

Similar on the loading.
Reading what you wrote and what the decision said, hate to say it but you were the architect of your own downfall.
The decision was one that is within the adjudicator's power given the facts provided and would not be overturned without new evidence that could not have been provided at the original hearing.

For future.
No problem offloading heavy or bulky goods on a DYL.
But you must justify and provide evidence for this to be accepted.
Time allowed is as long as needed but not one second more.
So time to carry up 4 flights, unlock door and carry in would be justifiable.
Extra time to carry to kitchen and leave there, questionable
Extra time to unpack and put away is not included in unloading.
Nor is stopping for a cuppa or to take the dog for a walk, even if the poor s0d is plaiting itself.

These may help you understand
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...ses/LOADADJ.pdf
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...r%20Hamlets.pdf

I'd write this off to an expensive lesson and pay.
Not paying will lead to further penalties and possibly bailiffs and their costs, don't go there.

Final word of advice, next PCN, come here for advice.
That may be pay it but this one we could have beaten with ease.
And keep receipts, especially if you want to prove loading after finding a PCN.


Thank you Dancing Dad. This is a very useful reply indeed. You indeed speak reason.

It is just so very difficult to have to pay hard earned cash for something that is not my fault. A cliché line here no doubt. Now I seem stuffed (as this seems to be the correct verb in this context) purely as a result of not knowing how best to phrase or collate the evidence.

Again - thank you - and to all for your help. Really appreciated.
Incandescent
It would be nice to know which council this was for the future.

QUOTE
a council who has repeatedly issued emergency vehicles with tickets for parking on DYL (now public knowledge courtesy of local press), given a ticket to someone who had his tyre touching a white line in the car park.. for the parking offices... whilst he was paying a previous ticket!! They even give Argos vouchers to ticket attendants who "reach their target"!!


However that could describe almost any London council !
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 17:47) *
It would be nice to know which council this was for the future.

QUOTE
a council who has repeatedly issued emergency vehicles with tickets for parking on DYL (now public knowledge courtesy of local press), given a ticket to someone who had his tyre touching a white line in the car park.. for the parking offices... whilst he was paying a previous ticket!! They even give Argos vouchers to ticket attendants who "reach their target"!!


However that could describe almost any London council !


Shepway District Council (Folkestone/Hythe)

I have submitted a request for review with letter signed by the other half.

I will report back on upshot.

Again - sincere thanks to all. I indeed know who to turn to in the future smile.gif
John U.K.
QUOTE
I have submitted a request for review with letter signed by the other half.

I will report back on upshot.

Two points:
1) Please pay now as per Incandescent, post #17

2) You have seen the effect of a precipitate appeal already... it would have been helpful to have seen what you have just submitted for others to comment. Please ost it here if you can.

You should have mentioned that:
the interests of justice require a review because...

you did not fully understand the process and was relying on your trust that British justice would see the innocent acquitted.

Had you known then whay to know now, you would have opted for a personal hearing and submitted the attached witness statements . . .

-------
As others have said, this may well be an expensive lesson in appeal procedure sad.gif

SinfulDesign
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 19:19) *
QUOTE
I have submitted a request for review with letter signed by the other half.

I will report back on upshot.

Two points:
1) Please pay now as per Incandescent, post #17

2) You have seen the effect of a precipitate appeal already... it would have been helpful to have seen what you have just submitted for others to comment. Please ost it here if you can.

You should have mentioned that:
the interests of justice require a review because...

you did not fully understand the process and was relying on your trust that British justice would see the innocent acquitted.

Had you known then whay to know now, you would have opted for a personal hearing and submitted the attached witness statements . . .

-------
As others have said, this may well be an expensive lesson in appeal procedure sad.gif


My reason for requesting a review was as follows;

"I was not aware, neither do I feel it is reasonable to assume, that evidence is required for unloading commercial goods whilst parked on yellow lines. It was my understanding that provided time was kept to an absolute minimum for the task, that the parking was acceptable. This was upheld, and since I cannot provide a receipt, I would like to provide evidence from my passenger in the form of a witness statement, testifying the above circumstances to be true. Given that such intricate knowledge of parking convictions are not readily known (until a conviction has been served of course), I feel it to be in the remit of the council issuing the ticket to provide this knowledge such that the evidence can be supplied accordingly, and within the necessary time-frame. This has only since been suggested to me having sought advice on the above. Needless to say, had I been awarded such advice previously, I would have supplied the aforementioned witness statement. I believe I did everything I possible could, in so far as what I understood of the law, to evidence my circumstances for the ticket in question."
DancingDad
See what comes back.
Reviews are only allowed when adjudicator has made a decision not allowed in law (they have here), in the interest of justice (which is what you have basically said) or when new evidence has arisen (which isn't strictly the case but you have explained that in a way)

We don't see Shepway that often but when we do, it is usually because they have dug their heels in over a point of law.
Roythebus is one of our members and who has beaten them before, more then once IIRC.

Please do not lose sight of the request does not excuse payment of the £70. You will get it back if successful but it will increase if you do not pay.
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 19:40) *
See what comes back.
Reviews are only allowed when adjudicator has made a decision not allowed in law (they have here), in the interest of justice (which is what you have basically said) or when new evidence has arisen (which isn't strictly the case but you have explained that in a way)

We don't see Shepway that often but when we do, it is usually because they have dug their heels in over a point of law.
Roythebus is one of our members and who has beaten them before, more then once IIRC.

Please do not lose sight of the request does not excuse payment of the £70. You will get it back if successful but it will increase if you do not pay.


Quite. This is purely in the interest of justice. I have acted within the stated law.

Of course I have nothing to loose, and a potential £35 to gain by paying the penalty, so this will of course be done.

It was also pointed out to me that the music venue 500yds from the property in question had a gig on that night. 2000 people capacity and a 300 space car park. This will help to corroborate the parking issue that night.

From local knowledge, the parking attendants use such circumstances to their advantage. Lots of people not too knowledgeable about the area mistakenly parking on worn DYL. Lots of tickets!! I can see that laws have to be upheld, but that is just not cricket.

Not surprising therefore that the same DYL are still not repainted... a year later.
Boggymarsh0220
Over the past 8 years or so I have fought and won a good number of battles with Shepway DC - Roythebus and I have even joined each other at adjudication hearings and celebrated with a beer afterwards too! My latest win, on behalf of a colleague, was last week when they accepted that a a road they alleged a contravention had occurred in was not in the relevant Traffic Regulation Order. I am currently dealing with another and should get this one in the bag on several counts of Procedural Improriety. SDC and their sub-contractors are making a bit of pigs ear of things of late but when it goes in our favour it is worth exploiting.

It's a shame you didn't come here at the start as I know the district very well, know the TRO's well and seem to have found a way of upsetting their back office processes.
Neil B
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:15) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 15:40) *
Ok and, based something I see the adjudicator has said, your written appeal
to TPT please.


Click to view attachment

That doesn't appear to be it?

That addresses the Council.

The adjudicator noted that you did not feel you needed to present any evidence of loading.
You've confirmed that in post #10

Then
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 16:21) *
the remainder of the emails is the council sending more requests.

Presumably requests for some evidence? The adjudicator will have seen that as the Council inviting
resolution.

Sorry but you lost this case; nobody else was at fault.

I actually understand your initial stance: You told the truth and it's infuriating to feel you've
been called a liar (even if you haven't directly). Especially so when at formal reps stage and beyond
your statements are subject to a max £5K fine if you say anything untrue.

BUT - it's an impractical stance in the bigger picture.
This isn't about you; It's about all of those who might make loading stories up and how, with a remit
to operate fair application of parking enforcement, Councils rely on the innocent to co-operate.
Neil B
-

QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 19:28) *
My reason for requesting a review was as follows;

"I was not aware, neither do I feel it is reasonable to assume, that evidence is required ---


Can I be blunt.

Standing on one leg, digging the bullet out of the foot you first shot, in order to reload and shoot the other, notably
negating any chance of getting back in step, is none too clever.

Not a good opening. It seems that upset the adjudicator first time.

-
I quite liked Incandescent's take on it, re I of J, for the reasons stated.
Never seen it done but it does seem to be the truth here.
Hippocrates
IMO the OP should bite the bullet and move on.
peterguk
Sounds harsh, but why should OP get a review?

In effect (for whatever reason) he chose not to present any evidence repeatedly, both to the LA and to the adjudicator. He lost each round. Now he wants another go, this time offering some evidence.

Is "i messed up, can i have another go?" a valid reason for review of adjudicator's decision?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 21:56) *
Sounds harsh, but why should OP get a review?

In effect (for whatever reason) he chose not to present any evidence repeatedly, both to the LA and to the adjudicator. He lost each round. Now he wants another go, this time offering some evidence.

Is "i messed up, can i have another go?" a valid reason for review of adjudicator's decision?

I totally agree.
southpaw82
So do I but he might get a sympathetic adjudicator. What might put them on edge is the impression that the OP needn't bother with piffling things like evidence but since the first adjudicator was so stupid as to rule against him here's a witness statement and count yourselves lucky he's provided that.
SinfulDesign
I would prefer it if I was not referred to as "messing up" please!

I was (am) in the right, I just didn't know the password. If I said the right thing at the right time, I would have been OK. The fact that I missed this opportunity, and is now costing me £70, still doesn't justify it.

It should not be about second chances. I genuinely did not know how to proceed. Now I have found this forum, it is a huge relief. But I will see this one through to the end. I at least have given it my best shot.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 22:59) *
I would prefer it if I was not referred to as "messing up" please!

I was (am) in the right, I just didn't know the password. If I said the right thing at the right time, I would have been OK. The fact that I missed this opportunity, and is now costing me £70, still doesn't justify it.

It should not be about second chances. I genuinely did not know how to proceed. Now I have found this forum, it is a huge relief. But I will see this one through to the end. I at least have given it my best shot.


12 from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made

Review of adjudicator’s decision

12.—(1) The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review—

(a)any interlocutory decision; or

(b)any decision to determine that a notice of appeal does not accord with paragraph 2 or to dismiss or allow an appeal, or any decision as to costs, on one or more of the following grounds—

(i)the decision was wrongly made as the result of an administrative error;

(ii)the adjudicator was wrong to reject the notice of appeal;

(iii)a party who failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his failure to appear;

(iv)where the decision was made after a hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen;

(v)where the decision was made without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen; or

(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.

(2) An application under subparagraph (1) must—

(a)be delivered to the proper officer within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the copy of the register entry is served on the parties; and

(b)state the grounds in full.

(3) The parties shall have the opportunity to be heard on any application for review under subparagraph (1).

(4) Having reviewed the decision the adjudicator may direct that it be confirmed, that it be revoked or that it be varied.

(5) If, having reviewed a decision, the adjudicator directs that it be revoked, he shall substitute a new decision or order a re-determination by himself, the original adjudicator or a different adjudicator.

(6) Paragraph 11 shall apply to the confirmation, revocation or variation of a decision under this paragraph as it applies to a decision made on the disposal of an appeal.


Good luck to you because you need to know into which category/categories your grounds fall. First of all, you must convince the Adjudicator that you should be allowed to get over the first hurdle i.e. to allow a review to be heard i.e. once having been given permission to do so.
southpaw82
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 22:59) *
I would prefer it if I was not referred to as "messing up" please!

Despite that being the truth? For God's sake, don't carry such an attitude into a personal hearing with an adjudicator (if you get that far).
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 00:06) *
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 22:59) *
I would prefer it if I was not referred to as "messing up" please!

Despite that being the truth? For God's sake, don't carry such an attitude into a personal hearing with an adjudicator (if you get that far).


I think this thread should be adjourned.

I am grateful for the information provided.
DancingDad
Don't react so much mate.
People here are not known for sugar coating but that does not mean they will or are not helping.
The depth of knowledge is staggering, use it to your advantage.
Neil B
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 22:59) *
I was (am) in the right,

Sorry, no, you were not, as I explained earlier
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 20:40) *
BUT - it's an impractical stance in the bigger picture.
This isn't about you; It's about all of those who might make loading stories up and how, with a remit
to operate fair application of parking enforcement, Councils rely on the innocent to co-operate.


Effectively you obstructed the process of weeding out the baddies, so got assumed to be one.

Quick question:
Basedvon the evidence he had, was the adjudicator wrong?
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 00:26) *
Don't react so much mate.
People here are not known for sugar coating but that does not mean they will or are not helping.
The depth of knowledge is staggering, use it to your advantage.


Thank you.
SinfulDesign
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 00:28) *
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 22:59) *
I was (am) in the right,

Sorry, no, you were not, as I explained earlier
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Feb 2017 - 20:40) *
BUT - it's an impractical stance in the bigger picture.
This isn't about you; It's about all of those who might make loading stories up and how, with a remit
to operate fair application of parking enforcement, Councils rely on the innocent to co-operate.


Effectively you obstructed the process of weeding out the baddies, so got assumed to be one.

Quick question:
Basedvon the evidence he had, was the adjudicator wrong?


There. You have it you see. I got ASSUMED to be one.

Exactly my point. I will admit there could have been more I could have submitted - had I have known. I didn't.

Let the debate of my demise continue, but blood pressure is maxed out already with non-PCN related tasks, so I will gracefully bow out, but will return with information so as to benefit the forum in reciprocity of the help you have all shown me.

Again - appreciated.
southpaw82
QUOTE (SinfulDesign @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 00:59) *
There. You have it you see. I got ASSUMED to be one.

NeilB was inelegant in his phraseology. The council discharged their burden of proof in showing that you were waiting on a DYL. It was the up to you to prove that an exemption applied and you failed to do so. No assumption required.
Hippocrates
Anyone prepared to place bets on this one?
southpaw82
It'd be a pure punt. If he gets a sympathetic adjudicator who allows the review it ought to be a slam dunk with the "new" evidence.
DancingDad
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 12:47) *
It'd be a pure punt. If he gets a sympathetic adjudicator who allows the review it ought to be a slam dunk with the "new" evidence.


I agree with don't ask don't get but new evidence that meets the criterea?

QUOTE
where the decision was made without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen


Would be stretching "reasonably have been known of or foreseen" to breaking point before a review would be heard.
southpaw82
That's why he needs a sympathetic adjudicator. I wouldn't be sympathetic.
nosferatu1001
Same.
Especially not with the wording on the application. I understand frustration but essentially casting yourself as above the need to comply with reasonable requests (as the emails from the council almost certainly were, i.e. requests to provide more info on the unloading) and between the lines suggesting the adjudicator was an idiot, would not make me sympathetic.

I'm an auditor however, so dont usually rank highly on the sympathetic scale...
Hippocrates
The OP is going to be unsuccessful. If he wins, I will donate to everyone (except myself) who has hitherto contributed to the thread £1. I have never witnessed such a load of twaddle issuing forth from an appellant.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 12 Feb 2017 - 15:06) *
That's why he needs a sympathetic adjudicator. I wouldn't be sympathetic.

Or turn up with a robot: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...e9MTgBxxFd-SLlg
Chitlord
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 13 Feb 2017 - 22:48) *
The OP is going to be unsuccessful. If he wins, I will donate to everyone (except myself) who has hitherto contributed to the thread £1. I have never witnessed such a load of twaddle issuing forth from an appellant.



Steady, old chap.

Perhaps you could calm your restless soul by listening to some Bach.
hcandersen
..as in this thread is Baching up the wrong tree?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.