Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Jackson ruling to be published, 31st August
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Wayne Pendle
Just found out that the Jackson ruling will be published on the 31st August
greatscot
Is that published on the web Wayne?
Hopefully cos I've got an adjudicator on one date PCN (in Scotland) the very next day and wouldn't mind arriving with a copy of that in my mitts. If it aint on the web I might be struggling.
Zapata
QUOTE (greatscot @ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 - 18:46) *
Is that published on the web Wayne?
Hopefully cos I've got an adjudicator on one date PCN (in Scotland) the very next day and wouldn't mind arriving with a copy of that in my mitts. If it aint on the web I might be struggling.


Why don't you take the notes issued by Nick Lester, Director Transport Environment and Planning for the Association of London Governments and tell them that the full ruling is available on BAILI and can be seen as soon as it is available. I have copied below the notes from Jackson provided by Wayne

Rgds
Zapata

BARNET JR JUDGEMENT 02 AUGUST 2006

1. INTRODUCTION
Mr Justice Jackson set out the requirements of a Penalty Charge Notice, as defined in S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and in the extension of decriminalised enforcement by the LLA Act 2000 to include service of PCNs by post.

2. THE FACTS
Mr Justice Jackson went through the wordings of the PCNs at issue in detail. He pointed out that all the parties had agreed that, in the case of the second PCN, the motorist (Mr Moses) had driven away before the PCN could be issued.

In both cases, the motorist made representations to Barnet, which were rejected. He then appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. The Adjudicator allowed the appeals against both PCNs, on the facts of each case and because he found that the wording of the PCNs (failure to specify a date of notice) made them invalid.

Barnet accepted the direction on both decisions, but applied for review on the grounds that the Adjudicator had erred in his interpretation of the law and that the PCNs were valid.

Barnet did not request an oral hearing of the review application, and did not submit further evidence. The application was dismissed by another Adjudicator, who drew on an earlier decision (Al’s Bar v. Wandsworth) in stating that the wording of a PCN needed to show substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. He emphasised the need for certainty.

3. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
Barnet claim that their PCNS were “substantially compliant”. They said that the way time limits were described on the Notice effectively added an extra day to the statutory requirement, but that this did not matter as it did not cause prejudice to the motorist.

Mr Justice Jackson noted the “helpful background” set out in the Chief Adjudicator’s acknowledgement of service and noted that Barnet’s new PCN does comply with the statutory requirements.


4. DATE OF NOTICE
The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted.

He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issue just after.

He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip. To illustrate this, he mentioned in detail the example contained in the Al’s Bar decision of a motorist returning the slip with payment, and then wishing to dispute the Council’s refusal to accept a discounted payment.

Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance.

The Barnet PCN showed the date of the contravention, but not of the notice, therefore was not substantially compliant.

Mr Justice Jackson concluded this section of his judgement by stating that the question of relevance did not arise because the statutory conditions of the notice were not met, therefore financial liability did not arise.

5. EFFECT OF EXTRA DAY
The judge stated that, in the light of his decision, there was no need to pass judgement on the “effect of the extra day” in the wording of Barnet’s PCN. He stated that it would be necessary to consider further evidence to discover whether, in the case of Barnet enforcement procedures, a prejudice did occur, but that this was not necessary as he had already found that the PCNs were non-compliant.

6. CONCLUSION
Barnet’s application for Judicial review was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the judgement was
Silver City Tim
On Neil Herron's Blogspot he includes a letter issued by ALG's Nick Lester. It has enclosed, after the body of the letter, a summary of the judgement.

http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to

Parking Meltdown as implications of Moses v Barnet strike home

In para 4. DATE OF NOTICE Mr Justice Jackson sites, as well as the possibility of postal notification, the round mid-night argument as a reason why the date of contradiction is not the same as the date of issue. Our councils all too happily point out that we don't get postal notification but they have double yellow lines which control parking for 24 hours a day. The good judge hasn't dismissed the round mid-night argument as de minimis so it must have implications for Scotland.

para 5. Might have implications too but I'm not entirely certain. I think it discounts the argument that the round mid-night error, depriving you of a day to pay, is canceled out because the council's use of "pay within 28 days" rather than "before the end of 28 days starting with" is giving you a day back. The PCN is non-compliant and that's an end of the matter.
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (greatscot @ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 - 18:46) *
Is that published on the web Wayne?
Hopefully cos I've got an adjudicator on one date PCN (in Scotland) the very next day and wouldn't mind arriving with a copy of that in my mitts. If it aint on the web I might be struggling.



Oh it'll be on the web wink.gif
greatscot
Wayne, any word yet?

I've checked Bailii

My Webpage

And no update yet.
Wayne Pendle
nothing yet.
Wayne Pendle
Still nothing yet! Oh well. It's not the 31st then. Bloody Councils can't even get that right!!
Teufel
still nothing

nothing on westlaw either

has it been released ? can we get it ?
Nimbus
Seems Liverpool City Council is considering a high court appeal.

IC Liverpool
Zapata
QUOTE (Nimbus @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 10:09) *
Seems Liverpool City Council is considering a high court appeal.

IC Liverpool



I bet the taxpayers will be well pleased that their hard earned is being spent on an appeal. I personally cannot see how Liverpool can get involved in the Moses issue until they are forced to repay the illegal fines. If this happens they can appeal but on what grounds ?

Rgds
Zapata
peterb
QUOTE (Zapata @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 11:22) *
[Seems Liverpool City Council is considering a high court appeal.

Muppets, more bluff & bluster.

Oh dear, seems someone has upset their little party/scam operation.

peterb
Teufel
the high court denied an appeal so barnet would
have to go to the court of appeal and demonstrate
why the case needs to be reheard

other councils could enjoin with barnet but i think
the ALG and LGA would then get involved and they
seem supportive form their letters of accepting the errror
changing the tickets and moving on

i thnk manchester is just bluffing to try and stop
peopel appealinmg incorrect tickets or reclaiming money paid
(they explicty but incorreectly say drivers cannot)
sssammm
My case is being heard 18th september, claiming my money back among other things,

should be interesting
sam
zamzara
QUOTE
Campaigners believe drivers who received penalty notices after the court's verdict should not have to pay them.


What spin is this? The tickets would be invalid whether they were issued before, during, or after the ruling! Are they trying to cover up the extent of the problem?
Teufel
not necessarily - a defective document like a PCN could
be void ab initio (ie a nullity) or voidable (only void if challenged)

see PATAS als bar v westminster

patas said the tickets were void but did not have the power
to declare all tickets void ab initio - a high court judge does have
the power to do that if that is what they think is the law

this is why we need the full text of the judgement - if void
ab initio (as expected) then money paid can be reclaimed
by a process of restitution

if only voidable then it would be more difficult to get a competent authority to first declare
them void so you can then subsequently claim restitution

the wording will also determine if an issue date but misisng contravention date is void as the moses case is actually only
on contravention date but missing issue date
again it is expected that the requirement is for both
but we need to be sure that coucnils have no wiggle room
on this
fatboytim
I'm just thinking on criminal law lines, have they not been obtaining by deception with threats.
Anyone made a complaint to the police?

I think L'pools DPE should be scrapped as I pointed out a number of bay marking issues in the Canning St. area (residents and P&D bays) to the pair of PA's patrolling the area. I even gave them a copy of the diagrams from the TSRGD. I went to work while they called their supervisor, one of my colleagues came in and asked what I'd been up to, as there where 5 PA's around my car, and she heard one of them say " he's been on the internet".
fatboytim

fatboytim = 2 + £50 comp.
L'pool C.C. = 0 - £50
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Teufel @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 12:05) *
other councils could enjoin with barnet

Precisely. AFAIK, Liverpool, not being a party to Barnet v PATAS, cannot appeal on their own.
They would either have to convince Barnet to appeal, e.g. bankroll it, or wait until PATAS ruled on one of their own tickets, and then take it all the way.
QUOTE (fatboytim @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 22:47) *
and she heard one of them say " he's been on the internet."

Hehe. laugh.gif
Teufel
DCPE is not criminal thats what the 'de' is for

a defective document thought to be legit by them and accepted as such by you is valid unless challenged

the key thing is did they or ought they have known about the defects ?
once they knew then they are void
when ought they to have known is more difficult ?

patas als bar v westminster was in 2002
fatboytim
Teufel
"DCPE is not criminal thats what the 'de' is for"
Exactly, the PA (civilian) who put the sticky bag with some litter in it (it is not a PCN without 2 dates) on your windscreen, has no legal authority to afix anything other than a PCN.
Then there's the point that if the sticky bag is in a position on the windscreen, such that the car would fail an MOT with it attached, is that not Criminal Damage or Interfering With a Motor Vehicle?
This is what I meant by criminal law.

If you or I (civilians) went around putting stickers on council or police vehicles windscreens demanding cash, I think they may find legislation to do something about it.

fatboytim

P.S. I know the police are actually civilians, but I guess you know what I mean.
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Fri, 8 Sep 2006 - 00:30) *
QUOTE (Teufel @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 12:05) *

other councils could enjoin with barnet

Precisely. AFAIK, Liverpool, not being a party to Barnet v PATAS, cannot appeal on their own.
They would either have to convince Barnet to appeal, e.g. bankroll it, or wait until PATAS ruled on one of their own tickets, and then take it all the way.
QUOTE (fatboytim @ Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 22:47) *
and she heard one of them say " he's been on the internet."

Hehe. laugh.gif



Even then, they can only appeal against not being able to appeal at this stage.
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.