Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: TfL - Accused of prohibited stopping
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
CaptainPicard
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.





treetrunk
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.
Neil B
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.
CaptainPicard
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







Neil B
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.
Hippocrates
The PCN is defective as it does not contain mandatory information:- 2120293222

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
CaptainPicard
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
bama
look up the case on the PATAS website and cite it - give the same good args for it
Neil B
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.
bama
viewing is only at the principle offices isn't it ? not all of them.
Neil B
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.
CaptainPicard
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
CaptainPicard
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.
Neil B
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.
EDW
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.
Neil B
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.
EDW
@Hippo'

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

EDW
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.
Neil B
QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 21:51) *
not arranging the viewing.

It's clearly in there too. You write, for whatever you require and they comply as described.
CaptainPicard
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 09:25) *
See my earlier post. NO, you MUST act but we don't know relevant dates.


I've got till the 7th of August to pay the discounted pentalty charge.

Here infront of me I have the PATAS form. I think there are some excellent points that have been raised and I will try and put things in a bullet format just to be as clear as possible to the adjudicator.

Roughly it would go along the lines of first, what I was doing (going to a charity shop sure this has no legal basis but it's worth mentioned as pointed out) then some bullets.

1) Lack of evidence provided that the camera has been calibrated and is of an approved type
2) TfL essentially trying to extort me to see the evidence.
3) Some technicality mentioned here. Maybe the one Hippocrates raised.

Is there anything I should add or deduct. Any thoughts on how the ajudicator might react to this defence. Even if I've got a 5% chance or succeeding, its worth a shot. I will send it via recorded delivery.

Thanks again to all
Neil B
Erm no, not really cos you have something more substantial.

We kinda assume people will read around the forum to get an idea of procedures, progress of cases and how they pan out and what happens at each stage.
Maybe you haven't done that.

You don't need to worry about details of your case yet, other than to decide if you wish to proceed.

Now see below; I'll comment on everything and add in the likely relevant winning matter missed.
QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sat, 28 Jul 2012 - 13:24) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 09:25) *
See my earlier post. NO, you MUST act but we don't know relevant dates.


I've got till the 7th of August to pay the discounted pentalty charge.
Thanks; We're still missing a date on the NoR.

Here infront of me I have the PATAS form. I think there are some excellent points that have been raised and I will try and put things in a bullet format just to be as clear as possible to the adjudicator.
Not yet; when you get around to it and when you are clear on matters. Why? - see below.

Roughly it would go along the lines of first, what I was doing (going to a charity shop sure this has no legal basis but it's worth mentioned as pointed out) then some bullets.
Nope. This is important and has been missed because you chose to make a semi amusing first post whereas the simple facts could have made this so easy.
I now realise you were in a loading bay - loading! - You said so. Hence exempt and there was no contravention of stopping when prohibited on a RR. Simple. I can see you were likely delivering to the NMPH shop which, being adjacent, is evidence in itself.
That is provided you were continually engaged in the loading process, did not take longer than necessary and took no longer than 20 minutes. Ideally, some evidence to back this up further will make things easier.

- and -- in relation to that, what did you say to TFL? We haven't seen what you sent have we?


1) Lack of evidence provided that the camera has been calibrated and is of an approved type
No. I don't know where you get 'calibration' from. You are entitled to request evidence the camera has VCA approval and that any camera they then mention IS actually the one used.
BUT - in light of the above, apparently having a strong basic case in the first place, this should not take any particular prominence. Use as backstop only.

2) TfL essentially trying to extort me to see the evidence.
You will need to word this carefully, with consideration for any previous rulings and the fact that it ties in with a related failure on the PCN. We can think further on that later.
3) Some technicality mentioned here. Maybe the one Hippocrates raised.
What is that exactly? I've only seen reference to a PATAS ruling on a PCN for another Council, where the wording bears no resemblance to yours and failed to include vital information that your PCN does.
Have you read the case? have you seen an example of the relative PCN in that case?
There IS a failure on your PCN but it isn't the matter cited as the reason for cancellation in that case ---- although, it was mentioned as an aside, as I explained.
So to just mention the case is to ask an Adjudicator to find something you haven't yet explained. Hippo hasn't explained what he is saying other than he feels he has made his position clear? I don't know what that position is cos I only see a case mentioned.

The best thing to do is for you to have the facts and decide for yourself: It's not a particularly technical matter; Just simply whether or not certain info is on the PCN. Some is, some isn't but which? I'll give you the relevant detail shortly.

Is there anything I should add or deduct. Any thoughts on how the ajudicator might react to this defence. Even if I've got a 5% chance or succeeding, its worth a shot.

I will send it via recorded delivery.
DON'T send any of the above yet!!!! AND - certainly DO NOT evr use Recorded delivery as it is a waste of money.

IF and when you decide you wish to proceed, within timescale, then ALL you need do for now is to 'Register' your appeal. in light of the new, substantial matter, tick 'no contravention' and in the details box state 'details to follow'.
This is standard advice here. It makes sure you do not miss the opportunity to appeal and then gives you plenty of time to formulate a strong and comprehensive but focused and concise appeal.
Normal advice is to opt for personal hearing and, in your circumstances, certainly so.

All you need when sending is 'Proof of Posting' , available free at the Post Office.

Thanks again to all


Back when I can; asap.
Neil B
Ok.

Firstly, do not miss the importance of the matter of the contravention and your likely exemption as this is the prime concern of any appeal.
On that, you need to clarify for us what actually happened and what you sent to TFL.

-------
The matter discussed re the PCN.
Back to basics as you've stated a lack of experience.
It's a legal document that must give ALL and ANY potential recipients certain info. Some of the items of info are more important than others.
Your PCN omits some info re facilities for viewing footage -- and -- this is because those facilities themselves are inadequate and hence unlawful.

The relevant required content re viewing footage is --


Scope of Part 2 and duty to notify rights to make representations and to appeal
3.

(4) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information—

(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).

(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—

(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.


Now, the case cited does apply and help you but you must be clear on why and which part.

At the end of the text (you must read it) the Adjudicator noted that the Newham PCN failed to comply with (5)(a) above. I'll retract my earlier comment that this was an 'aside' because the Adjudicator said so before the words "I allow this appeal" so it did count as one of the reasons.
The Newham PCN failed because viewing was, as yours, limited to one venue. Had it been discussed, this would have been enhanced because Newham also offer no alternative facilities at all, e.g. on-line viewing. Neither do they make any offer of sending out copies of footage.

So, does your PCN fail to comply in the same way on that point? I think yes, clearly so: Croydon being a trek for most, etc. I can give you some further points to make on that matter if you need them but most will be obvious and just common sense.
I think it likely this is what Hippocrates was referring to re the cited case.

--
The related issue discussed was compliance with sub para (6) above. This because that was actually the issue raised by the appellant in the cited case. The adjudicator found the Newham PCN did not comply and, IIRC, is correct in that assertion. More significantly but not mentioned, it's relevant that Newham will NOT put any case on hold while in the process of complying with requests to view footage and make a statement to that effect on their PCNs. The matter of 'reasonable time', which Newham failed to mention, is hence even more significant.

The matter for you to decide is whether or not your PCN states, as (6) requires, they 'will comply with the request within a reasonable time'. Only substantial compliance is required, that is, to convey that info: What words they use are not so important unless they actually convey a different message.
I'm fairly sure Hippocarates didn't mean that this part of the case he cited was applicable to you but I can't imagine why he hasn't made that clear for you when I asked.

Read your PCN. You don't need me or anyone else to tell you the obvious answer.

If you raise an issue that has no worth or clearly dubious worth, overshadowing strong points you may have, then the likely effect on an Adjudicators attitude to your case should not need explaining.

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

If you wish to appeal then register the case as I explained.

Apart from the detail of the loading circumstances being forthcoming I'm going to leave you to it for a while now; You will have plenty of time to make your decisions and formulate a good appeal.
Neil B
Ok.

Firstly, do not miss the importance of the matter of the contravention and your likely exemption as this is the prime concern of any appeal.
On that, you need to clarify for us what actually happened and what you sent to TFL.

-------
The matter discussed re the PCN.
Back to basics as you've stated a lack of experience.
It's a legal document that must give ALL and ANY potential recipients certain info. Some of the items of info are more important than others.
Your PCN omits some info re facilities for viewing footage -- and -- this is because those facilities themselves are inadequate and hence unlawful.

The relevant required content re viewing footage is --


Scope of Part 2 and duty to notify rights to make representations and to appeal
3.

(4) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information—

(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).

(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—

(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.


Now, the case cited does apply and help you but you must be clear on why and which part.

At the end of the text (you must read it) the Adjudicator noted that the Newham PCN failed to comply with (5)(a) above. I'll retract my earlier comment that this was an 'aside' because the Adjudicator said so before the words "I allow this appeal" so it did count as one of the reasons.
The Newham PCN failed because viewing was, as yours, limited to one venue. Had it been discussed, this would have been enhanced because Newham also offer no alternative facilities at all, e.g. on-line viewing. Neither do they make any offer of sending out copies of footage.

So, does your PCN fail to comply in the same way on that point? I think yes, clearly so: Croydon being a trek for most, etc. I can give you some further points to make on that matter if you need them but most will be obvious and just common sense.
I think it likely this is what Hippocrates was referring to re the cited case.

--
The related issue discussed was compliance with sub para (6) above. This because that was actually the issue raised by the appellant in the cited case. The adjudicator found the Newham PCN did not comply and, IIRC, is correct in that
CaptainPicard
Hi Neil thanks again for the wonderful help and advice,

Yes I had looked at some other cases but I didn't find the one mentioned in Newham...I must dig a little deeper in future.

Just to clear up a bit of confusion, it wasn't me who was actually driving the vehicle at the time, it was someone else hence I'm trying to figure this out on their behalf!!

I will take thorough heed and note of the suggestions and citations you've made. However, in the mean time below I won't proceed until I put up a copy of the original appeal we sent to TfL. Working on that ASAP (involves prying passwords from family members who are hard to nail down!)

Just some extra bits of information in the meantime :

PCN Issue date : 16/6
Notice of rejection letter dated 17/7

Gives an idea of timescales involved.

Cheers
Neil B
QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:39) *
Yes I had looked at some other cases but I didn't find the one mentioned in Newham...I must dig a little deeper in future.

The Newham case is the PATAS result Hippo referred you to.

He gave you the PATAS case number and a link to the patas website where you just type it into search.

Bama then confirmed that was what you needed to do.

QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:39) *
Just to clear up a bit of confusion, it wasn't me who was actually driving the vehicle at the time, it was someone else hence I'm trying to figure this out on their behalf!!

I will take thorough heed and note of the suggestions and citations you've made. However, in the mean time below I won't proceed until I put up a copy of the original appeal we sent to TfL. Working on that ASAP (involves prying passwords from family members who are hard to nail down!)

Just some extra bits of information in the meantime :

PCN Issue date : 16/6
Notice of rejection letter dated 17/7

Gives an idea of timescales involved.


Is the driver the Owner and RK? or are you? The Owner is the person legally responsible.

I'm most interested in the loading issue which I asked you to describe further. Were you continually involved in loading or a task associated with that?
(You were parked in a loading bay and have described what sounds like loading (unloading) )

--

Your ultimate deadline, other than the discount deadline you've mentioned, is 15th August but you may, as I said, register the appeal as soon as you decide you wish to proceed.
Any appeal will be for the full amount of the penalty, £130.


Re your PM.
Neither I nor anyone else here, as far as I know, can accept or even expect any money for what we do here.

What we normally suggest, if you are successful and wish to donate, is to do so to the running costs of this website. When the time comes the Moderators will point you in the right direction if you ask them. It is not something that anyone is 'required' to do but will be welcomed.
CaptainPicard
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 29 Jul 2012 - 22:58) *
Is the driver the Owner and RK? or are you? The Owner is the person legally responsible.


Yes, driver was the RK.

QUOTE
I'm most interested in the loading issue which I asked you to describe further. Were you continually involved in loading or a task associated with that?
(You were parked in a loading bay and have described what sounds like loading (unloading) )


Yes according to the RK, was continually loading!

Below is the letter we sent TfL

I am writing regarding a notice for an alleged parking offence for
vehicle number x

The photos provided do not appear to prove any offence has been
committed. From the picture on the right of the letter, the above
mentioned vehicle is not clearly visible, and does not show the
registration number. The picture on the left simply shows the car on
the road but not evidently commiting any offence.

Furthermore the time mentioned for the offence committed was 14:56;
however from the photo showing the time 14:56, the vehicle is on the
road and not evidently committing the alleged offence.

I therefore wish the challenge the facts and evidence provided by TFL,
as I do not believe there are grounds for prosecution. Please provide
any further evidence relating to the alleged contravention.

End

My concern is if we write some entirely different defence to the adjudicator with something else from the above, they won't be interested. I'm not sure if I'm meant to be 'appealing' my existing defence, or if we're allowed to raise something entirely different.

Thoughts on any of this?

Thanks once again Neil!
EDW
you can change your grounds when you appeal to patas. The original reps are of no importance unless you go on to contradict yourself at patas.
CaptainPicard
Update :

I sent my PATA appeal off not so long ago and a hearing date was set. Essentially the best defence I think is simply the fact that no offence was committed! We were using the loading bay for it's intended purposes. For the purposes of the hearing, I will even try and get a statement supporting this from the charity shop.

Now most interestingly, TFL has sent a big envelope to someone refuting their case, and providing a bunch of legal clauses and legislation from what I've been told.

Best part is, someone has uploaded the footage to youtube. Tell me what you think !! Case closed? (Remember we were within the loading time limit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_w7wKRNjYQ...eature=youtu.be
SchoolRunMum
Can't see the video.

But definitely get a statement from the charity shop, definitely, you will only have to pop in surely when the manager is there?
CaptainPicard
Yes, we're going to do that too.

Shows how TfL are such a bunch of time wasting opportunistic vultures. Completely cowardly camera operators, too. Essentially on the letter, TFL justified issuing the PCN because they observed for 5 minutes without seeing any 'loading activity'. Stupid justification I don't think there are any rules out there that says that every 5 minutes of time spent during the loading bay period a loading activity has to take place. It's too ridiculous to bare contemplation.

Opportunistic bast**ds! Theyve probably established that 99% of poor people would pay up without a fight.

Now, I'm just wondering if there are any repercussions for churning out opportunistic and invald PCN's. They have nothing to lose, do they?

Oh and one last thing. The named person on the PATA appeal will be away at the time of the hearing. Genuinely. Am I allowed to represent them, being an immediate family member?
bama
only if they appoint you/grant it to you with a letter (c: it to the Adj and the LA)

SRM go on youtube and do a search for
132dawe2345ad456ad33avbhy
if you still can't see it it must be a setup thing
qafqa
In the package from TfL is there a contemporaneous photo of
the actual sign used to inform the motorist of the parking restriction.

I didn't see it on the video, here are some examples from
various cases where the adjudicator commented on signage
missing from the CCTV.

They can be read via the search function on this page,

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

2110494931

2110669208

2110465194

2110525977

2110475369
Neil B
QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 17:52) *
Best part is, someone has uploaded the footage to youtube. Tell me what you think !! Case closed? (Remember we were within the loading time limit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_w7wKRNjYQ...eature=youtu.be


QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Fri, 24 Aug 2012 - 19:28) *
I don't think there are any rules out there that says that every 5 minutes of time spent during the loading bay period a loading activity has to take place. It's too ridiculous to bare contemplation.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here? Yes, there are very clear rules; You must be loading or engaged in an associated activity for the entire period. Care to talk us through what is actually happening in that video?
CaptainPicard
Appeal allowed!

Excellent.

Thanks to all here for the support.

2120407398
EDW
QUOTE (CaptainPicard @ Sun, 16 Sep 2012 - 14:36) *
Appeal allowed!

Excellent.

Thanks to all here for the support.

2120407398



EPIC WIN


What a week its been biggrin.gif

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.