DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 27, 2024, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well the obvious next step is to appeal, you have to decide
whether you want to do this yourself or whether you would prefer
to have a representative.
There is also a served v delivered flaw in the notice of
rejection, which is an argument some adjudicators accept.
As the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, there's no point in
paying now.
#Post#: 14412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 27, 2024, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1
It is now a complete no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals
as they have not re-offered the discount, and the penalty
remains the same and there are no additional costs.
#Post#: 14415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: flash2005
Date: January 27, 2024, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Well the obvious next step is to appeal, you have to decide
whether you want to do this yourself or whether you would prefer
to have a representative.
>
> There is also a served v delivered flaw in the notice of
rejection, which is an argument some adjudicators accept.
>
> As the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, there's no point in
paying now.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes I am happy to appeal. Any good examples of appeal I can
leverage ?
#Post#: 14422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 27, 2024, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The wording issue was tried by me last week and failed I am
sorry to say. I used two of those cases. I also understand
from Mr Mustard that EH has now changed his mind?
Re served/delivered: the deemed date of receipt is Monday the
29th. If you wanted to take the risk and apply to the Tribunal
on the very last day of 28 days beginning with that date (you
can work it out when it is), and they serve a charge
certificate, that would certainly prove prejudice.
I also used the served/delivered argument in the same case last
week which the adjudicator did not address in the decision so I
am seeking a review. In that case, the appellant did not
receive the NOR until 3 days after the deemed date of service.
As usual, when "the usual suspects" employ technical arguments,
it's in the lap of the gods these days.
As for examples of appeal, if you mean cases in support I am
unsure at present. Also, adjudicators do not like being
inundated with others' decisions unless one is very specific
about what in the decision applies to your case.
I would have to check the representations against the NOR to see
if there is any failure to consider. Some adjudicators, even if
there is a clear failure to consider a technical argument, will
still refuse an appeal on said issue if they do not agree with
it. Cannot access them anymore.
Just giving balanced and pragmatic advice. As Incandescent
says, now a no-brainer.
#Post#: 14651--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 31, 2024, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am being the representative
#Post#: 14664--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 31, 2024, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps along the lines of.....
I understand the authority's position regarding the
contravention and the strict liability position which they have
taken regarding compliance, as is their prerogative. However,
this invites me to adopt a similar approach to their compliance
with the Appeals Regulations, specifically regulation 6 and the
duty placed upon an authority when rejecting representations.
I submit that in this case there are clear and material defects
in the NOR.
The regulations to which the authority refer specify matters
which are to be included in a NOR. There is no suggestion that
parliament intended that any of these were of more importance
than others and therefore it should be presumed that each
carries equal weight and that as regards consideration of
procedural impropriety on the authority's part I submit that
equal weight should be applied by the adjudicator to each
provision. Whereas in the case of individual words where it
might be possible to consider synonyms and the like and apply
the principle of 'substantial compliance', I submit that no such
leeway should be afforded to an authority whose NOR omits
complete regulatory provisions or misstates their meaning.
Specifically and quite correctly the NOR refers to the
authority's power to serve a Charge Certificate and the means by
which an appeal may be registered. Similarly, it refers to the
issue of 'costs', albeit that this is incomplete. But I submit
that the effect of this mandatory information is rendered
useless when, without exception, the NOR misquotes the time
period which is the trigger for each of these coming into
effect. The NOR states:
Pay the penalty within 28 days of this letter being served..
Appeal..must be done no later than 28 days of this letter being
served..
If you do not pay or appeal before the end of the 28 day period
..we may serve a Charge Certificate..at this stage you have no
further opportunity to appeal
Whereas the regulations prescribe:
...within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of the decision notice.
In the event that the authority might attempt to finesse this
flaw by stating that their internal processes allow this extra
day and that they would not exercise their power any earlier, I
submit that the regulations do not allow such variations. The
simple fact is that if the owner paid on day 29 or (in the
authority's mind) submitted an appeal on day 29, they would in
either case have lost their legislative rights and left
themselves open to the authority's goodwill.
At the same time that the regulations impose strict requirements
upon the authority as regards the NOR, they provide the
adjudicator with discretion to accept appeals submitted late.
However, the NOR omits any reference to this vitally important
provision - particularly in the context of current
well-documented postal problems- and overtly states that 'if you
do not ..appeal before the end of the 28-day period..you have no
further opportunity to appeal.' which statement I suggest is
contrary to law.
I respectfully submit that the above constitute a procedural
impropriety on the authority's part and that my appeal should be
allowed on these grounds.
Just some thoughts.
#Post#: 16566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: February 29, 2024, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I started the Appeal on 31 January 2024, as follows:
1 Procedural impropriety
The Appellant provided live links in his formal representations
to the supporting documents. The links are contained in a google
drive folder which records the number of times they have been
read i.e. by the use of a 'clicks' count. The record of those
clicks given to me today shows that the Enforcement Authority
('EA') did not click on them at all. They did not therefore read
the four documents before rejecting the representations which
they were part of. The duty on the EA is to consider the
representations. If they have not looked at them the EA cannot
have considered them and that is a procedural impropriety.
As it happens the subject matter of the decision in Malcolm
Newman v London Borough of Hounslow has been subject to refused
decisions by Mr Houghton in later cases. The fact that the
decision which was prayed in aid is no longer followed by the
adjudicator is irrelevant as to whether the EA should have read
it or not, they should have looked at it and decided if it was
legally persuasive or not.
2 Notice to owner non-compliant.
As formal representations
3 Procedural Impropriety as regards the Notice of Rejection
There is no evidence that the EA considered the representations
to the effect that the PCN is non-compliant (two adjudicators
now say it is) nor that the Notice to owner is non-compliant.
That is a procedural impropriety.
I was at the tribunal today and gave them my list of next week's
hearings, seven of them, for 7 March, including this one. They
told me that the council had just notified them that the Appeal
would not be contested and the PCN is cancelled. I have checked
the council site on line and the PCN does show as cancelled.
#Post#: 16598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 1, 2024, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Worth the shandy then. Thanks for the spare chips.
#Post#: 46722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: rh.95
Date: November 22, 2024, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
hey [member=7]mrmustard[/member] could you please check your
inbox, many thanks!
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
> I started the Appeal on 31 January 2024, as follows:
>
> 1 Procedural impropriety
>
> The Appellant provided live links in his formal
representations to the supporting documents. The links are
contained in a google drive folder which records the number of
times they have been read i.e. by the use of a 'clicks' count.
The record of those clicks given to me today shows that the
Enforcement Authority ('EA') did not click on them at all. They
did not therefore read the four documents before rejecting the
representations which they were part of. The duty on the EA is
to consider the representations. If they have not looked at them
the EA cannot have considered them and that is a procedural
impropriety.
>
> As it happens the subject matter of the decision in Malcolm
Newman v London Borough of Hounslow has been subject to refused
decisions by Mr Houghton in later cases. The fact that the
decision which was prayed in aid is no longer followed by the
adjudicator is irrelevant as to whether the EA should have read
it or not, they should have looked at it and decided if it was
legally persuasive or not.
>
> 2 Notice to owner non-compliant.
>
> As formal representations
>
> 3 Procedural Impropriety as regards the Notice of Rejection
>
> There is no evidence that the EA considered the
representations to the effect that the PCN is non-compliant (two
adjudicators now say it is) nor that the Notice to owner is
non-compliant. That is a procedural impropriety.
>
> I was at the tribunal today and gave them my list of next
week's hearings, seven of them, for 7 March, including this one.
They told me that the council had just notified them that the
Appeal would not be contested and the PCN is cancelled. I have
checked the council site on line and the PCN does show as
cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 46859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Stopped in Taxi Rank - George Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 24, 2024, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please why have you added the last post to this thread?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page