DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: samislango
Date: February 18, 2024, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just been down there, this is the view of the sign as you
drive towards it.
HTML https://ibb.co/YTP10yj
#Post#: 15818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 18, 2024, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their response will make fascinating reading. If anyone has a
direct e mail address for them I would be most grateful as they
have served a premature Charge Certificate in this other case
and I have taken them to task over it via the Tribunal:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/performing-a-prohibted-turn-redbridge-ilford-high-rd/msg14643/#msg14643
#Post#: 15819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: samislango
Date: February 18, 2024, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the only email address I could see when I was looking.
If you wish to make a representation on a parking penalty
notice, please visit our parking PCN page instead. If you have
received an FPN from LA Support please email
redbridge.council@lasupport.co.ukto make your representation.
#Post#: 15820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 18, 2024, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trawled through my emails:
parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk
Thanks.
#Post#: 15936--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: samislango
Date: February 20, 2024, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection letter arrived today.
HTML https://ibb.co/hDmtMs0
#Post#: 15944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 20, 2024, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
#Post#: 15945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: taffer87
Date: February 20, 2024, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
>
--- End Quote ---
a bit tricky right - as they do have a catch-all generic
sentence in the first para? Is not responding in the rejection
letter separately a PI?
#Post#: 15946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 20, 2024, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Except, of course, the catch-all sentence is a load of lies and
always has been. Adjudicators are starting to pick up on this
but it's a real struggle.
#Post#: 15950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 20, 2024, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This should have been won on the camera issues at the time; but,
we threw everything at it.
In the OP's case they have failed to consider 50%.
*****************
Case Details
Case reference 2230075597
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date 02 Oct 2022
Contravention time 11:21:00
Contravention location Kennington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date
Decision Date 23 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement
Notice.
Reasons
The hearing appointed for 23 February was in a sense "hybrid" as
the Council's representative Mr Charles presented the Council
case by telephone on speaker whereas Mr the appellant
accompanied by his representative Mr Morgan were face to face
with the Adjudicator.
The appellant representations against the enforcement notice
were handwritten and in substance read "You have failed to
engage the substance of my initial challenge. The camera has
been ruled upon by Mr Carl Teper to have no Home Office Type
Approval and costs have been awarded. Evidence is inadmissible
please do not waste mine and your time or that of a Tribunal.
The PM has been clear a fine should not be issued for instances
of bus lane on first time. Your signage was unclear and the
rules only recently changed for motorbikes. This was unclear. Mr
Stanton Dunne's decision in Davy Duthiew v. London Borough of
Ealing No 2220486482 corroborates all previous decisions made by
several senior adjudicators concerning the issue of Home Office
Type Approval."
Mr addressed me during the hearing regarding the adequacy of
the Council's response to those representations that is to say
its notice of rejection dated 29 December 2022. In my view that
notice of rejection fairly summarised information relevant to
signage. Importantly in my view in respect of admissibility and
approval of equipment it however effectively said nothing.
Mr Charles correctly pointed out the letter began by stating "We
have carefully considered what you say but have decided not
cancel your Penalty Charge Notice". There is also a passage in
the notice of rejection about the motorist's comments being
noted but not warranting cancellation. "Umbrella" phrases, stock
phrase examples, do not necessarily invalidate a notice of
rejection but there is a need for something else as well to show
particular representations have actually been considered, not
just repetition of stock phrases.
Adjudicators in this tribunal frequently and correctly comment
that notices of rejection need not cover each and every point
made in representations. What is required is something showing
that at least major representations amongst what a motorist has
written have been duly considered. Length in dealing with major
aspects of representations may not be required. Sufficiency in
this context is generally viewed by Adjudicators as a matter of
fact and degree.
The notice of rejection in this case is in my decision so
incomplete a response to readily identified major issues raised
that it does not illustrate or correspond in a demonstrable way
with the Council's legal duty to consider representations
received.
I have decided to allow the appeal on that sole point.
I am making no findings in relation to primary facts in this
case or for that matter ruling on equipment used by the Council
in connection with it.
Authority Response
#Post#: 15951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge 33J using route restricted to certain vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 20, 2024, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: taffer87 link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=1309.msg15944#msg15944
date=1708441648]
> They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
>
--- End Quote ---
a bit tricky right - as they do have a catch-all generic
sentence in the first para? Is not responding in the rejection
letter separately a PI?
[/quote]
PI does not exist. In this legislation we rather use "collateral
challenge". Personally, I dispense with this legalese stuff in
the main. Either the PCN is enforceable or not. Similarly,
either their NOR satisfies the criteria of the law or not. IMO,
this one does not.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page