URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 16059--------------------------------------------------
       Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: AnsyLu
       Date: February 22, 2024, 3:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all,
       Could anyone kindly look over the documents below and advise if
       my appeal written for the tribunal is worth a shot?
       In short - I would like to challenge them on the basis that they
       did not properly consider evidence. I do also feel that there
       was a lack of warning about the upcoming restriction when
       turning into the school street but I understand that councils
       are under no obligation to do so, which is why I avoided this
       argument. I dont think the positioning of the signage is too
       good but its maybe some experts on the forum would be better
       placed to make a judgment.
       Happy reading...
       Thank you very much!
       Original PCN:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ho95pj66i45e...iw2tg2&dl=0#
       My appeal
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e6kcfn1l57li...uo6ujf&dl=0
       Notice of Rejection:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/76xjguw5kgf6...0lug9j&dl=0
       Hospital Discharge Summary:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/96n8druxv49k...2kk7qn&dl=0
       Adjudicator Appeal:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hu9j2y119oje...2ea886&dl=0
       #Post#: 16060--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: Enceladus
       Date: February 22, 2024, 3:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Your links don't work.
       #Post#: 16062--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: John U.K.
       Date: February 22, 2024, 4:27 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
       >
       > Your links don't work.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I suspect he's copied the shortened links across from Pepipoo.
       Try these
       Original PCN:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ho95pj66i45eoqns32zpw/PCN-Masterman-Road.pdf?rlkey=g1y7z2on5yb35m5yxipiw2tg2&e=1&dl=0
       My appeal:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e6kcfn1l57lipowdq5epx/PCN-Appeal-Masterman-Rd.pdf?rlkey=uxnbf4tf8dsebif5jwkuo6ujf&e=1&dl=0
       Notice of Rejection:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/76xjguw5kgf6qd008kwhu/PCN-Masterman-Road-Notice-of-Rejection.pdf?rlkey=apls9rmruhrjw57cgc30lug9j&e=1&dl=0
       Hospital Discharge Summary:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/96n8druxv49kjp8yxpcf0/PCN-Masterman-Road-Hospital-Discharge-Notice.pdf?rlkey=9u7cqminm9q36yofrjs2kk7qn&e=1&dl=0
       Adjudicator Appeal:
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hu9j2y119ojeumey6uj93/London-Tribunal-Appeal.pdf?rlkey=u73m05xae0nk9so1r2r2ea886&e=1&dl=0
       #Post#: 16063--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: AnsyLu
       Date: February 22, 2024, 4:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you, that's exactly what I did!
       #Post#: 16177--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 24, 2024, 6:27 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I see it took them 66? days to send their NOR.
       I take it you are at the filing of your appeal stage?
       If so, no need to make any full statements at this stage (I
       would need to revamp anyway as there is no procedural
       impropriety ground).
       To do:
       1. Go online and register the appeal using the verification
       code.
       2. Ground:  contravention did not occur. And penalty exceeded
       the amount
       3. Choose personal hearing (Not a Thursday).  This can also be
       via telephone.
       4. Details;  I will make full submissions upon receipt of the
       council's evidence pack.
       5. Communication: by e mail.
       (I am happy to represent you free of charge on this one but no
       need to mention me at this stage - this is how I choose to do
       it.)
       All this depends on whether you wish to take it to the Tribunal.
       I agree they have not considered the Hospital name and this
       would be a failure to consider.
       #Post#: 16187--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: Pastmybest
       Date: February 24, 2024, 10:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would suggest that the Halton vs road user charging
       adjudicator case will see off a claim of fail to consider and
       the council are correct that you must comply with signs unless
       exempted which you were not. 66 days is not to long under the
       2003 regs
       The discount is not to be dismissed but if Hippo is happy to
       represent you your chances of a win are greatly increased
       #Post#: 16216--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 25, 2024, 9:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
       >
       > I would suggest that the Halton vs road user charging
       adjudicator case will see off a claim of fail to consider and
       the council are correct that you must comply with signs unless
       exempted which you were not.
       >
       > The discount is not to be dismissed .........
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Can I have the case please?
       #Post#: 16248--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: taffer87
       Date: February 25, 2024, 2:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Pastmybest link=topic=1375.msg16187#msg16187
       date=1708793097]
       > I would suggest that the Halton vs road user charging
       adjudicator case will see off a claim of fail to consider and
       the council are correct that you must comply with signs unless
       exempted which you were not.
       >
       > The discount is not to be dismissed .........
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Can I have the case please?
       [/quote]
       Full case:
  HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.html
       Summary:
  HTML https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/high-court-decision-halton-borough-council-v-road-user-charging-adjudicators/
       #Post#: 17273--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: March 14, 2024, 7:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=797]AnsyLu[/member] the PCN has been paid, did you give
       up?
       You can still take up the offer from Hippocrates as paying does
       not prevent you from appealing, but the deadline was technically
       yesterday so you need to get the appeal registered by midnight
       tonight if you want to have any chance of getting the matter
       listed.
       #Post#: 17275--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham - 53J failure to comply with a restriction
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: March 15, 2024, 2:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It has been paid.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 2
   DIR Next Page