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#: 43147--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: October 30, 2024, 9:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Afternoon All
       Given the above, I'm going to submit a challenge and request a
       review of the Adjudicator's decision.  Currently in the process
       of drafting a doc with a view to send out later today.  Any kind
       folks on here willing to review it for me, just to check that it
       makes sense and suggest any helpful pointers?  If so, please PM
       with email address etc and I'll ping across to you as soon as I
       have something workable.
       Regards - NTIAEP
       #Post#: 43216--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: October 30, 2024, 5:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hang on. We need to see the whole file to advise re a review
       which is a very technical exercise. Please do not shoot anything
       off first. You have 14 days from the decision. When did you
       receive it? IMO you are too late.
       #Post#: 43224--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: October 30, 2024, 5:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Decision was sent on 16/10/24 so have until 2359hrs tonight.
       #Post#: 44049--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: November 5, 2024, 5:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Submitted the request for a review and have received the
       following response from London Tribunals:
       "Having considered your correspondence, the adjudicator has
       decided that your case should be listed
       as an application for review.
       Your case will enter the list for a decision on [ddmmyyyy] and
       will be considered by an
       adjudicator as soon as possible after that date.
       If, on considering the application, the adjudicator decides that
       the previous decision should be
       reviewed, the review may be conducted immediately or scheduled
       to be heard at a later date.\\\\\\\2
       #Post#: 44053--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: November 5, 2024, 5:18 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry to be repetitive: we need to see the whole file and what
       you wrote in the application for review.
       #Post#: 44057--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: November 5, 2024, 5:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Case details are available within previous messages in this
       thread.
       Link to redacted request for review of appeal decision
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/472iqw2syo39n3iysbtbl/20241030_Request-for-Review-of-Adjudicators-Decision_case-ref-2240345188_redacted.pdf?rlkey=rtjcgj2bwy3l89y8sz22wnhz9&st=nni725w3&dl=0
       #Post#: 44070--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: Martyn21uk
       Date: November 5, 2024, 7:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I take it your tribunal hearing was done on papers?  As in you
       didn't attend (either in person, remotely or by phone?)
       It would seem to me this is a classic case to emphasis why it is
       always important to not rely on papers.
       #Post#: 44073--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: November 5, 2024, 7:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Martyn21uk link ---
       >
       > I take it your tribunal hearing was done on papers?  As in you
       didn't attend (either in person, remotely or by phone?)
       >
       > It would seem to me this is a classic case to emphasis why it
       is always important to not rely on papers.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That is correct.  But why should it make a difference?  Surely
       the outcome should be based only and solely on the circumstances
       of the case and the evidence presented (to which I would have
       had nothing to add to had I 'attended').
       #Post#: 44085--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: November 5, 2024, 9:02 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: NTIAEP link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Martyn21uk link=topic=1967.msg44070#msg44070
       date=1730813009]
       > I take it your tribunal hearing was done on papers?  As in you
       didn't attend (either in person, remotely or by phone?)
       >
       > It would seem to me this is a classic case to emphasis why it
       is always important to not rely on papers.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That is correct.  But why should it make a difference?  Surely
       the outcome should be based only and solely on the circumstances
       of the case and the evidence presented (to which I would have
       had nothing to add to had I 'attended').
       [/quote]
       Well, maybe, but we deal in reality on this forum and many years
       of looking at PCNs and adjudications shows people who rely on
       papers-based hearings tend to lose.
       #Post#: 44088--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: November 5, 2024, 9:09 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       On average, adjudicators hear ca. 15 cases a day. I recently won
       a review because the original adjudicator made a mistake. It was
       a postal hearing. If I had been there, the mistake would not
       have happened.  If you want help with this, you need to PM me.
       Dropbox files are no good for me.
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 5
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page