DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 15, 2025, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1) How do you know that there was no 'hiring agreement' between
Athlon and Auxillis?
According to the authority's evidence. the vehicle was on
long-term lease. This is their evidence!
Which requirement under the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act that
Auxillis did not satisfy?
There was no hire agreement because you did not contract with
Auxilis, your insurer did.
3) Do I not include the reference to the parking regulation:
This simply refers to the RTOA which the adjudicator would
already know. I don't think anything more needs to be added in
this regard, but feel free to do so.
#Post#: 58355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 16, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> There was no hire agreement because you did not contract with
Auxilis, your insurer did.
>
--- End Quote ---
But I did sign their document titled ‘Hire Agreement’, which I
uploaded in this post. Auxillis provided this document in
support of their representations to the Council.
#Post#: 58356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 16, 2025, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the CPZ sign, how do I approach this, taking into
account the LA new photos and their associated arguments which
they stated in their Summary?
By the way, they did not provide this information in the PCN or
the NoR.
#Post#: 58395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 16, 2025, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If the argument of contravention did not occur won't fly, then
don't make it.
But I did sign their document titled ‘Hire Agreement’, which I
uploaded in this post. Auxillis provided this document in
support of their representations to the Council.
Of course they did, but in order to have an agreement you must
have a contract which must have prescribed elements: offer;
acceptance; consideration.
They did not offer hire terms to YOU, they offered them to your
insurer.
Therefore you did not accept these terms, your insurer did.
And you didn't pay, your insurer did.
They can call this document what they like but IMO you were
simply the driver, not the hirer. IMO, you came into possession
of this car pursuant to an agreement between your insurer and
Auxilis, not you and Auxilis.
#Post#: 58636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 17, 2025, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> They can call this document what they like but IMO you were
simply the driver, not the hirer. IMO, you came into possession
of this car pursuant to an agreement between your insurer and
Auxilis, not you and Auxilis.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have located the first email, please find link below, that I
received from Auxillis in which they confirm that my insurance
company have asked them to provide me with a replacement car
(hire vehicle). This supports your argument that the agreement
is between my insurance company and Auxillis.
HTML https://ibb.co/pj87pLzk
Also, for your perusal, the following is the Reps and their
Notice of Acceptance for Athlon and Auxillis respectively:
Athlon Reps
HTML https://ibb.co/1GCGtt0K
Council’s NoA of Athlon’s Reps
HTML https://ibb.co/ccmn9W6D
Auxillis Reps
HTML https://ibb.co/dJpZQvLS
Council’s NoA of Auxillis Reps
HTML https://ibb.co/gLJ8gD8n
#Post#: 58644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 17, 2025, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, you won't fail at adjudication, in fact their NoR is one
of the most bland responses I've read for some time, totally
devoid of reasoning and on this point alone you'd probably
succeed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you still hold this opinion?
I think I am also going to use the sentence, ‘The NoR is totally
devoid of reasoning’. But how do I support this statement?
#Post#: 58672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 17, 2025, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> If the argument of contravention did not occur won't fly, then
don't make it.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Why wouldn't fly? The council provided in their Evidence Pack,
two photos showing entry signs for the 'CPZ MA'. But according
to the zone boundary map, there should exist another entry sign
for the traffic coming from Chichele Road towards the A5. But
there is none.
#Post#: 58675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 18, 2025, 2:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, if you are adamant that you did not pass the required CPZ
gateway signs on your route to the location and you want to
present this then do so. As far as I know you cannot prove this,
it's your assertion, but it's one which you made in your reps
and which has been ignored in the NOR which instead goes on at
length with a cut-and-paste recitation of the purpose of CPZs
and how they should be signed. It appears that the authority
haven't presented evidence for the adjudicator either.
There's a further procedural impropriety in the NOR in that
contrary to regulations the authority did not advise you that,
subject to conditions, you could apply to the adjudicator to
register an appeal after the expiry of the 28-day period*. In
fact the NOR reinforces this as an absolute limit by stating
that once they have served a Charge Certificate 'you would have
missed the opportunity to appeal'.
As I understand it, the adjudicator's power in this regard is
not subject to whim of the authority's administrative processes.
And it's the authority's evidence that Athlone's NTO was
cancelled on the grounds that they were a hire company and the
car was subject to a hiring agreement.
And you've now reinforced the point that you did not hire the
car, your insurer did.
* 6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the
representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the
recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the
date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty
charge,
(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award
costs, and
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an
adjudicator must be made,
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a
recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their
representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of
the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that
the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s
representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
#Post#: 59661--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 25, 2025, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear H C Andersen,
You are brilliant!
Just to let you know that all your effort and contribution in
this post bore fruit!
My appeal grounds consisted of three points: 1) the
contravention did not occur (CPZ MA control zone), 2) I was not
the owner (Transfer of Liability: Athlon - Auxillis - I) and 3)
Procedural Impropriety (unreasonable long time taken to process
the PCN).
The adjudicator commenced the hearing by immediately addressing
the second ground. He did not sound keen on the other two
points. He said that “the LA has failed to establish the
Transfer of Liability between Athlon and Auxillius. The LA
merely accepted the words of Athlon without verifying their
claim with evidence. Hence the breakdown in the chain”.
He commended me (YOU) for the thorough explanation and the
technical references that I (You) used to support my claim.
Consequently, and without hesitation he allowed the appeal and
cancelled the PCN.
On that point, I wish to express my gratitude to you for your
help and your perseverance with me.
Finally, I would like to also thank “Incandescent” for his
earlier informative contribution!
#Post#: 63099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: March 18, 2025, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Attached is a confirmation from Auxillis regarding the
cancellation of the £60 admin fee charges for the PCN.
Many thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page