DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 4, 2024, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=832]taffer87[/member] this is really simple : if you
search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one
hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view:
>
> [indent]
> Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a
point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday
Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.
> [/indent]
>
> However the common boundary is here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7
and if you zoom out,
it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been
painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it
should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that
order.
>
> In the circumstances we can cut out all the woffle from the
informal representations and just go with this:
>
> [indent]
> Dear London Borough of Nehwam,
>
> The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because The
Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1)
Order 2017 (which I suspect you have not bothered to read) does
not designate any parking place at the location where my car was
parked. The order designates a parking place on "Munday Road,
the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line
with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward
for a distance of 6.1 metres", but if you have a look on Google
Street view at
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvqxwbHQ21MHV2UY9
you
will see the bay has been painted at least two car lengths
further south than it should have. The result is that despite
the signage, my car was not actually parked on a section of road
designated by that order.
>
> I invite you to actually read your own traffic order and apply
your mind to the issues I have raised, if you issue a generic
rejection with all the usual templated drivel about how the
circumstances raised do not amount to an exemption or sufficient
mitigation, I will apply to London Tribunals for a costs order
on the ground that the notice of rejection is wholly
unreasonable. This will apply even if you do not contest the
appeal.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
> Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation
page.
>
--- End Quote ---
Awesome thank you @cp8759. I have sent this. Just to confirm you
are referring to the disbaled bay markings which start here not
being where the TMO says they should be?
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5dnGUqAe51RvCEb8
#Post#: 42818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 29, 2024, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] here is the response from council. I
have already submitted a London Tribunal appeal stating that "I
rely on my formal representations and will provide additional
detail and points on review of the council evidence pack.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/pzWtjM5/Redacted-Notice-of-rejection-Copy-Redacted.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/6Pv30TL
Also I am including the image from council website when
submitting the formal representations which only allows one
option to be chosen (in case this or any other issues are
present in the appeal reasons shown).
HTML https://i.ibb.co/HY7Dpdw/council-website-only-allows-one-option.png
HTML https://ibb.co/Npx6nSD
Thank you so much for any help with this from you and
experienced members.
I will post the evidence pack from council when available
(appeal is in a months time and have chosen in-person which I
will change to phone hearing).
#Post#: 42821--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 29, 2024, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=832]taffer87[/member] drop me a PM if you'd like me to
represent you at the tribunal.
#Post#: 42841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 29, 2024, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks I will represent myself as have done it a couple of times
before. Would be great to know if their notice of rejection
creates any new avenues for the London Tribunal. Same for the
Newham website reason options for formal representations.
I will upload evidence pack from council too when it comes.
#Post#: 42850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: Martyn21uk
Date: October 29, 2024, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=832]taffer87[/member] this is really simple : if you
search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one
hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view:
>
> [indent]
> Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a
point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday
Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.
> [/indent]
>
> However the common boundary is here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7
and if you zoom out,
it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been
painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it
should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that
order.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I respectfully disagree with this, I think the bay is in exactly
the right place. If you zoom out and take the point of the
boundary between nos. 16 and 18 and then you go 8.1 metres south
(to the right on GSV), then that takes you to the exact point
where the bay starts. I fear you maybe misread the order to
mean the bay should start on that boundary line, not 8.1 metres
(2 car lengths) away from it.
#Post#: 43149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 30, 2024, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all. Does anyone see anything wrong with rejection letter
or indeed the options given for formal representation (photos of
both couple of posts up from here)
#Post#: 43156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 30, 2024, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Martyn21uk link ---
>
> [quote author=cp8759 link=topic=2436.msg39215#msg39215
date=1727889451]
> [member=832]taffer87[/member] this is really simple : if you
search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one
hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view:
>
> [indent]
> Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a
point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday
Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.
> [/indent]
>
> However the common boundary is here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7
and if you zoom out,
it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been
painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it
should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that
order.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I respectfully disagree with this, I think the bay is in exactly
the right place. If you zoom out and take the point of the
boundary between nos. 16 and 18 and then you go 8.1 metres south
(to the right on GSV), then that takes you to the exact point
where the bay starts. I fear you maybe misread the order to
mean the bay should start on that boundary line, not 8.1 metres
(2 car lengths) away from it.
[/quote]
Thank you. Are there any other points I should be making in my
tribunal appeal then? For the formal reps I had included with CP
said as well as repeated the points from informal challenge.
#Post#: 43186--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 30, 2024, 1:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, the NOR is flawed in that it does not advise you correctly
of your rights to appeal. Indeed, using the power which the
authority has it has added a statement which is in flagrant
disregard to and contrary to the regulations.
A NOR must give the following information:
(8) If the enforcement authority does not accept that there are
compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b) or
that any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, the
enforcement authority’s decision notice must—
(a)inform R of the right to appeal to an adjudicator under
regulation 10,
(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs,
and
(c)describe the form and manner in which such an appeal is
required to be made.
The NOR states the following:
'You have 28 days beginning with this Notice of Rejection to do
this[register an appeal].'
It further states that:
'If neither payment nor appeal is made before the end of the 28
days beginning with the date of service of this notice of
rejection a charge certificate may be served increasing the
charge by 50%. It will then be too late to appeal further.
However, regulation 9(8)(c) above requires a NOR to 'describe
the form and manner in which such an appeal [to the adjudicator]
is required to be made.'
Regulation 10 deals with an Appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision to reject representations and
provides that:
10.—(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept that—
(a)any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, or
(b)there are compelling reasons of the kind mentioned in
regulation 8(5)(b).
(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 9(4)(b) informing P of P’s
right to appeal to an adjudicator under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
I submit that not only have the authority failed to comply
regulation 9(8)(c) they have also stated the exact opposite of
what is required to be included, namely:
That once a charge certificate has been served 'it will then be
too late to appeal' when the regulations provide that the
adjudicator is the ultimate arbiter of the time allowed for an
appeal to be made, not the authority.
#Post#: 43462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: November 1, 2024, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, the NOR is flawed in that it does not advise you
correctly of your rights to appeal. Indeed, using the power
which the authority has it has added a statement which is in
flagrant disregard to and contrary to the regulations.
>
> A NOR must give the following information:
>
> (8) If the enforcement authority does not accept that there
are compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b)
or that any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply,
the enforcement authority’s decision notice must—
>
> (a)inform R of the right to appeal to an adjudicator under
regulation 10,
>
> (b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award
costs, and
>
> (c)describe the form and manner in which such an appeal is
required to be made.
>
> The NOR states the following:
>
> 'You have 28 days beginning with this Notice of Rejection to
do this[register an appeal].'
>
> It further states that:
>
> 'If neither payment nor appeal is made before the end of the
28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice of
rejection a charge certificate may be served increasing the
charge by 50%. It will then be too late to appeal further.
>
> However, regulation 9(8)(c) above requires a NOR to 'describe
the form and manner in which such an appeal [to the adjudicator]
is required to be made.'
>
> Regulation 10 deals with an Appeal to an adjudicator against
an enforcement authority’s decision to reject representations
and provides that:
> 10.—(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept that—
>
> (a)any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, or
>
> (b)there are compelling reasons of the kind mentioned in
regulation 8(5)(b).
>
> (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 9(4)(b) informing P of P’s
right to appeal to an adjudicator under this regulation, or
>
> (b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
>
> I submit that not only have the authority failed to comply
regulation 9(8)(c) they have also stated the exact opposite of
what is required to be included, namely:
>
> That once a charge certificate has been served 'it will then
be too late to appeal' when the regulations provide that the
adjudicator is the ultimate arbiter of the time allowed for an
appeal to be made, not the authority.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. This is indeed very helpful.
Is there something in TMA about reasons for the formal
representation/appeal as the council website said to pick "one"
reason but I saw the London tribunal website allows you to
choose as many of the statutory reasons as you like.
#Post#: 43480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 1, 2024, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reg. 5 of the 'Appeals' regs:
Representations against the enforcement notice
5.—(1) The recipient may make representations against the
enforcement notice to the enforcement authority which served it
on the recipient.
5(2) The representations must be—
(a)made in the form determined by the enforcement authority, and
(b)to either or both of the following effects—
(i)that in relation to the alleged contravention, one or more of
the grounds specified in paragraph (4) apply;
(ii)that, whether or not any of those grounds apply, there are
compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the
case, the enforcement authority should cancel the penalty charge
and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.
Initiating an appeal
2.—(1) An appeal must be made by delivering a notice of appeal
to the proper officer.
(2) A notice of appeal—
(a)must be in writing and signed by—
(i)the appellant, or
(ii)a person authorised to do so by the appellant,
(b)must state the name and address at which the appellant wishes
documents in connection with the appeal to be sent,
(c)must state the date and any reference number of the disputed
decision and the name of the enforcement authority, and
(d)may include any representations which the appellant desires
to make in addition to the original representations.
Further representations by the parties
4.—(1) Any party may deliver representations in relation to the
matters referred to in regulation 5(2)(b), 8(5) or 11(3), as
appropriate in the circumstances, to the proper officer at any
time before the appeal is determined.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page