DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45605--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 14, 2024, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Read my extract again.
Transfer of liability
I have reported last year on issues concerning the transfer of
liability when the registered keeper of a hired vehicle seeks to
transfer of liability to the hirers.
Adjudicators have found that despite the restrictive statutory
provisions which are re-stated in case law,
Frankly I don't see how any adjudicator may not apply the law.
And..the report was to London Councils, the tribunal's and
therefore the adjudicators' employers. Which adjudicator wants
to throw themselves under a TfL bus by not applying the law and
also undermine the Chief Adjudicator's report by taking a
contrary position?
Of course it's possible that a hearing might be adjourned for
the authority to provide this, but frankly given that one of the
principles of the tribunal is efficiency why should they? The
authority knows full well what's required, so include it?
#Post#: 45671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 14, 2024, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=832]taffer87[/member] you have a slam-dunk case on the
transfer of liability, as there is no lease agreement and no
notice of acceptance to VWFS. Without that notice of acceptance,
there was no statutory power to serve an NTO on you because only
the cancellation of a previous NTO gives the council a power to
serve a further NTO on another person.
Have a look at the cases here
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037<br
/>that come up when you search "EA failed to prove cancellation
of
previous PCN in chain", "EA must follow correct procedure to
transfer liability", "EA must procedure evidence to transfer
liability" and "no copy of purported lease agreement in
evidence", all the legal arguments you need to make are there.
I believe most of those cases are for moving traffic so you
might need to go through the parking legislation to find the
equivalent provisions, but the substance is exactly the same.
Also how good are you at spot the difference? The back of the
PCN in the evidence pack is not a perfect copy of the PCN served
on you, the first difference I found was that your copy has a
"PayPoint Outlet or Post Office" option but the filed copy does
not, I suspect there will be more discrepancies. Have a look at
rows 771 to 800 of the above spreadsheet for cases on this
point.
This is one of those cases that is virtually impossible to lose
if it's argued correctly.
#Post#: 45680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: November 15, 2024, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=832]taffer87[/member] you have a slam-dunk case on the
transfer of liability, as there is no lease agreement and no
notice of acceptance to VWFS. Without that notice of acceptance,
there was no statutory power to serve an NTO on you because only
the cancellation of a previous NTO gives the council a power to
serve a further NTO on another person.
>
> Have a look at the cases here
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037<br
/>that come up when you search "EA failed to prove cancellation
of
previous PCN in chain", "EA must follow correct procedure to
transfer liability", "EA must procedure evidence to transfer
liability" and "no copy of purported lease agreement in
evidence", all the legal arguments you need to make are there.
>
> I believe most of those cases are for moving traffic so you
might need to go through the parking legislation to find the
equivalent provisions, but the substance is exactly the same.
>
> Also how good are you at spot the difference? The back of the
PCN in the evidence pack is not a perfect copy of the PCN served
on you, the first difference I found was that your copy has a
"PayPoint Outlet or Post Office" option but the filed copy does
not, I suspect there will be more discrepancies. Have a look at
rows 771 to 800 of the above spreadsheet for cases on this
point.
>
> This is one of those cases that is virtually impossible to
lose if it's argued correctly.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi thank you, that's perfect.
I did spot the Paypoint difference but not others, will include
that too.
Thanks everyone for the help.
#Post#: 45682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: November 15, 2024, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Hi thank you, that's perfect.
>
> I did spot the Paypoint difference but not others, will
include that too.
>
> Thanks everyone for the help.
--- End Quote ---
Post yr revised draft here for comment before submitting. Date
of hearing?
#Post#: 45694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: November 15, 2024, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
27 November - will draft something this weekend and share. I
will aim to upload to the Tribunal website by 20 November
#Post#: 45997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: November 18, 2024, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@cp87859
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member]
[member=5]John U.K.[/member]
please see the draft tribunal appeal here - any input would be
greatly appreciated over the next day and then I shall submit by
end of tomorrow ideally or, at the latest Wednesday.
Thank you in advance.
Regards
HTML https://we.tl/t-0MvETliFxU
#Post#: 46021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: November 18, 2024, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] tagging correct username now - please
see above link for draft appeal to tribunal
#Post#: 46055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: November 18, 2024, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Include in point 3 or 4 the paragraphs from the Chief
Adjudicator's Annual Report - Reply#40 above.
Style point - where you repeat each point from page 1 in the
main body of the text embolden and perhaps also underline it it
to make fast reading by the Adj easier,
#Post#: 46072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 18, 2024, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry OP, it's asking me to sign in.
#Post#: 46117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 18, 2024, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Remove the references to collateral challenges, the ground of
procedural impropriety is a statutory ground of appeal in its
own right, so there is no need to refer to collateral
challenges.
From a quick skim your draft looks fine.
Don't forget the adjudicator cannot look up any TPT cases, so
you'll have to download the non-London cases and upload them to
the tribunal portal as items of evidence.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page