DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 34506--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 25, 2024, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would take up cp8759's offer.
#Post#: 47188--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 26, 2024, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11E2fWA1NA34DEfojYMl8Gg0As8pTvqIL/view,<br
/>which is really annoying given that Timur Tagirov v London
Borough of Brent (224040544A, 25 November 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OR0w4cuAvqycftgpJFcYAokK_iPRAJdU/view<br
/>was also decided on Monday and was basically identical.
#Post#: 47189--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 26, 2024, 7:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard of
the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not.
Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown.
Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web
pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !
#Post#: 47193--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 27, 2024, 12:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
C'est la vie.
#Post#: 47224--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 27, 2024, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard
of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not.
Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown.
Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web
pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=1]cp8759[/member] [member=12]Incandescent[/member] An
argument for a panel decision? I have recently uploaded their
very same page in Case No 2240415738 for a member and they have
DNCed yesterday. Another is looming so let's see what happens.
I liken it all to a game of Scrabble.
#Post#: 47225--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 27, 2024, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=2485.msg47189#msg47189
date=1732670377]
> Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard
of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not.
Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown.
Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web
pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=1]cp8759[/member] [member=12]Incandescent[/member] An
argument for a panel decision? I have recently uploaded their
very same page in Case No 2240415738 for a member and they have
DNCed yesterday. Another is looming so let's see what happens.
I liken it all to a game of Scrabble.
[/quote]
When there are totally, even wildly different adjudications, for
identical circumstances, something is obviously wrong.
#Post#: 47229--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 27, 2024, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=2485.msg47224#msg47224
date=1732705605]
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=2485.msg47189#msg47189
date=1732670377]
> Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard
of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not.
Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown.
Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web
pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=1]cp8759[/member] [member=12]Incandescent[/member] An
argument for a panel decision? I have recently uploaded their
very same page in Case No 2240415738 for a member and they have
DNCed yesterday. Another is looming so let's see what happens.
I liken it all to a game of Scrabble.
[/quote]
When there are totally, even wildly different adjudications, for
identical circumstances, something is obviously wrong.
[/quote]
Hence my signature details. Best to be proactive.
#Post#: 47536--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 29, 2024, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] I assume the decisions referred to are
in the list?
#Post#: 47569--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 29, 2024, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's still possible to request a review.
IMO, the adjudicator was wrong in their anlysis and summary of
what THIS PCN states i.e. the evidence in THIS case. Not a dozen
others with similar(how so and how similar??) facts, but this
one alone.
The PCN states that if the owner believes that one or more of
the grounds listed applies then they may make reps. This is what
it states. Therefore these are qualifying conditions for making
reps and aligns with the adjudicator's skewed reasoning that
these act as conditions as well as grounds and that only if the
owner meets one or more of these conditions may they make reps.
I cannot see any other wholly objective conclusion.
This is tosh.
But moving on, the PCN next offers the owner the option of
making reps online or 'completing the form below'. But the form
below REQUIRES one or more boxes to be 'ticked' whereas online
doesn't (a tad difficult as it doesn't list any grounds).
Therefore an owner could not as a matter of practical reality
elect which grounds apply to their reps if they chose to make
these online.
So, the regulatory notice requires grounds to be selected and
online doesn't offer any grounds let alone the option to select
them. And what turmoil would this create in the mind of a
motorist?
Even worse, if they decided to abandon the online option they
could find themselves b******d if they had to rely on the postal
option unless enough time remained. There is no requirement for
an owner to recce online in advance of choosing their preferred
method and if they went online and abandoned this for want of
being able to comply with the strict requirements of the
statutory notice they could find themselves timed out.
IMO, these disparities were NOT considered by the adjudicator
whose decision could therefore be faulted and challenged.
But IMO any further challenge MUST focus on what this PCN states
and not simply use a general Opportunity Knocks 'Clapometer'
approach that more adjudicators than not disagree with this
adjudicator's reasoning and application of the law.
This PCN, these facts. IMO.
#Post#: 47603--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Downhills Park Road N17 (Walpole Road
Eastbound)(X3A) - realised mistake so uturned out.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 29, 2024, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [member=1]cp8759[/member] I assume the decisions referred to
are in the list?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes.
@H C Andersen as you know an error of law can only be challenged
by means of a judicial review in the High Court, which is not an
effective remedy.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page