DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44367--------------------------------------------------
Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs wrong
DIR By: bribri57
Date: November 7, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection notice from Birmingham states ‘There is no charge
for appealing and costs are not normally awarded. Details about
when an order for costs can be made can be found on the website,
or by calling the number above"
6aii as below
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
provides
(6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the
representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
... (ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award
costs, ‘
I argued at Traffic Penalty Tribunal that indicating the nature
means stating the circumstances (vexatious/ frivolous). The
adjudicator said that it was sufficient to say that costs were
rare and it was ok to direct me elsewhere for more information.
The adjudicator also said it was immaterial as there was no
impact on the course.
I requested a review that there was an error in law that Halton
v Curzon
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.html
seems
to make clear that more information is needed to show the
'nature'
I also said it does not matter if the wrong wording is material
to the case l, if there is a procedural impropriety then then
that is enough.
Also there is an element of discrimination as not everyone can
go to a website or make the call to find out more hence why the
nature 'must' be on the rejection letter.
The review was dismissed and that it should go to the high court
to review an error in law.
Thoughts?
#Post#: 44369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 7, 2024, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thought is post the materials.
#Post#: 44378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: bribri57
Date: November 7, 2024, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Council rejection notice is here
HTML https://imgur.com/a/L1z69o1
Links to regulations are in original post
If you were reviewing compliance with the regulations, is what
Birmingham have said sufficient?
#Post#: 44388--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 7, 2024, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, no.
But not in the way you think and IMO it's now too late to do
anything about it.
As I've posted in another thread, is the TPT leaflet which has
been embedded in the NoR part of the NOR or not.
If an adjudicator says yes, then what you have is two
conflicting appeals periods(28 days from and 28 days beginning
on) and no mention of the adjudicator's power to register an
appeal late. Both are PIs IMO.
But if the adjudicator says no, then 28 days from is incorrect,
there's nothing in the remainder regarding costs, the
adjudicator's power to register an appeal late is still missing
and Section 5 is incorrect because it refers to an incorrect
28-day period.
#Post#: 44391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: November 7, 2024, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We still have not seen the TPT decisions...
#Post#: 45875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: bribri57
Date: November 17, 2024, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the relevant statement from the adjudicator of the
original appeal
It was submitted that the Notice of Rejection did not comply
with the Regulations in that it did not specify the full nature
of the Adjudicator’s power to award costs.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
provides
(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, ‘
3. The Notice states: ‘There is no charge for appealing and
costs are not normally awarded. Details about when an order for
costs can be made can be found on the website, or by calling the
number above.’
4. The Notice indicates that the nature of the costs order is
exceptional. Supplementary information is easily accessible to
an appellant who wishes to know more. There was no real prospect
of prejudice to Mr X. The Notice complies with the Regulation.
#Post#: 45876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: bribri57
Date: November 17, 2024, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the statement on the review request rejection
Mr X pplies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 23rd
October 2024, in the interests of justice, relying on a
perceived error of law.
An application for review is not a further appeal, it is an
assessment as to whether the appeal adjudicator’s decision
was wholly unreasonable on the evidence submitted by the
parties. The appeal adjudicator has addressed the key issue in
this case (whether a contravention occurred) as well as properly
addressing the legal issue raised regarding costs (see
paragraphs 2-4 of the written determination). The adjudicator
correctly identified no procedural impropriety or unfairness
(see R (on the application of Bedi) v the Traffic Adjudicator
[2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin)).
That X disagrees with the adjudicator and considers that more
information should be provided regarding costs (that are not the
norm in this jurisdiction) is acknowledged, but this cannot
amount to a ground for review.
In the R (on the application of Transport for London) v London
Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and Commercial
Plant Services [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) , the Court underlined
the limitations of the review process, clarifying that the
“interests of justice” ground for review does not
permit review on the basis that the decision in question was
wrong in law. At paragraph 26 the learned Judge concluded:
“ If the losing party wishes to challenge a decision on
the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is by
application for judicial review to this court, not an
application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of
justice ground.”
A contravention having occurred, the application for a review is
rejected.
The appeal remains refused for the reasons provided to the
parties.
#Post#: 45880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 17, 2024, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you like spending money, and have a lot of it, then Judicial
Review is the next stage. I can't help thinking your issue is an
"angels dancing on the head of a pin" argument, frankly.
#Post#: 45891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Should this go further - is this rejection notice on costs
wrong
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 17, 2024, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But if you're flush with money......
IMO, although identifying grounds is helpful to an adjudicator
they would not be acting fairly if they could identify other
material irregularities in the enforcement which would
justify/necessitate allowing an appeal which they chose to
ignore.
The errors I pointed out should IMO, have been obvious to any
competent adjudicator and any application to the High Court
should consider the decision in the round and not just on the
narrow point upon which you focused.
But life's short and perhaps you should just move on?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1