URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 57876--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield PCN Code 27 - dropped kerb 
   DIR By: mrmustard
       Date: February 12, 2025, 3:13 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This case was won at the tribunal today. To my surprise the OP
       came so that made 3 of us in the pub afterwards (Hippocrates
       kept buying me beer after the OP, thanks both, hic). Written
       decision tomorrow.
       #Post#: 57877--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield PCN Code 27 - dropped kerb 
   DIR By: Londoner001
       Date: February 12, 2025, 3:18 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi guys
       Today, with the assistance of Mr Mustard, I have won the case!
       The adjudicator ordered the council to refund £265 (£200 for the
       towing and £65 for the PCN, which they took on the day they
       removed the car).
       As I was curious, I attended the hearing today and watched the
       responses of the adjudicator to the presented evidence. The
       adjudicator's first response was: "not an obvious dropped kerb,
       is it?"
       Mr Mustard then presented my first appeal ground: the PCN was
       not served. Mr Mustard showed the council's photo with my car
       and the empty plastic wallet on it. The plastic wallet looked as
       flat as a 'pancake' as Mr Mustard described it.
       Mr Mustard then showed him the PCN that I was handed at the car
       pound, which did not have any crease at all, indicating that it
       was not placed in the plastic wallet before they removed my car.
       The adjudicator asked whether I was served the PCN and I said no
       as the car was not there when I came back. I didn't know why
       they had towed away my car until I collected the PCN by hand at
       the car pound.
       They had basically put the empty plastic wallet on the car just
       for the 'photo' effect without putting the PCN in it at all.
       This itsef was sufficient for the adjudicator to conclude that
       the PCN was not served. Within seconds the adjudicator noticed
       this, he said: "Procedural impropriety. Appeal allowed. The
       council should refund £265".
       After Mr Mustard instructed him, the adjudicator also compared
       'the PCN which the tribunal received from the council' and 'the
       one that I was given by hand at the car pound', which were not
       same. Mr Mustard helped the adjudicator notice this by comparing
       the two of them. The adjudicator looked surprised when he
       noticed this and asked us to give him a copy of my PCN for their
       own records. The tribunal staff took a copy of it and stamped it
       to say that they received it.
       Within 10 minutes after I attended the hearing, the adjudicator
       made his decision and allowed the appeal. He did not even think
       that it was necessary for us to present the other evidence about
       the council's other wrongdoings, which included:
       1) serving an out-of-date notice regarding appeal rights;
       2) road conditions (i.e. the dropped kerb was hidden under water
       in a flooded section of the road);
       3) no signs/lines put by the council to alert motorists that
       there is a hidden dropped kerb there
       4) disproportionate action of towing the car rather than only
       issuing a PCN on a quiet residential road (they towed away my
       car because it was parked next to a hidden dropped kerb under
       water)
       All in all, it was quite fun to watch the responses of the
       adjudicator to the evidence presented by Mr Mustard. Many thanks
       to Mr Mustard for his efforts to prove our points about the
       council's wrongdoings.
       I hope others will do the same and present councils' wrong
       practices to adjudicators to stop councils abusing their
       position on motorists.
       Good luck to others...
       #Post#: 57904--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield PCN Code 27 - dropped kerb 
   DIR By: mrmustard
       Date: February 13, 2025, 1:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       224058036A
       The Appellant has attended and is represented by Mr D Dishman.
       The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked
       adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the level of the
       carriageway when in Brookside Road on 6 December 2024 at 09:19.
       I have allowed this appeal on the grounds of a procedural
       impropriety. The Regulations require that the Authority provides
       to the Adjudicator a true copy of the original representations,
       the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice of Rejection.
       I find that there are material differences between the PCN,
       which was received at the car pound and the one produced to the
       Tribunal.
       The Appellant's representative has drawn my attention to a
       number of minor differences on the observe of the PCN, which I
       find are cumulatively not of the most serious. However, on the
       reverse of the PCN I find that an entire paragraph has been
       omitted, which I find appears on one and not the other.
       Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Authority has produced
       a true copy of the PCN as required by the Regulations. I find
       this to be a procedural impropriety. Where an Adjudicator finds
       a procedural impropriety they must allow the appeal.
       Additionally, if I had not found as above, I would, and in fact
       do, find that the PCN was not served to the Appellant's vehicle.
       The PCN produced by the Appellant, which was handed to her at
       the car pound, is devoid of any crease markings, which should
       have appeared if it had been placed in the plastic envelope.
       I note that the tow truck was present at the time the PCN was
       issued, however, I am not satisfied that the PCN was actually
       placed in the plastic envelope. This is a prerequisite before e
       vehicle can be removed.
       On enlarging the photograph of the plastic wallet I am unable to
       see any evidence of the PCN inside the wallet.
       The appeal is allowed.
       #Post#: 57909--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield PCN Code 27 - dropped kerb 
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 13, 2025, 3:34 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Well done.  ;D Mr Teper was in fine form and was with you all
       the  way I thought.
       A pleasure to attend and meet the OP:
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/suggested-meeting-for-members-at-furnival-street-next-wednesday-12th-andor-17th/msg57878/#msg57878
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page