DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: buscalls
Date: April 2, 2025, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the invoice plumbing shop provided which looks standard
for what I get from an independent. They are not going to write
my name, address etc
Assuming view is to just pay then
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 65429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 2, 2025, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you produce the authority's case in more regular form pl.
I've just looked back to post no.1.....The vehicle was hired.
We must see their evidence, but whether water under the bridge
over which the horse that's already bolted galloped..I don't
know?
#Post#: 65431--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 2, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Other than paying the only option open to you is a review of the
decision, for which you'd need compelling evidence that the
adjudicator didn't act in accordance with what was in front of
him.
You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are
normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they
are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the
adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings
is not a ground for review.
See:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/challenging-eta-decision
#Post#: 65440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: buscalls
Date: April 2, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member]
I shared link to full pack as here
HTML https://smallpdf.com/file#r=annotate
This includes the vehicle hire information too.
If not what you're looking for please let me know format you're
after
#Post#: 65787--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: buscalls
Date: April 5, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any more thoughts before I have to resign to payment for this?
#Post#: 65807--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 5, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
None of the linked pages 'exist'.
#Post#: 65916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: buscalls
Date: April 7, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@HCAndersen
Apologies, the URL changes after clicking to the one I shared
originally. Please see below for the working URL:
HTML https://smallpdf.com/file#s=bd985d55-b086-43c2-8ba9-d322702f6e0c
#Post#: 66001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 7, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FFS, this is bloody nonsense.
OP, are you still in time to request a review? If so, do so.
Interests of justice.
This whole issue has been clouded with who did what, where and
when.
It's all irrelevant.
The only issue is: could you be considered the 'owner' and
therefore liable in light of the evidence?
IMO, the answer is NO.
Would you pl just extract the evidence as it relates to
Enterprise and you getting the PCN. Forget everything else. Put
it in the form of a timeline.
which shows that:
Initial PCN to Enterprise;
Some waffly letter(apparently sent by Enterprise and addressed
to you alone, so what's it doing in the council's evidence?);
Charge Certificate to Enterprise;
PCN to you.
There is no evidence that the council cancelled the PCN and the
CC, just a PCN to you.
IMO, the adjudicator, who is the professional, should have
spotted this and as a minimum adjourned with a direction to the
authority to produce the evidence or preferably to have allowed
the appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety and that to
delay would not have been an efficient use of the tribunal's
resources.
#Post#: 66008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: April 7, 2025, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't the Grounds for Contesting the Appeal put forwrd by
Redbridge inaccurate and misleading?
They claim the OP's car was too small to load a bathtub because
it is a "Volve Jazz SE", but no such car exists. If the OP's
car had been a Honda Jazz it might have been too small, but it's
actually a Volvo XC90 which I'd have thought would easily
swallow a bathtub.
Also on what grounds does Redbridge conclude that the invoice is
not genuine?
Or does none of this matter if the OP never challenged
Redbridge's case?
#Post#: 66014--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, parked in restricted street, Cranley Road Ilford
IG1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 7, 2025, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, the issue is who is to be considered the owner.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page