DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8085--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for parking with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 22, 2023, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I've checked the youtube stats and they still haven't
looked at the video, so there's still a compelling case to be
made that they've ignored the representations, or at least the
supporting evidence.
Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?
#Post#: 8089--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for parking with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: dk007
Date: October 22, 2023, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes please, I have full confidence in you. Many thanks
#Post#: 8102--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for parking with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 22, 2023, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've sent you a PM.
#Post#: 15671--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for parking with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 15, 2024, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UJTvJqi5Jfk-YQqmbdf4wonN15cc7k4o/view,<br
/>there is not enough to argue an error of law but even if there
were, that's no longer a ground to seek a review.
#Post#: 15688--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for parking with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 15, 2024, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This bit missing:
this court I prefer the approach taken in Crookes in that making
reference to the existence of something by hyperlink, without
more, is not publication of that content. As Abella J observed
the hyperlink communicates something exists but a further act is
required before access is gained to it….”
Conclusion
26. In my view, the provision of a live link to a video on the
YouTube website does not fall within the definition of
“representations and any supporting evidence” that may be
“provided” by the recipient of a notice to owner and “received”
by the EA in accordance with sub-paragraphs (4)(a) and (1) of
Regulation 6 of the Appeals Regulations and which must, as such,
be “considered” by the EA in accordance with that Regulation.
27. The provision of hyperlink is not evidence itself, such as
what is written within the representation, or any electronic
attachment provided with it or uploaded to the EA’s website. I
would give as an example of the latter the image file that was
“provided” to, and “received” and “considered” by the EA in this
case in the conventional way. I also add that the provision of a
live link, or hyperlink, is not one of the “forms and manners”
by which representations may be made, as stated on the notice to
owner pursuant to Regulation 3(1)(c) and (2) and Regulation
5(2)(a).
28. Rather, the provision of a live link, as identified in the
authorities from which I quoted above and from which I derived
some assistance, merely communicates that something exists, with
a further act required to access it. A representation containing
such a live link does not contain, or even append, its content;
it is merely a reference to it. I do not accept that a live link
is evidence any more than an appellant stating in a
representation or a notice of appeal, as they sometimes do, “If
you call my friend, she will tell you what happened…”
29. The EA was not under a duty or obligation to follow the live
link any more than it would be under an obligation to contact
the friend in the example given above. Therefore, its refusal or
omission to do so does not amount to a failure to consider the
representations and any supporting evidence as required by the
Appeals Regulations.
30. Nor, in my view, was the EA under any duty or obligation to
provide to this tribunal, as “original representations”, the
live link, rather than merely a copy of the URL as provided to
it by the recipient of the PCN.
31. An EA could, if it wished, choose to follow a live link
provided in representations and consider the material online.
That would likely mean, however, that in order to comply with
paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1 to the Appeals Regulations, the EA
would have to download the material and provide it to the
tribunal.
32. Based on the wording and meaning of the two sets of
applicable Regulations, as I interpret them, no procedural
impropriety is proved.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page