DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 25, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=4300]mezzyd[/member] Please can you email me the
original PCN? I am working on the appeal hearing and wish to
check the original.
#Post#: 88348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 4, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Review refused and application for costs too even though they
called me a liar.
#Post#: 88513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: September 5, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1DBGFlr9_ntUcXktLdGKyEFtvlLwoDg/view.
#Post#: 88516--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 5, 2025, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Who is 'AA' and is he, she, it authorised to determine formal
reps under the council's Scheme of Delegation?
#Post#: 88552--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: September 5, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Who is 'AA' and is he, she, it authorised to determine formal
reps under the council's Scheme of Delegation?
>
--- End Quote ---
There would be a presumption at common law that official
correspondence would be sent by an officer properly empowered to
do send it, you could challenge that point but you would need
evidence to rebut the presumption.
#Post#: 88617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham 31J Southend Lane/Allerton Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 5, 2025, 5:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is going further, I can assure you all.
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr
Phillip Morgan to have foresight
enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his
appellants PCN, that he would record this
supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has
viewed no such issue on this PCN and has
made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not
been privy to the PCN website on this
PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against
this PCN.
Formal complaint registered and FOIR too.
If Mr Chan can entertain the notion of costs against
representatives, then surely what is sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander. My fresh evidence was dismissed and I
wonder why my name doesn't even appear anymore in decisions -
not that I care. This evidence could not possibly have been
placed before the adjudicator before the time it was adduced by
me.
************
Dear Sir or Madam
Complaint
I refer to this statement from yourselves as stated .........
attached:
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr
Phillip Morgan to have foresight enough that were he to view an
issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record
this supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has
viewed no such issue on this PCN and has made a statement he
knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN
website on this PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual
evidence against this PCN.
This is tantamount to calling me a liar.
If this weren't bad enough, you also said this about me in
Heather Sullivan v London Borough of Lewisham Case No:
225006218A and the other linked cases:
In response to the Mr Morgans comments regarding the website
threatening, LPS must advise that the website text is not
threatening or inviting the appellant to abandon the appeal
process. LPS would like to point out that just because Mr Morgan
has wrongly perceived the website text as a threat, this does
not make it so. Mr Morgan has been privy to the prior website
wording which was considered threatening by an adjudicator and
has since seen it corrected accordingly. As no such threatening
wording or phrases are present, LPS must conclude that this is
an attempt to waste adjudicator and LPS time due to lack of
actual evidence in the favour of the appellant, due to the PCN’s
being valid and correctly issued.
Any further assertions from Mr Phillip Morgan that the website
dates are wrong are a waste of LPS and adjudicator time and LPS
will ignore any further misinformation regarding what dates are
shown on the website.
Ironically, Adjudicator Kaler agreed with me.
While I did not seek costs with regard to the latter case(s), I
shall be doing so in 225009462A whether the review is allowed or
not.
Therefore, I make the following Freedom of Information Request
in terms of your website and PCNs for moving traffic
contraventions.
I am aware that you have redacted "Also acts as Notice to Owner"
from your PCNs. Please say when and why?
I am also aware that you have also amended your website as
attached i.e. at the early stage of the process. Please say when
and why?
Yours faithfully
Tommy Poirot
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page