DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 19, 2025, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Having now looked at the latest video, I have to say I think
the OP doesn't have a strong case.
>
--- End Quote ---
Their website threats and incorrect dates will be the main
thrust.
#Post#: 63225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Terri99
Date: March 19, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member] is suggesting I just pay the
£65
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] if I've understood them
properly, is suggesting I could challenge but on procedural
technicalities..
Any third/other opinions?
Thank you
#Post#: 63287--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 19, 2025, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My last case won:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. Phillip Morgan attended in person as the Appellant’s
Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had
not been expected to. Mr Morgan confirmed receipt of the
Authority's evidence pack.
2. In his written representations, the Appellant raised a
collateral challenge that the information on the Authority's
website set out the wrong date for when the penalty charge would
increase from the reduced charge to the full penalty charge. The
Authority did not address this submission in its Notice of
Rejection (NoR) and only referred to the signage.
3. In Mr Morgan's written submissions to the Tribunal, he
submits that the NoR fails to consider the representations made
and that the Authority's "online threats" are wrong in date
details and unacceptable as found by several Adjudicators. Mr
Morgan has provided three Adjudicator decisions with his
representations, including one of my own. An Adjudicator is not
bound by a decision of any other Adjudicator, including their
own decisions, although they can be persuasive.
4. Mr Morgan has provided four screenshots from the Authority's
portal:
(a) On 29 November 2024, it stated in a yellow box: "The amount
outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £130.00 on
Mon 2 Dec 2024. Please pay £65.00 now". The issue date is 23
October, which is incorrect, as that is the date of the alleged
contravention - the date of issue was when the PCN was sent, on
5 November 2024.
(b) On 7 and 16 February, it stated in a red box: "The amount
outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £195.00 very
soon. Please pay £130.00 now."
Mr Morgan told me that the Appellant was caused confusion by
this, and submits that the Authority should not issue threats of
this kind, or seek money that is not yet due, particularly when
there is an appeal at the Tribunal.
5. The NoR was issued on 24 December 2024, and deemed served on
30 December (due to the bank holidays). The 28 day deadline by
which the Appellant could pay the penalty charge, or appeal to
the Tribunal was 26 January 2025. After this date, the Authority
would be entitled to issue a Charge Certificate, increasing the
penalty charge by 50% to £195, only if the Appellant had not
appealed to the Tribunal or paid the penalty charge.
6. In this case, the Tribunal's records show that the Appellant
filed his appeal in-time on 2 January 2025. The Authority was
notified the following day on 3 January 2025. It is
therefore unclear why, and inaccurate for, the website to
contain a statement informing the
Appellant on 7 and 16 February that the penalty charge "will"
increase to £195 "very soon". The Authority was not entitled to
issue a Charge Certificate after 3 January, as it was on
notice that an appeal had been lodged.
7. I accept the evidence provided by Mr Morgan as accurately
showing the messages
displayed in relation to the Appellant's appeal on the
Authority's portal
8. Mr Morgan's submissions were filed on 7 February. The
Authority was notified that further evidence had been added. On
10 February, the Authority filed further evidence, however, it
has not addressed Mr Morgan's submissions.
9. An Adjudicator is not bound by a decision of another
Adjudicator, although it may be
persuasive. In this case, I agree with the reasoning of
Adjudicator Houghton in 2240362722
and I adopt it in my decision. Adjudicator Houghton said:
"The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information
from a Council as to what is
required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors
are serious enough for the
Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In
addition, I agree with the
decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited
by the Appellant,
2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which
he said that "it is not
open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the
prescribed amount or any
amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the
Environment and Traffic Adjudicator."
10. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is therefore
allowed.
#Post#: 63560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Terri99
Date: March 21, 2025, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] for the last post.
Are you suggesting that I appeal to the Environment & Traffic
Adjudicators on similar grounds to the case detailed in your
post?
If so, can I draft an outline of the appeal here to get your
feedback.
There are still a couple of details that I'm not sure what to do
with.
I didn't submit an appeal, and I don't seem to have recieved an
official Notice of Rejection. Does this matter? Should I go to
the Adjudicators anyway?
#Post#: 63570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 21, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=4840]Terri99[/member] I will PM you my details and take
this case on for you. I will file the appeal too. Any Q,s please
speak/write with me direct.
Doing another member's case and they are threatening to increase
the price to £195 two months before the appeal is due to be
heard!! ;D
#Post#: 64445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 27, 2025, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal filed.
#Post#: 74689--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 4, 2025, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] I have been searching for cases
allowed when NORs have been issued when the appellant only made
a request for the video evidence. There used to be many of these
on pepipoo. Do we have any these days as I cannot find? Sorry,
as I know you have a busy day.
#Post#: 74711--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 4, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Giles Fisher v London Borough of Hackney (2160248915, 15 July
2016)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gegX1bM4rGjPjfgfqWzPrJP_MtzfNkiG/view
Samantha Palihakkara v Watford Borough Council (WT00010-2002, 3
December 2020)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vc_ZhbM1mdmHuVwCKv-K_FnM6loyiOeA/view
#Post#: 74824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 4, 2025, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] Super.
#Post#: 74844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Code 37j failing to give way to oncoming vehicles,
Salter's Hill
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 4, 2025, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When the authority post their evidence I'd like to see the
underlying traffic order, I can't remember seeing one to date.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page