DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10433--------------------------------------------------
Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for now)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 17, 2023, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is subject to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but for now
this is the position.
Allan Hamilton v Glasgow City Council (LZ00036-2308, 11 October
2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UD7n5BIZ5qT0OL8CjYIoTESBXgTQ-b7d.
#Post#: 59041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: February 20, 2025, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Overturned for this particular case
HTML https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf
HTML https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf
#Post#: 59100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 20, 2025, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member]
[member=7]mrmustard[/member]
A point for brainstorming?
#Post#: 59130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 20, 2025, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It only applies in Scots law, in England and Wales the binding
authority in London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the
application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357
(Admin)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q62JYdyLdcGx6KIiwj7PccV9XwdN3DDk/view<br
/>takes precedence.
#Post#: 59148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 21, 2025, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, not all Adjudicators apply/transpose the findings
@para.41 to moving traffic and/or bus lane contraventions. I
await a review decision shortly on this: 2240500622.
Two Adjudicators have said this week that they nevertheless
regard the Scottish decision as persuasive.
#Post#: 59274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 22, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I do not consider that Parliament had intended that the
mis-statement of the grounds nullify the instant PCN.
2240500622
#Post#: 59291--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: February 22, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2240500622
--- Quote ---
> [justify]The conduct of litigation in courts in England and
Wales is guided by an overriding objective which underpins the
entire Civil Procedure Rules framework and the Criminal
Procedure Rules. The primary purpose of the overriding objective
is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at
proportionate cost.
>
>
> While this Tribunal is not bound by either sets of the Rules,
there is absolutely no justification as to why parties and the
Tribunal should not conduct proceedings in line with the
overriding objective.
>
>
> When a Notice of Appeal is served by the Tribunal on the
enforcing authority, the Authority must respond with the service
of an evidence pack which will normally include its submissions
against points raised in the representations and the Notice of
Appeal. The Notice of Appeal in this case prevents the Authority
from doing anything but to respond to the representations. When
the Appellant serves a more substantive case, the Authority will
have to re-visit its case in case a further response is
required.
>
>
> In this and some other cases, the situation is made worse by a
party making a point which was never raised at the
representations stage or in the Notgice of Appeal. The authority
is obliged not just to re-visit its case, but to address the new
(often lengthy) arguments, and often at short notice.
>
>
> In some cases, one can understand readily an Appellant making
further submissions after the Authority has served its evidence
pack. This does not arise in this case. Apart from the copy of
the PCN, the original of which was with the Appellant, the
evidence pack had nothing to do with Mr Morgan’s argument.
Nothing prevented him from setting out his case fairly and
squarely when he prepared the Notice of Appeal.
>
>
> This delay on the service of the Appellant’s case obliges the
respondent authority to prepare their case twice. The informal
approach in this Tribunal is not carte blanche for Appellants
and their representatives to cause unnecessary work to the
Authority in direct contradiction to the overriding objective. I
dare say that if an authority having served its evidence pack,
then chose to make further and lengthy submissions without any
justification, there would be an uproar and a clamour for the
appeal to be allowed for this reason alone. Appellant do not
have a special privilege to behave differently. Adjudicators
will bear in mind their power to award costs if a party ‘s
conduct in making or resisting an appeal was wholly
unreasonable, irrespective of the outcome of an
appeal.[/justify]
--- End Quote ---
Mr.Chan indulging in a severe knuckle-rapping?
What becomes of standard advice to those registering an appeal
to put I rely on my earlier representations and full submission
to follow
let alone the current even terser comment?
re: Glasgow City Council v Upper Tribunal for Scotland [2025]
CSIH 2XA38/24
As I see it, the Court of Seesion was keen to stress the
particularity of the case before it:
59] The court would emphasise that its decision is based on the
particular facts of the
present case in which Mr Hamilton accepted that he received the
PCN and where it is clear
that he challenged it timeously.
Much seems to have turned on the fact that although the notice
was sent by ordinary post rather than the law's requirement of
some traceable delivery, the original appellant was not
disadvantaged by use of the ordinary post. One is left with
impression that had he been disadvantaged the Court may have
found differently.
#Post#: 59318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 22, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am taking this further.
#Post#: 59375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 23, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I do not consider that Parliament had intended that the
mis-statement of the grounds nullify the instant PCN.
>
> 2240500622
>
--- End Quote ---
The original adjudicator: It is possible that such errors could
lead to prejudice in a particular case. The Enforcement
Authority should correct them in future PCNs and on their
website. Indeed it is in their own interests to do so if there
are Adjudicators who regard the errors as establishing grounds
of appeal. However, I am not satisfied that there is any
prejudice established in the present case. Neither am I
satisfied this is an appropriate appeal to allow by virtue of
collateral challenge.
@John U.K. Mr.Chan indulging in a severe knuckle-rapping?
Certainly: against the other two Musketeers at least! BTW, my
submissions are well known to the council as I have employed
them at least four times. And, I have complained to their chief.
#Post#: 59461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland CAZ PCNs must be served by registered post (for
now)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 24, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The full case decision here courtesy of cp8759:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LD63VXTSITbwBjkRvb30J9SMAx0agBjO/view
Cases used: 2240327073 (allowed); 2240403182 (refused);
2220894820 (allowed); 2220655455 (allowed).
All my efforts save for 2220894820.
***
Dear Sir or Madam
I ask for a review of Mr Burke's decision in the interests of
justice.
I fail to understand how an adjudicator can find a PCN to be
substantially compliant when it contains false information.
Mr Burke usually dismisses Jackson J's finding that prejudice is
irrelevant in parking law. Similarly, Ms Brennan adopts the same
approach in that this finding does not apply to other
legislation.
In Case reference 2220894820, Mr Greenslade takes a different
approach which invites the question regarding the possibility of
a panel hearing on this important matter. The Tribunal will be
aware that I was the representative in the Bysshe Wallace case
mentioned in the said case.
In this regard, I also ask for a panel hearing to reconsider Mr
Vinod's case 2240403182.
Surely, common sense must be applied in terms of the Tribunal's
approach to primary documents which clearly contain false
information. It is entirely irrelevant whether prejudice is
caused or not. In particular, an appellant without any
knowledge whatsoever would be absolutely ignorant of the finer
points of law, unlike a lay representative. Should the latter
receive such a PCN from Havering, would s/he be prejudiced or
disadvantaged because they know the law? This situation is
Wednesbury unreasonable.
Yours faithfully
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page