Reply #8 on: February 08, 2025, 10:42:00 am
#9
@mrmustard for his thoughts
1. There is no clear advanced warning signage.
2. I raise the issue of an inappropriate ground appearing on the PCN concerning a traffic order being invalid. The PCN is unenforceable because it contains a ground referring to the traffic order being invalid which does not belong in this legislation.
3. Furthermore, there appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree with each other and, indeed, another wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this and the aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCNWhen you go onto their website, choose "procedural impropriety". Reason: to call their bluff as, if they reject saying that is not a valid ground (which it isn't!), then your case becomes stronger at the Tribunal.
Last Edit: February 08, 2025, 10:46:42 am by Hippocrates
Logged
@Incandescent!
I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.
If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".
cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"
There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.
To Socrates from "Hippocrates"