Author Topic: Haringey 52(M) PCN  (Read 345 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2024, 11:35:07 am »
I thought I'd confirmed, but obviously not, I made representations on Haringey's website exactly as per Incandescent's advice on 4th. March 2024.I am awaiting their reply.

Can someone please advise what the cutoff for their response is. Is it 28 days or 21 days from the service of the reps, in the case of on-line reps I'm assuming that is the same as the date of submission. The last PCN I took to tribunal, as well as my other representations, one of the things that won me the case was that I did not receive the council's reply till one day after the statutory period had expired (I remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar!), but I can't remember whether it was 21 or 28 days. Thanks again.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2024, 12:04:14 pm »
Your PCN was issued under the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003.  There is no time limit on responding to formal reps in this legislation as far as I can see. The Transport Management Act, which is used in London for parking contraventions, has a limit of 56 days to respond to formal reps against a Notice to Owner.

There is, of course, their common law duty to act promptly and fairly as an organisation given penal powers by Parliament.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2024, 01:52:49 pm »
They failed to produce any evidence in this case which I represented:

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 2230567864
Appellant Pavlos Varnavides
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM LM15EKY
PCN Details
PCN ZN09894620
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date
Decision Date 20 Feb 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
This appeal is listed for personal hearing later today.

The hearing will not now take place the council not providing its evidence there thus being no case for the appellant to answer.

The appeal is allowed.


****************

I have two more pending.  The legal argument is sound.

https://bit.ly/2ALghSS

Click on adjudications - key cases 149-161
« Last Edit: March 20, 2024, 02:01:01 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2024, 08:55:28 am »
Hi again, I've made representations exactly as per Incandescent's advice and am now awaiting a reply. May I ask what the statutory time for a response is. I remember when I went to tribunal before (again with the help of Pepipoo, that apart from my reps the adjudicator found in my favour because the council did not serve the rejection until a day after the statutory period, but I can't remember whether that was 21 or 28 days. ( I actually remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar! Thank you.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2024, 09:24:46 am »
There is no statutory time.  What did you write?
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2024, 04:56:06 pm »
Hi again,

[/quote]
There is no statutory time.  What did you write?

On 4th March:

I wrote: Dear Haringey Council

Ref: PCN ZN11391338                VRM  Redacted
                           

I make the following representations against the said PCN.

1. I bring a collateral challenge on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

2. I bring a further collateral challenge since the taken without consent ground clearly limits/fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner’s permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.

In light of the above the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully

Name (Registered keeper)
[/i]

I was getting all excited that I have yet to receive a response and that they would be out of time, but you say that there is no statutory time to receive the response to a formal appeal.

I'm confused, as I definitely remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar at my previous appeal and agreeing that as an additional reason to find in my favour. Mind you now that I think of it that was an appeal to a PCN affixed to my windscreen, does that make a difference, as that is classes as an informal appeal?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2024, 05:09:52 pm »
I'm confused, as I definitely remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar at my previous appeal and agreeing that as an additional reason to find in my favour. Mind you now that I think of it that was an appeal to a PCN affixed to my windscreen, does that make a difference, as that is classes as an informal appeal?

Different legislation.  I have 4 cases live re this wording issue at present and they have DNCed one due to this* Just post up their NOR and we take it from there. OK?

*

1. The Penalty Charge Notice wrongly states the council can serve a Charge Certificate 28 days from the date of the said notice.  I attach the two PCNs  for your convenience.
2. The council are fully aware of this as they have now fixed the issue.
3. I attach Case No. 2230567864  in which I represented Mr Parnavides.  In that case, the  legal argument was raised and the council did not adduce any evidence at all.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2024, 05:13:16 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Karma: +87/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2024, 01:15:52 am »
@Vike where the charge certificate period is mis-stated on the PCN, I don't think we've ever lost where the point has been properly argued.

As above please post up the notice of rejection when you get it.

In the meantime here are:

The Haringey (Moving Traffic Restrictions) (No.14) Experimental Order 2023
Map tiles.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 01:21:20 am by cp8759 »
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2024, 11:05:03 am »
One outstanding case is tomorrow.  So far, no evidence adduced by them.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152725&pid=1812189&mode=threaded&start=#entry1812189
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 11:07:10 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2024, 04:16:01 pm »
Won by default.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Like Like x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2024, 11:15:04 am »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2024, 01:42:02 pm »
The other two hearings pending are on 15th and 29th April. I have already looked into the crystal ball.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2024, 10:59:47 pm »
Hello everyone. I finally received the NOR yesterday, it having been dated 2nd April and received (served) 6th. April. So much for deemed to be served two days after posting.

I will copy and post the entire NOR tomorrow. Do I need to redact anything or is there anything else to be mindful of?

Many Thanks.

Vike

John U.K.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2024, 07:37:26 am »
Quote
Do I need to redact anything

Your name and address.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2024, 10:18:21 am »
I eagerly await their NOR. I suspect they are really trying this on under the circumstances - they have cancelled at least 3 now but at the Tribunal stage.  This really disgusts me.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"