Author Topic: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive  (Read 2181 times)

0 Members and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #15 on: »
Just keep an account of all this stuff. If and when I get back from Kos(lost passport) I will be in touch. Actually, I almost forgot the internet too.
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


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"

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #16 on: »
Just keep an account of all this stuff. If and when I get back from Kos(lost passport) I will be in touch. Actually, I almost forgot the internet too.

Will do Hippocrates. Lost passport a pain. You forgot the world wide interweb???  ;)

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #17 on: »
No great surprise, I have received a NoR

It disputes only the contention that the sign was covered by foliage - admittedly a weak point - but even then alludes to the signage being clear, not to whether the clear signage was in fact obscured by foliage. What it signally does NOT address is the point about the Lambeth website being inconsistent with the PCN itself. This was the wording of my challenge, left unaddressed:

Quote
3. I am making a collateral challenge on the grounds that the penalty charge discount amount date as published
on Lambeth’s website does not coincide with the 14 day period on the PCN itself. The PCN states:
“If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% to £80.” The end of the 14 day period would thus be 11
June.
Yet on your website [extract taken today 10 June] it states:
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Tue, 17 Jun 2025. Please pay £80.00
now.
Moreover, the website gives the date of issue of the PCN as 18 May (which is when the CCTV was recorded)
while the PCN itself bears the date 29 May. Taken together this is all clearly misleading. I refer you to a recent
case decided at the London Tribunal [224036272 decided 15 October 2024] on similar grounds i.e. where
Lambeth’s website was inconsistent with the information given on the PCN. The adjudicator Mr Houghton said:
“In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing
information regarding payment dates……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.”

I have been back onto the Lambeth website and it is now telling me that the penalty will go up to £240 on 19 July, i.e. it anticipates that I will not pay at the reoffered discount rate within 14 days and then assumes that a Charge Certificate will be issued, whereas the NoR itself says :"You can pay £160 if you miss the discount period. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will close the case". Date of letter Tuesday 1 July, deemed serve 3 July, plus 14 days for the reoffered discount gets us to 17 July or payment in full by 31 July. So where does the seemingly definitive issue of a CC on 19 July fit into that timetable? I am minded to appeal to LT shortly after 19 July and then complain that they are threatening/seeking to issue a CC while an appeal is in progress, even if they do not actually issue it. This was the very point that adjudicator Houghton ruled on in my favour in the Rectory Grove 52M case last year.

Screenshot taken today (it's come out a bit small but the key message in the box is "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £240.00 on Sat, 19 Jul 2025. Please pay £80.00 now.") plus previous Lambeth website screenshot and also NoR:

https://imgur.com/a/xww7pMm
« Last Edit: July 04, 2025, 03:25:46 pm by Chaseman »

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #18 on: »
You know what my advice will be!
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


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"

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #19 on: »
To be filed.
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


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"

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #20 on: »
Appeal filed with LT. Hearing scheduled for the end of October!

Latest on the Lambeth website:



Tells me that the fine will increase to £240 "very soon" and that I should pay £160 now. It previously said that it would go up to £240 on 19 July - which has been mysteriously forgotten!

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #21 on: »
Any update to this?

Re: Lambeth 52M Windmill Drive
« Reply #22 on: »
Nope. Rescheduled to next year.
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


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"