Author Topic: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)  (Read 319 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2023, 02:41:26 pm »
Also, good to get your input on if the error in their letter saying I supplied evidence for payment on 25 October (when in fact I did supply evidence for 26 OCtober) and PCN was issued on 26 October now means there is a very good chance of winning at tribunal? Of course next stage is NTO to lease co - then transfer liability to me and new NTO to me.
If they make a similar mistake at the formal notice of rejection stage, we might be able to exploit that.
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

taffer87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2023, 05:56:03 pm »
Also, good to get your input on if the error in their letter saying I supplied evidence for payment on 25 October (when in fact I did supply evidence for 26 OCtober) and PCN was issued on 26 October now means there is a very good chance of winning at tribunal? Of course next stage is NTO to lease co - then transfer liability to me and new NTO to me.
If they make a similar mistake at the formal notice of rejection stage, we might be able to exploit that.

ah that's a shame so their error in replying to informal reps doesn't really count for much?

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2023, 11:48:33 pm »
ah that's a shame so their error in replying to informal reps doesn't really count for much?
Well it counts for something, but mistakes in the formal rejection hold a lot more weight.
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

taffer87

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2023, 10:03:24 am »
So this is what it says today on the council website. previously it said the amount would go to 195 on 28 November but today (on 28 November) it just says the amount will increase to 195 very soon and please pay 65 now

Is this not some sort of procedural impropriety by the council giving false information as the next stage would be a NTO at 130 rather than 195?

Summary so far:

Date of contravention/PCN on windscreen: 26 October 2023
Informal reps made: 2 November 2023
Letter rejecting the informal challenge: 10 November 2023 - received on 13 November 2023
« Last Edit: November 28, 2023, 10:05:07 am by taffer87 »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Karma: +67/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth - windscreen PCN - code 12s - Cutcombe Road (A)
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2023, 12:13:18 am »
Is this not some sort of procedural impropriety by the council giving false information as the next stage would be a NTO at 130 rather than 195?
I would certainly make the argument. While it's not a procedural impropriety as defined by the regulations, it would appear to be a breach of the council's duty to act fairly.

After all someone who doesn't have the benefit of legal advice might see that, panic, pay the 65 and lose the right to take things further, so there is a risk of prejudice.
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