Free Traffic Legal Advice

Not my finest hour: : 2240155637

I had applied for a second review and was politely advised of the next step.* Nevertheless. please see para. 12 of the review decision:

12. I have carefully considered the PCN sent to the Appellant. The section of the PCN from page 3 onwards, under the heading “How to Challenge” appears to be a template that the Authority must attach to both its PCNs and NtOs, which is why it refers to both Notices.

My application against this decision:

Dear Sirs

I wish to include an addendum to my application below:

1. For the avoidance of any doubt, the application is for a review of the review decision .Whilst  I note the second review adjudicator’s comments regarding advanced warning signage, 9. There was a warning sign present on the right-hand side of the Leahurst Road. In my view, considering the position and the colour of the sign, it would be likely to be clearly and adequately visible to motorists. In any event, there is no requirement for warning signage to be in place and the sign that I must consider is the restriction sign itself, which I find to be adequate. This signage was not clearly and adequately visible to my client.  Furthermore, it is grossly unfair that the advanced signage at Longhurst  Road (wrongly ascribed to Leahurst Road) is larger and more visible therefore.
2. I should just wish to elaborate ground 3 further in that, should the decision stand, the Tribunal may as well draft an appeal form to contain the two statutory schemes. Of course, this would be absurd as is also a council sending out the incorrect appeal form to an appellant, on which issue appeals are often allowed.

Yours faithfully



****



Dear Sirs

I make this application for a second review of the decision made by Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic in the interests of justice.

Grounds

1. At paragraph 12 she said this:  I have carefully considered the PCN sent to the Appellant. The section of the PCN from page 3 onwards, under the heading “How to Challenge” appears to be a template that the Authority must attach to both its PCNs and NtOs, which is why it refers to both Notices. (My bold). I refer to the said “PCN/Notice to Owner” as attached. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, this statement is Wednesbury unreasonable as no other adjudicator could possible state the same. Clearly, this statement has influenced the rest of her decision with regard to the issue in question.
2. She further states: Nevertheless, as a whole, I find that the PCN complies with the requirements of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Should she be referring to the  Hackney Drivers case as attached, the phrase “as a whole” is irrelevant since the information on the document is plainly wrong. Similarly, this statement is also wrong, therefore:@ para. 13. On the facts of this case I find that the PCN was substantially compliant.
3. Should this decision  stand, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask this honourable Tribunal to amend its website and clearly state that a PCN in one legislation can act as another document pertaining to a Statutory Instrument which refers to an entirely separate legislation. This is a clear conflation of two entirely separate entities.
4. Regarding this statement @ 5:  A review application may only be granted in limited cases, one of those is where the interests of justice require it. Reading Adjudicator Brennan’s decision, in the context of the decision, my view is that the reference to Longhurst Road is a typo, and that she intended to refer to Leahurst Road. Nevertheless, considering this error, I will grant this review request in the interests of justice. My only comment is: was this a typo or an error? I really fail to understand her reasoning.

In light of the above, I ask for a review and personal hearing please.

Yours faithfully

***

P.S.: The PCN had already been paid as I said at the hearing.

*********************
*
Thank you for your recent correspondence.

Our records show that the appeal was refused by the Adjudicator Ms Brennan on 13 May 2024. The application for review was rejected by the Adjudicator Ms Fantinic on 11 June 2024.

Two independent adjudicators having found you liable for the penalty, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is complete.

Should you wish to contest the matter further your remedy now rests in an application to the High Court for the judicial review of the decision that you seek to challenge. You may wish to take your own legal advice on this process.

The information on the procedure can be found on a link on our website.

Therefore, please visit our website for further details; https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/your-questions-answered -

How can I challenge the outcome of my appeal and select link “The Court Service website”.

Yours sincerely

Case Management Team

******

Original application for a review of the original decision:

Dear Sirs
 
Under Section 11 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, I make this application for a review of Madame Adjudicator Teresa Brennan’s decision as follows.
 
The Adjudicator is wrong when she said this:  I find that a driver proceeding in Longhurst Road would be able to see the sign as they approach. I clearly and unequivocally said at the hearing that my client came down Leahurst Road.  Furthermore, I clearly raised the issue that their photographic evidence of warning signage indicating a no right hand turn incorrectly referred to Leahurst Road.
 
The Adjudicator also said this: At the hearing today for the first time Mr Morgan argued that liability should not have been transferred to Ms Petkoff and that therefore the appellant was not liable for the Penalty Charge Notice as the agreement did not provide a sufficient degree of permanence for Ms Petkoff to be the keeper of the vehicle for the duration of the lease. I never said any of this:  I simply stated that the council had not provided a copy of the agreement and that the Adjudicator had made decisions on this point.

The Adjudicator has failed to apprehend my argument concerning the hybrid nature of the PCN/NtO which is that it was entirely reasonable to ask why the grounds of  Notice to Owner were not present as they included the large passage pertaining to 56 days etc.

I am entitled to make a new point at a hearing and the Adjudicator is also entitled to adjourn the matter accordingly. She refused to do so.  I have observed a hearing before the Chief Adjudicator in which Mr Dishman was the representative some months ago - he made verbal submissions re a map as I recall - and, indeed, I have represented a motorist very recently in which he made written submissions ca 7 days before the hearing and the Adjudicator quite properly adjourned the hearing and his decision to give the council (Islington) an opportunity to respond (Mr Adjudicator Edward Houghton).

I note Miss Brennan’s comments about lay representatives and I fail to understand why we are treated differently from appellants as we are not legally qualified and simply help people in the fight for justice.
 
In light of the above, I ask for a review and a personal hearing.