Author Topic: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake  (Read 4289 times)

0 Members and 472 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #45 on: »
If there isn't evidence to support you being regarded as the 'owner' then the appeal must be allowed IMO because the default position is that the registered keeper is to be regarded as the 'owner'. 

Reg. 6 covers the point:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #46 on: »
They do have a letter from VWFS..

Here is the redacted full evidence pack.. hope this helps.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o47rcaeqn91rexndk8gn4/Evidence-bundle_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=nbq129efciuz8prcn45m2zwjf&st=w6cgo5lw&dl=0

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #47 on: »

They do have a letter from VWFS..

...despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law parties are not grasping[the transfer of liability mandatory] provisions.


I gave you the link to the 'restrictive statutory provisions'.

The letter from VWFS does NOT meet these IMO.

Where's the hire agreement, where's your signed statement(at the time of hiring) as regards this type of liability??

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #48 on: »

They do have a letter from VWFS..

...despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law parties are not grasping[the transfer of liability mandatory] provisions.


I gave you the link to the 'restrictive statutory provisions'.

The letter from VWFS does NOT meet these IMO.

Where's the hire agreement, where's your signed statement(at the time of hiring) as regards this type of liability??

Yes, agreed I have actually won a PCN last year on this very basis where Anthony chan was the adjudicator BUT other adjudicators don't always agree with this one so this one is a bit of a hit or a miss. With the right adjudicator this is a winning point inc. the chief adjudicator.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #49 on: »

They do have a letter from VWFS..

...despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law parties are not grasping[the transfer of liability mandatory] provisions.


I gave you the link to the 'restrictive statutory provisions'.

The letter from VWFS does NOT meet these IMO.

Where's the hire agreement, where's your signed statement(at the time of hiring) as regards this type of liability??

Isn't the missing notice of acceptance to VWFS in the evidence pack the key point? Which means they can't issue another NTO.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #50 on: »
Read my extract again.

Transfer of liability
I have reported last year on issues concerning the transfer of liability when the registered keeper of a hired vehicle seeks to transfer of liability to the hirers.
Adjudicators have found that despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law,


Frankly I don't see how any adjudicator may not apply the law.

And..the report was to London Councils, the tribunal's and therefore the adjudicators' employers. Which adjudicator wants to throw themselves under a TfL bus by not applying the law and also undermine the Chief Adjudicator's report by taking a contrary position?

Of course it's possible that a hearing might be adjourned for the authority to provide this, but frankly given that one of the principles of the tribunal is efficiency why should they? The authority knows full well what's required, so include it? 

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #51 on: »
@taffer87 you have a slam-dunk case on the transfer of liability, as there is no lease agreement and no notice of acceptance to VWFS. Without that notice of acceptance, there was no statutory power to serve an NTO on you because only the cancellation of a previous NTO gives the council a power to serve a further NTO on another person.

Have a look at the cases here that come up when you search "EA failed to prove cancellation of previous PCN in chain", "EA must follow correct procedure to transfer liability", "EA must procedure evidence to transfer liability" and "no copy of purported lease agreement in evidence", all the legal arguments you need to make are there.

I believe most of those cases are for moving traffic so you might need to go through the parking legislation to find the equivalent provisions, but the substance is exactly the same.

Also how good are you at spot the difference? The back of the PCN in the evidence pack is not a perfect copy of the PCN served on you, the first difference I found was that your copy has a "PayPoint Outlet or Post Office" option but the filed copy does not, I suspect there will be more discrepancies. Have a look at rows 771 to 800 of the above spreadsheet for cases on this point.

This is one of those cases that is virtually impossible to lose if it's argued correctly.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #52 on: »
@taffer87 you have a slam-dunk case on the transfer of liability, as there is no lease agreement and no notice of acceptance to VWFS. Without that notice of acceptance, there was no statutory power to serve an NTO on you because only the cancellation of a previous NTO gives the council a power to serve a further NTO on another person.

Have a look at the cases here that come up when you search "EA failed to prove cancellation of previous PCN in chain", "EA must follow correct procedure to transfer liability", "EA must procedure evidence to transfer liability" and "no copy of purported lease agreement in evidence", all the legal arguments you need to make are there.

I believe most of those cases are for moving traffic so you might need to go through the parking legislation to find the equivalent provisions, but the substance is exactly the same.

Also how good are you at spot the difference? The back of the PCN in the evidence pack is not a perfect copy of the PCN served on you, the first difference I found was that your copy has a "PayPoint Outlet or Post Office" option but the filed copy does not, I suspect there will be more discrepancies. Have a look at rows 771 to 800 of the above spreadsheet for cases on this point.

This is one of those cases that is virtually impossible to lose if it's argued correctly.

Hi thank you, that's perfect.

I did spot the Paypoint difference but not others, will include that too.

Thanks everyone for the help.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #53 on: »
Quote
Hi thank you, that's perfect.

I did spot the Paypoint difference but not others, will include that too.

Thanks everyone for the help.

Post yr revised draft here for comment before submitting.  Date of hearing?

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #54 on: »
27 November - will draft something this weekend and share. I will aim to upload to the Tribunal website by 20 November

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #55 on: »
@cp87859
@H C Andersen
@John U.K.

please see the draft tribunal appeal here - any input would be greatly appreciated over the next day and then I shall submit by end of tomorrow ideally or, at the latest Wednesday.

Thank you in advance.

Regards

https://we.tl/t-0MvETliFxU

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #56 on: »
@cp8759 tagging correct username now - please see above link for draft appeal to tribunal

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #57 on: »
Include in point 3 or 4 the paragraphs from the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report - Reply#40 above.


Style point - where you repeat each point from page 1 in the main body of the text embolden and perhaps also underline it it to make fast reading by the Adj easier,

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #58 on: »
Sorry OP, it's asking me to sign in.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake
« Reply #59 on: »
Remove the references to collateral challenges, the ground of procedural impropriety is a statutory ground of appeal in its own right, so there is no need to refer to collateral challenges.

From a quick skim your draft looks fine.

Don't forget the adjudicator cannot look up any TPT cases, so you'll have to download the non-London cases and upload them to the tribunal portal as items of evidence.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

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