Author Topic: Kingston Borough Council 31J Stopping in a box junction (Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)  (Read 280 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly 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.
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.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
This should be rather straightforward.
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.

"Hippocrates"

taffer87

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly 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.

are there any tribunal cases on this as would be useful

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Egenti v Islington but they messed up in their NOR.  Tis above. There may be another one forthcoming soon........
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.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Manju Lukhman v London Borough of Redbridge Case No. 2230099245
 
I have however recorded the appeal as allowed on the basis of insufficient
evidence. The clip shows the appellant stopped within the box but it does
not show the appellant car at the point of entry and actually entering it. It is
important in the correct assessment of an appeal of this nature that the
adjudicator can assess what traffic flow and conditions are present at the
actual time the car enters the box and in this case the shortage of the clip
prevents this.
 
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Greenwich 2230539604
 
In this case the CCTV footage that I have been provided with, and
uploaded onto the Tribunal computer system by the Authority,
commences with the Appellant's vehicle already in the box junction at
08:14:26.
It is crucial in determining any box junction contravention that the
Adjudicator is able to see the actual entry of a motorist's vehicle into the
box junction and the state of the exit.
Without such evidence a proper and fair determination is not possible.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

********

Courtesy of cp's brilliant repository.
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.

"Hippocrates"

taffer87

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Egenti v Islington but they messed up in their NOR.  Tis above. There may be another one forthcoming soon........

Thanks yes saw that one but they really messed up in the NOR.

Would be good to get a tribunal case win on the TWOC fetters to theft point based on this sort of wording.. as should be relevant for a lot of councils

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Not many people have used the argument as of yet/more recently except you know who.  ;)
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.

"Hippocrates"