Free Traffic Legal Advice

Well they've failed to consider all the evidence as they haven't watched the video, which still has a count view of zero:



Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal? I think we have them dead to rights.

Well they've failed to consider all the evidence as they haven't watched the video, which still has a count view of zero:



Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal? I think we have them dead to rights.

yes, please!

Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ? I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major omission, surely ?

Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ? I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major omission, surely ?

I don't really agree with that. It very much opens the door for the fact that if highly relevant / contentious evidence is provided by means of a link and it's not considered, that could be a procedural impropriety.

What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.

Quote from: Incandescent on November 01, 2023, 06:30:37 pm

Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ? I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major omission, surely ?

I don't really agree with that. It very much opens the door for the fact that if highly relevant / contentious evidence is provided by means of a link and it's not considered, that could be a procedural impropriety.

What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.

What’s wrong with that? I cannot use cash if I don’t carry it around

Well, I would think that argument is demolished the moment I step out of the car without paying, despite the number of payment options available and despite the fact they could all be ‘not working’

This makes me think: what if (hypothetically) all machines accepting coins were not working (or saying "parking is free"), the pay-by-phone wasn't working, but the app was. Would you be expected to try all available options until you find one that works? Would it be reasonable to expect an elderly person to have to download an app?
What if none of the three options worked? Could you be excused to park there without paying or would you have to move the car anyway?

The decision makes no mention whatsoever of the app saying parking was free at a time when when it wasn't, which I think is a very important point that the adjudicator ought to have ruled on. Fundamentally, the council can't trick people into not paying by saying it's free, and then issue a PCN.

If the view count on the video is still zero then neither the adjudicator or the council has viewed crucial evidence that shows they did this, which I believe meets the (rather high) bar for asking for a review of the adjudicator's decision.

A carefully crafted request for a review on the grounds that the adjudicator erred in law by dismissing the video as "irrelevant or unnecessary evidence" without viewing it, when in fact it proves the argument made for promissory estoppel (that's legalese for going back on a promise) might work, especially if all you ask the Chief Adjudicator to do is to very narrowly consider and rule on the single unadressed issue of the video demonstrating promisory estoppel. Arguing that the interests of justice cannot have been served if someone presents evidence they claim proves their innocence and both council and adjudicator dismiss that evidence it without even looking at seems a strong grounds for review to me, and I think the Chief Adjudicator would have a hard time justifying a response of 'I'm going to dismiss it without looking at it too'.