Free Traffic Legal Advice

> Please: your formal reps.

Is that a request from me? I.e what was my formal representation?

[/i]
If you post a copy of reps we can see how well the authority considered them.

https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic

The only grounds they provide on the home page are for parking contraventions as per the Tribunal website.

If your representation is rejected, you can make an appeal which will go to an adjudication service.

An application form to make an appeal is enclosed with your rejection letter. You can also make your appeal online or by post.

Appeals are made through London Tribunals. See the London Tribunals website for information on:

grounds for appealExternal link  https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-parking
preparing your appealExternal link
the appeals processExternal link
Appeal online through the London Tribunals website

I would take up cp8759's offer.

Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not. Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown. Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !

Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not. Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown. Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !

@cp8759 @Incandescent An argument for a panel decision? I have recently uploaded their very same page in Case No 2240415738 for a member and they have DNCed yesterday. Another is looming so let's see what happens.

I liken it all to a game of Scrabble.

Quote from: Hippocrates on November 27, 2024, 11:06:45 am

Quote from: Incandescent on November 27, 2024, 01:19:37 am

Pretty poor adjudicator logic. Has this adjudicator not heard of the well-established principle of de minimis ? It seems not. Useless as an adjudicator IMHO, there is clear bias shown. Apparently an authority can now put what they like on their web pages provided the statutory grounds are on the PCN. Tosh !

@cp8759 @Incandescent An argument for a panel decision? I have recently uploaded their very same page in Case No 2240415738 for a member and they have DNCed yesterday. Another is looming so let's see what happens.

I liken it all to a game of Scrabble.

When there are totally, even wildly different adjudications, for identical circumstances, something is obviously wrong.

Hence my signature details. Best to be proactive.

It's still possible to request a review.

IMO, the adjudicator was wrong in their anlysis and summary of what THIS PCN states i.e. the evidence in THIS case. Not a dozen others with similar(how so and how similar??) facts, but this one alone.


The PCN states that if the owner believes that one or more of the grounds listed applies then they may make reps. This is what it states. Therefore these are qualifying conditions for making reps and aligns with the adjudicator's skewed reasoning that these act as conditions as well as grounds and that only if the owner meets one or more of these conditions may they make reps.

I cannot see any other wholly objective conclusion.

This is tosh.

But moving on, the PCN next offers the owner the option of making reps online or 'completing the form below'. But the form below REQUIRES one or more boxes to be 'ticked' whereas online doesn't (a tad difficult as it doesn't list any grounds). Therefore an owner could not as a matter of practical reality elect which grounds apply to their reps if they chose to make these online.

So, the regulatory notice requires grounds to be selected and online doesn't offer any grounds let alone the option to select them. And what turmoil would this create in the mind of a motorist?

Even worse, if they decided to abandon the online option they could find themselves b******d if they had to rely on the postal option unless enough time remained. There is no requirement for an owner to recce online in advance of choosing their preferred method and if they went online and abandoned this for want of being able to comply with the strict requirements of the statutory notice they could find themselves timed out.

IMO, these disparities were NOT considered by the adjudicator whose decision could therefore be faulted and challenged.

But IMO any further challenge MUST focus on what this PCN states and not simply use a general Opportunity Knocks 'Clapometer' approach that more adjudicators than not disagree with this adjudicator's reasoning and application of the law.

This PCN, these facts. IMO.