Author Topic: Penalty charge notice - Brent Council - Contravention 31 - Yellow box Kingsbury Road/Berkeley Road junction  (Read 487 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Further, I argue that the PCN issued is unenforceable due to a misinterpretation of the "vehicle use without consent" clause. The current grounds limits this clause to theft cases only, as evidenced by the requirement for a police report or insurance claim. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not recognise other valid scenarios of unauthorised use, such as when a vehicle is used without the owner's consent by a friend or relative, in which case reporting to the police may not be relevant. The PCN's reliance on this incorrect understanding of “used without consent” makes it invalid in situations where the vehicle's use falls outside the strict definition of theft. Therefore, making this PCN unenforceable.

OR

I 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 or, indeed, make an insurance claim.

I would add this now so that they have to consider.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 01:20:44 pm by Hippocrates »
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 through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
At the time of the contravention..the person who was in charge of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without my consent - if the vehicle had been stolen...

This is not a limiting condition IMO, it's simply an example of a situation in which a vehicle might have been in another person's control i.e. stolen. The adjudication decision which is often cited to support this argument with exactly the same wording in play also included a specific reference by the authority in their NOR and IMO it was this in conjunction with the wording which caused the adjudicator to allow the appeal.

IMO, it's a weak appeal point.

IMO, a stronger one relates to the contravention itself and the criteria which the law applies:
Did the driver cause the vehicle to enter the YBJ; Yes.
Did the vehicle stop within the YBJ; Yes.
Were there any stationary vehicles immediately ahead of this vehicle, whether in the box or outside, when it stopped; NO.
Did moving vehicles ahead of the vehicle stop subsequent to the vehicle stopping; YES.
Is the contravention concerned in any way with what a vehicle does after stopping; no, unless the stop is so momentary as to bring it within the scope of de minimis.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 01:46:22 pm by H C Andersen »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
The point is to test their response - or lack of, as the case may be.
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 through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

minkd11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello everyone. I received a letter in the post and unfortunately the appeal was rejected.

I have attached the letter
« Last Edit: March 14, 2024, 12:35:46 pm by minkd11 »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Please show exactly what representations were made.
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 through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

minkd11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It is what Mr Chips drafted, plus I added this part, which you had suggested:

I also make a collateral challenge that the PCN is unenforceable because the second sentence in the paragraph under the photos - the one in parenthesis - mentions the date of service which contradicts the previous sentence concerning payment from the date of the notice. This creates confusion and ambiguity.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
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 through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4599
  • Karma: +107/-4
    • View Profile
@minkd11 I think there is a viable appeal here, but it's not a sure thing. Whatever you do, don't go for a tribunal hearing on a Thursday.

I'm not sure if Hippocrates is minded to represent you but I have some capacity at the moment.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

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

MrChips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to help, particularly with box junctions!
  • Location: Enfield
    • View Profile
Hi OP - I think today is the 28th and final day since your Notice of Rejection was served.  Are you minded to appeal to the tribunal?  If so, today's the last day you can do that as of right (late appeals are subject to the adjudicator's discretion and may be turned down).

Can you confirm what you would like to do (and/or if you've already submitted an appeal).