Free Traffic Legal Advice

The more defence points, the merrier?

Clearly not, your father has muddied the waters, created unnecessary confusion and caused himself alarm.

If you read the letter, it is absolutely clear:

'Please note, this[the FoI request] is dealt with as an entirely different matter to that of the PCN.'

So, his reps have set at least 2 hares running, maybe more, when all he's really interested in is the PCN hare's progress.

I will keep this in mind for next time :/

Okay so the appeal was rejected. I will get a picture of the response a bit later. But to sum it up they said that no pickup or drop-off was seen in the footage. Even though it is true, there is a valid reason. The Uber driver's map showed that location to be where to pick up the customer; however, when he pulled over and checked his phone, the passenger said they were coming out the station from the other side (of the block/ring road) so my dad moved to pick them up from there. He was only at the spot for about a minute, if even that. Of course, my dad cannot check the messages while he is driving so he had to stop to check. My dad wants to take it to tribunals. I have never done tribunals yet so I am learning as we go. Any advice?

Here is the link to the video sent by TFL:

Let's see their rejection pl.

Sorry, but your father is not helping himself.

Nowhere in the thread is it made clear that a pick-up did not occur, this only became evident from the video, your previous post and the NOR. As regards the NOR, 'the evidence you have provided [of a pre-booked pick-up etc.] is for a different location.'

I don't know what to make of this.

Does your father have evidence of a pre-booked pick-up at this time from the location in question? If so, pl post so we can assess its prospective evidential value at adjudication.

I don't know what an adjudicator would make of the evidence, I know that Uber-speak is not my first language and I'm certain it won't be theirs. If you decide to appeal, then don't presume knowledge, try to make it absolutely clear, as you did in your last post.

IMO, IF an adjudicator accepts that there was a pre-booked pick-up at the time, then your father's next hurdle is why did they stay in the bay when there was no-one on the kerb. Again, he'd need to explain the difference between hailing a cab, where the ride is at the kerbside, and Uber where the rider is given an approximate time. I'd try to personalise matters e.g. you're certain that the adjudicator would have booked a taxi for, say, a journey to an airport and would not have stood at the kerbside outside their house until the taxi arrived: this is not the order of events i.e. taxi arrives, passenger(s) appear from behind closed doors then load and go.

IMO, the bay is for the 'purpose' of picking up/setting down. Sometimes things don't go to plan, although in this case I would refer to the person who approaches the bay because how would your father know this was not his fare until that person got into the car in front. It's not a taxi rank(which has precedence protocols).

IMO, there are also procedural issues with the NOR, but for me fundamentally the issue is convincing an adjudicator that a pick-up had been arranged.