Author Topic: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention  (Read 221 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 515
  • Karma: +15/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2024, 08:43:52 am »
IMO, you travelling this road regularly and the council knowing the road = both you and they are starting from the wrong point as regards the adjudicator because they don't know 'Valley Road(North)' from a hole in the head!

I suggest that you set a clear and concise context.

On *** my car was recorded as heading ***(N/S/E/W) in Valley Road between *** and ****(names of roads). I can see that based solely upon the council's CCTV and photos the presence of 'motor vehicles prohibited' signs which give effect to traffic travelling in the opposite direction it would appear that my car was in a length of road where it should not have been.

I entered this length of road by (turning left/right/going straight on) at its junction with ***(road(s)). I did not see any prohibition signs in my direction and I dispute that such signs were in situ.

Would this capture the essence for the adjudicator and allow your evidence to continue with your photos etc?

MissO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2024, 08:54:32 am »
Yes as you stated I have to rightly assume the adjudicator has no knowledge of Valley road and this is a good start to paint the picture. Iíll add some extras I believe are relevant too

Thanks once again

John U.K.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2024, 09:38:12 am »
Quote
Funny enough I passed Valley Road yesterday and if you see the pretty signs that have now been put up, good job I had gone before as the evidence looks very different!!

Evidence that the Council itself considered the signage inadequate.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +78/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2024, 09:39:18 am »
Do not send anything yet, and don't worry about the silly 3 day thing, that's just a templated letter. In practice if you get the evidence that late you'll just call the tribunal and postpone the hearing. As an appellant you get up to two hearings with no questions asked, as long as you call the tribunal before the day of the hearing, and you can use each reschedule to postpone the case by up to 28 days.

Take full advantage of that and do not do anything until you have the council evidence, and once you have it do not let the council rush you either.
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 am not a lawyer.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2024, 12:43:42 pm »
Quote
Funny enough I passed Valley Road yesterday and if you see the pretty signs that have now been put up, good job I had gone before as the evidence looks very different!!

Evidence that the Council itself considered the signage inadequate.
I would make an immediate FOIR to ascertain when the job number was created and when the works were completed - and why???

I think I am doing this case as I am there anyway.  I am!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2024, 10:32:51 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.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2024, 10:44:48 am »
FOIR sent. My gut feeling is to ask for an adjournment pending their reply.
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"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +78/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2024, 11:15:40 pm »
FOIR sent. My gut feeling is to ask for an adjournment pending their reply.
I wouldn't waste an adjournment until we know they're going to contest.
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 am not a lawyer.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Rejected appeal by Lambeth 52m contravention
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2024, 12:31:06 pm »
FOIR sent. My gut feeling is to ask for an adjournment pending their reply.
I wouldn't waste an adjournment until we know they're going to contest.

They are.  Saw the file a week ago.
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"