Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: concoj on December 22, 2023, 01:11:55 pm
-
:D :D :D :D
2x19=not 36!
-
Christmas present 🤣
-
:D :D :D :D
-
The council still owe the OP £2 ::)
-
>>“The Adjudicator can only make such an award if he is of the opinion that that party has acted
“frivolously or vexatiously” or that his “conduct” in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was “wholly
unreasonable”; or against the local authority, where it considers that the disputed decision was “wholly
unreasonable”<< bazinga😜🤭
-
Costs allowed. £38. 2240093336
-
Application submitted.
-
Well, that says it all. I think a costs application is in order since, this application not only demonstrates their total incompetence but also - and more importantly - the allegations that the representative had not followed due process and muddied the waters are wholly unreasonable. ;)
-
🤣😜🤭😂😝🏆💪🏼🥳🥳🥳🥇
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I wager that, when the submissions are read, something entirely similar may well be rehearsed. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji56.png) Hopefully, as their application cannot possibly satisfy any of the criteria for a review of the original decision. The adjudicator was entirely correct in everything he said - and so was the representative - re the inadmissibility of evidence. They did not even submit a Witness Statement. Enough for the time being.
-
“I am asking the head of enforcement of the authority to confirm that its officers are adequately trained to conduct proceedings before this Tribunal.“
Anthony Chan
Chief Adjudicator Environment and Traffic
😜 🤣
-
FYI courtesy of cp8759:
Case Reference: 2230422726
DANIEL BRAZIL
-v-
London Borough of Brent
(the Enforcement Authority)
Vehicle Registration Number: WO06 LME
Penalty Charge Notice(s): BT19307832
The Authority seeks a further review.
The issue at the review was whether an Appellant serving a Notice under Paragraph 7(3) of the
London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) can only do so by lodging the Notice via the
Tribunals’ portal.
One would expect the Authority to check the legislation before applying for a review. It would appear that it has not done so because it has not at any stage offered any submissions as to why the legislation requires it. Despite me pointing this out in the review decision, the Authority seeks a further review. Its reason is that it had not attended the hearing because it had not been asked to attend.
When parties receive notification that there will be a personal hearing, they decide whether to appear.
The Tribunal will not offer specific invitations.
I have already commented in my decision that the application was ill-conceived because the Authority has not identified any error on the adjudicator’s part. The application had not been dismissed summarily without a hearing simply because the Authority suggested that it would attend. I have therefore set the application down for a personal hearing, but the Authority’s case is that this is not good enough because it needed to be asked to attend. The second application is also baseless as a matter of law.
The application is refused.
I am asking the head of enforcement of the authority to confirm that its officers are adequately trained to conduct proceedings before this Tribunal.
Anthony Chan
Chief Adjudicator Environment and Traffic
-
What’s going on? Are they cukcuk?
Si, siempre estan y son.
-
Los documentos estan para los servicios! Crackers! I have tried to phone you but no answer. Do not worry.
-
What’s going on? Are they cukcuk?
-
@cp8759: They have asked for a review. ::)
-
Jajajajajajajajajajajajaja!
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MSOFajjoD5uMBIPFMfpN30YnVRBWRktr/view).
-
Encantado. By the way, for others, after the decision was made, I had a discussion with the adjudicator re the "20 metre rule". I said it was in the ether, and he said it was myth.
-
Maestro, well done! Congratulations
Thank you sooooo much
-
Won. No show. No WS. Final submissions:
1. Most of the photographic evidence provided by the council is of little or no evidential value. I mean: 99.9%.
2. There is no evidence as far as I can see which satisfies Para. 7(2) as provided at Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended).
3. The video provided to the Tribunal has been altered so as to provide moving images of the vehicle which do not tally with the video which both the appellant and I have viewed when accessing the case on the council’s website. The latter source clearly shows the vehicle going backwards and forwards.
-
No witness statement re camera. TMO not signed. 100% of all advanced signage are undated or open to conjecture. Last but not least, if they do not attend as it shows at present, should be straightforward. Tuesday is D-day. Also, when you log in to their portal, the video shows a car attempting to do a James Bond stunt. ;D
-
Game on.
-
OK, I have looked at the video again and reread everything. Failure to consider plus this is is so de minimis in any case. I would take this all the way and will pay half if I lose this for you! You can trust me on this because I have a reputation on both sites. PM sent with my details.
-
and the last one
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
sorry page 2 missing as I sent 3rd twice
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Is that it? Just two pages of the NOR? Total failure to consider unless there is another page which there must be. I will PM you as I say it is Tribunal time. If you agree.
-
Please kindly advise
-
hi ,
Post arrived
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dear Bromley
Ref: PCN VRM
I make these formal representations against the Enforcement Notice as follows:
1. I never received a PCN so that I was unable to submit an informal challenge.
2. I was travelling in the right hand lane and was presented with two signs, a blue one to require me to turn left, and a red one prohibiting me to turn right. Both these signs confused me particularly as they were both respectively placed on the opposite sides of the road to where one would expect them to be.
3. The alleged incursion is so de minimis as to be quite trivial under the circumstances.
4. The video footage does not show any previous warning signage such as the sign to diagram 958. Indeed, I did not even see the sign to diagram 959 as I was concentrating on the signage at the end of the right hand side of the road and the no turn right sign.
5. I further 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.
In view of the above please cancel the PCN and EN. Should you not agree to do so, I am quite prepared to take the matter to adjudication.
Yours faithfully
Name
Address
-
I do not know wha happened on that moment I was there, but now observing the footage I discovered a very narrow passage maybe under the limits. Why make the road so arrow doesn't make any sense.
And maybe too many signs saying the same but in a different way. One positive "blue left turn sign" plus one prohibitive "not right turn sign". Too much information to confuse drivers I guess
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I cannot access the video or images. I need the VRM: PM sent. You need to draft in your own words about the signage first.
I will do the rest and the FOIR. The latter submitted.
-
what should I tell them
-
Then get on with it.
-
I havent challenge anything yet
-
Submit again your original challenge and my advice above re the taken without consent ground. 6th January is the absolute deadline.
I further 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.
Also, I would make an immediate FOIR to Bromley for the name and model of the camera used to capture images at this very bus lane.
Cavide.James@bromley.gov.uk
Dear C. James
Please may I have replies to the following:
1. The name and make and model of the camera used to capture bus lane contraventions at Mitchell Way?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely
Name
Address
-
Hi guys,
thank you so much for your help Incandesce & Hipocrates...
I uploaded all the information I received from them as you requested but unfortunately I got lost with last messages and I don not how to proceed.
Could you please help me as I want to send something to stop them with any process agains me
many thanks
-
The last ground clearly fetters/limits to theft.
I further 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.
If you want me to be really pedantic, you could also add that the Enforcement Notice does not include the ground that the Police are taking action; but, the legislation is an ass as this ground is not mandated to appear on either the PCN or EN.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/9/enacted
-
Sure thing
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I see only page 1.
Ah, right !
OP, can you please post-up all sides of the Enforcement Notice
-
I see only page 1.
-
thanks incas.
Anything about the 1st missing letter. Should I had been given a chance to pay the pcn for £65 and not rigth away the humungous £130?
No PCNs?
OP seems to have only received the Enforcement Notice, and he posted this.
-
thanks incas.
Anything about the 1st missing letter. Should I had been given a chance to pay the pcn for £65 and not rigth away the humungous £130?
No PCNs?
-
thanks incas.
Anything about the 1st missing letter. Should I had been given a chance to pay the pcn for £65 and not rigth away the humungous £130?
Yes, submit representations stating you found the layout and signage confusing, but was surprised to not receive the original PCN, so have been denied the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate. Request that they re-offer it.
-
thanks incas.
Anything about the 1st missing letter. Should I had been given a chance to pay the pcn for £65 and not rigth away the humungous £130?
-
We've seen this one before ! Looking at GSV, there have been a few minor signage changes, but where you got the idea of it needing red tarmac, I don't know ! There's nothing like that in the regulations.
If you do a search of the London Tribunals statutory register on Mitchell Way from 1st Jan 2021, there have been 21 adjudications, most of them unsuccessful. There was an issue with camera approvals until quite recently but I think that has now been dealt with. I'm afraid the likelihood of a successful appeal is low, in my opinion.
-
PLease help
Contravention code 34J
I never got the PCN notice for £65 instead I have been served with a £130 pcn notice.
Im so stupid and don't know why I didn't check that
Too many signs? or maybe red pavement bus lane missing? I don't know
Perhaps nothing we can do or maybe is a chance to fight as the first letter never arrived or posted?
I sound desperate, I know... two penalties just before Christmas isn't good news
Thank you to every one in here for your time and expertise.
https://parking.bromley.gov.uk/live-3sc-user/viewimage.aspx?000234eu8rHg/oWc2JJ6TgbcO6fAgFrLsdKeXaJB0k51Q2ZKu57uun2FbZkKqnOz1hS/I/hcu2Co5H5iJ+fciHQPmifw==
https://parking.bromley.gov.uk/live-3sc-user/viewVideo.aspx?000101bqiHfe3ItLIOgXp30/phb0EIz5AJecb1Sv0sW5Du5SoQ2vWR63XzRAEnVZ2kPG66/AfpzLvqoaDjAewmFDInIw==
[attachment deleted by admin]