Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: dave-o on October 21, 2024, 09:49:54 am
-
To whom was the NOR addressed?
If the keeper, then what in what you've submitted informs the tribunal that you have the keeper's permission to act on their behalf?
I'm not sure why they would think otherwise, as it wasn't formally signed by anyone. Name, Address VRM, PCN no. included on the appeal to identify the case. No name stated on the actual email.
-
To whom was the NOR addressed?
If the keeper, then what in what you've submitted informs the tribunal that you have the keeper's permission to act on their behalf?
-
Tribunal:
Their instructions (by telephone):
- Send it to queries@londontribunals.org.uk
- Mark it "urgent"
- Include a copy of the NOR and an outline of the appeal
(all of this was done)
Received so far:
Automatic Response
Thank you for contacting London Tribunals.
If your email is in relation to a personal appeal hearing scheduled to take place in the next 2/3 days, please contact our call centre during opening hours on 020 7520 7200.
London Tribunals is committed to taking action to ensure that the way we work does not place people with disabilities at a disadvantage. If you have any concerns about your requirements during the appeals process, we may be able to make reasonable adjustments to mitigate those concerns. More information on reasonable adjustments and how to contact us about them can be found on our website: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/reasonable-adjustments-tribunal-users.
If you wish to submit evidence in support of an appeal that you made via our website, please go to www.londontribunals.gov.uk and upload your evidence through the 'Online Appeals' option.
If you do not have an appeal, or you did not appeal via the website, correspondence can be sent to London Tribunals, PO Box 10598, Nottingham, NG6 6DR or to this email address.
Details of our opening hours are on our website at www.londontribunals.gov.uk. Please have your case reference number to hand when you call.
If your email is in relation to an appeal already registered with us or a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement that has been referred to us by the Enforcement Authority, it will be added to your case for consideration.
If you wish to register an appeal, please note that the quickest way to do this is through our website www.londontribunals.gov.uk or to complete the Notice of Appeal form. Please only submit your appeal once, either electronically or by post.
*Please note: TFL do not currently support our online website therefore, please sent all correspondence via our postal address
The Notice of Appeal form should have accompanied the Notice of Rejection sent to you by the Enforcement Authority. You can send the form to us by post (details are contained on the form). If you did not receive a Notice of appeal form, please contact the Enforcement Authority directly to request a copy.
Further information about London Tribunals and the appeals process is available on our website: www.londontribunals.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
London Tribunals
n.b. re "If you did not receive a Notice of appeal form, please contact the Enforcement Authority directly to request a copy." their phone number tells you to get lost, and they have not yet replied to the email, so this doesn't work.
-
I think you're good to go on this.
What exactly did the tribunal say?
What did you send?
What acknowledgement did you get?
-
IMO, the keeper may not engage the TEC procedure because a NOR has been issued, it's just deficient in some details. The fact that the tribunal has been contacted bears witness to the fact that it was received.
And how about this ground?:
You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the enforcement authority of your representations but had no response to the appeal
If the email rep is taken to have been received (as per their instructions) and yet the enforcement process continues, is this not a valid ground?
At the moment it's a choice between paying a completely winnable and completely cynically-administrated (on the part of the council) fine or not.
-
If the tribunal are happy to step outside procedure, fine, just go with it.
All that's needed now is the case no.
The appellant can add further details even up to the date of the hearing.
IMO, the keeper may not engage the TEC procedure because a NOR has been issued, it's just deficient in some details. The fact that the tribunal has been contacted bears witness to the fact that it was received.
-
Thanks, I would certainly do this if it were me, but he may well be sick of this after a year of being on hold to the TEC...!
For what it's worth I do appreciate that normally the most likely explanation would be that he lost the form. However he is quite elderly but an old skool financial advisor, and he meticulously files literally everything, even the envelopes they arrive in.
-
Don't pay. I'm pretty certain you've done enough to register the appeal and one of the grounds for a witness statement is:
You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the enforcement authority of your representations but had no response to the appeal
-
You should also email the council and say they didn't send the appeal details.
I did so yesterday. Harrow are absolute disorganised gits though, and it's in their interest to delay until Friday, so I'm not holding out much hope.
I'm wondering if we can go through the whole stat dec procedure again, claiming no NOR was received (actually, not a complete NOR in this case). This seems pretty sketchy though.
As it is he will probably just have to pay tomorrow if neither organisation gets back to us. This really sticks in the craw after all they've put him through ad that it was the council's mistake.
-
You should also email the council and say they didn't send the appeal details.
-
I am well aware of what we need to do, however none of this is actually possible in the situation.
As stated, no form was received. It is not possible to continue the online form without an "appeal verification code". There is no (as far as I can find) copy of the postal form that can be downloaded anywhere. You seem to be implying there is some way other than the above dead ends in which to register an appeal? What would that be?
On the phone, the tribunal has suggested sending an email marked "urgent" to them, with an outline of the appeal. This has been done but no response received other than a confirmation of receipt.
The council is a dead end as the PCN line states "Email us, and don't bother trying any other of the phone lines as we won't talk to you"
-
Submit what?
You need a form, whether theirs online or the one missing from the NOR. There are some specific fields which have to be completed.
-
Thank you, they have suggested I submit to their email address (London Tribunals, that is). Is that what you meant by "register the appeal"?
-
Am I missing something?
Yes, the accompanying form.
Speak to the tribunal tomorrow (I see stamfordman has already advised this). They have a direct line to authorities.
The 28-day period ends on 12th, but once you've made contact they'll extend.
Have you read the NOR and compared with the regs? The NOR itself is a guaranteed win IMO under PI because it omits mandatory reference to the issue of costs and, ironically the adjudicator's power to register an appeal late!
So:
Failure to comply with their public law duty to act fairly;
Failure to comply with Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance;
Failure to comply with the 'Appeals' regulations.
-
The full NOR is in reply #10
-
Call the tribunal and ask them what you are supposed to do.
020 7520 7200 - open til 5pm.
Have you posted the full rejection letter from Harrow.
I expect they'll say sort it out with Harrow.
-
Yes I'm not the keeper, I am helping him. I have written permission.
The website doesn't allow an appeal to be registered without the appeal code:
(https://i.ibb.co/3fB7HyD/tribunal.jpg)
And there was no tribunal document attached with the NOR, so I can't see how this can be done by post. Am I missing something?
-
Register the appeal, this does not require a full argument. Pl ensure it is registered. Grounds PI and whatever else is suggested.
The keeper will be given a Case No. and can view the authority's case and submit 'further representations' at any time up to their hearing.
Get the appeal registered pl.
NB. * I've couched the above in these terms because earlier you posted that you were not the keeper. If this is correct then make sure the keeper registers the appeal. You may act on their behalf if you have written permission which you'd need to present to the tribunal.
-
Are there any tips on what to do when there is only a day or two left in which to submit an appeal to the adjudicator, but the keeper says they do not have an appeal verification code, as the document was not included with the NOR?
Thanks
-
I'd very much appreciate any feedback, particularly on whether the 12+ month wait for the OfR is a "silver bullet" and also on the wording/likelihood of costs.
-
I'm keen to start drafting the adjudicator appeal. A few questions:
1) The unreasonable timescales. Shal I keep this roughly the same as the formal reps as suggested by HCA earlier? I have made the suggested FOI but they have 20 working days to reply, and I am sure they will leave it until the last minute as they did with my previous one. Is it not the case that council parking departments can be assumed to have received the SOS's guidelines?
2) We have "before and after" pictures for the repainting, with the "before" pictures showing these as very worn. The FOI request was pretty useless as in the formal response they stated "A work order was raised by one of the Highway Inspector" as the reason for repainting. I did later receive a reply stating "the lining works were ordered as part of the Council's highways maintenance responsibility to refresh faded road markings throughout the borough." However this was not part of the formal FOI request document, it was an informal reply to my response. I am not sure it's strictly necessary though, as I believe the "before" picture shows the markings as very worn, and the "after" ones show they have since been repainted. The reason for this is presumably obviously due to their condition.
3) In another user's thread, HCA stated "If this ever got to Tribunal, then you'd phrase any formal reps in order to line you up for a costs award against the authority". Is this a costs-worthy case? I feel it is completely unreasonable to keep a BB holder calling the TEC regularly for a whole year, especially as we know this will entail being on hold for a long period each time. If so, how should it be worded?
Thanks
-
So no one owning up to the work order.
Case I posted on another thread:
-------
Case reference 2240374029
Authority London Borough of Havering
Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
Contravention time 18:04:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1804.
The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent loading only bay.
However there is no evidence before me any condition to park fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully within the bay must be communicated.
As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.
-
Hilarious - the council's answer to the FOI request about why the bays were repainted was "because a work order was raised". This is like a child answering a question with "because it is".
-
If you must FoI, and I think you should, then ask this:
Please provide a copy of the committee report (and published decision) which was submitted to the council pursuant to their obligation under s87 Traffic Management Act 2004 for the purpose of having regard to the Secretary of State's (who is the 'national authority' for these purposes)updated Statutory Guidance issued in October 2022.
-
FOI is overkill for this - it's obvious they've been repainted and an adjudicator will be happy with views from Google Maps.
-
I would have mentioned the markings and repainting so as they carried forward to the appeal but you can still introduce them.
I did, although I haven't received the FOI details yet about when and why the markings were repainted. Even assuming maximum response times, I will have these in time for the adjudicator appeal.
-
I would have mentioned the markings and repainting so as they carried forward to the appeal but you can still introduce them.
No brainer to register the appeal and opt for a telephone hearing.
Harrow may not contest this especially as it's the lowest possible penalty in London at £60.
-
Harrow NOR. Obviously we will be taking it to adjudication. Anything else to add? Also we would like to see about costs as it's ridiculous keeping a vulnerable person hanging on for more than a year. I guess this is done after a win at adjudication?
(https://i.ibb.co/4PSMf0g/NOR1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/2MR1G9d/NOR2.jpg)
I'm a bit perplexed by paragraph 4; "If you believed....". Aside from the incredibly patronising tone, he has only had the opportunity to make an informal representation, so what is this "other chance"? Am I missing something or is this just council patronising nonsense?
-
We're going to submit your procedural impropriety text on its own for now, as the formal council appeal. It seems like remembering the worn markings could undermine the idea that it's been so long it's not fair to expect someone to remember the contravention.
I have also submitted a FOI about when and why the markings were repainted. If this gives any ammo then we could add it to the NPAS appeal.
If they do mess us around at formal, do you think there is any likelihood in asking the adjudicator for costs? The poor guy was ringing TEC for a year!
Thank you for your help.
-
Thank you, I shall do.
What do you think in regards to the heavily worn markings, also the suggestion of a FOI to see when and why the markings were repainted? If the FOI states "repainted in July 2023 as markings were heavily worn" (or somesuch) this would seem to support a claim that the markings were not sufficient at the time?
Or is the procedural impropriety a sure fire winner on its own?
-
I would make representations on the grounds of Procedural Impropriety in addition to any related to the contravention itself.
Procedural Impropriety
In this case the PCN was issued on 14 June, the NTO on 3 Aug, and the Charge Certificate on 11 Sept. All in the year 2023.
The Order for Recovery was issued in September 2024, 12 months after the CC.
The council are under a public law duty to act fairly and reasonably and in addition the Secretary of State's statutory guidance states:
Enforcement authorities should make sure that their processes for recovering outstanding penalties and handling challenges, representations and appeals are efficient, effective and impartial.
There is nothing fair or efficient about delaying the mandatory procedure by 12 months. The authority are now challenging my memory and that of the driver to recollect events that happened in June 2023, 16 months ago. This is unfair and prejudices my ability to submit informed representations.
I submit that these actions constitute a procedural impropriety and therefore the PCN must be cancelled.
Should the authority reject these representations then it is obliged to give detailed reasons i.e. a 'we do not agree' would be insufficient and itself constitute a procedural impropriety. In this regard, I refer the authority to the SoS's guidance which states:
The authority should give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision on a representation, in addition to the minimum required information.
Failure to explain such a decision may be seen as maladministration.
-
As requested, the OfR
(https://i.ibb.co/jwSQGhN/OfR1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/9v97T58/OfR2.jpg)
-
What happened between 26 Sept. 2023 and 12 months later, 5 Sept. 2024, a prolonged exchange of correspondence or radio silence? Only the keeper knows.
We have been in regular contact throughout, so I am fully up to date on the details.
During the 12 months, he was waiting for an OfR and phoning TEC regularly to see if it had progressed. It really was just a hell of a wait, I can assure you there's nothing I'm not telling you.
I can probably get a copy of the OfR if you really need it?
Just to check that you saw I posted the revocation order above?
-
The Order for Recovery is the notice which includes the witness statement form which your friend submitted in time. 21 days are permitted and therefore working back from the date of submission- which is given in the order as 26 Sept.-this gives a date of service of the Order for Recovery as no earlier than 5 Sept. 2024.
What happened between 26 Sept. 2023 and 12 months later, 5 Sept. 2024, a prolonged exchange of correspondence or radio silence? Only the keeper knows.
And pl provide the full house of dates i.e. the date of issue of the OfR.
-
I think this is the document you asked for?
(https://i.ibb.co/YbsSWBh/Order-Revocation.jpg)
-
OP, you posted 'I was not the driver or keeper' which means everything that's required to be done procedurally must be done by someone else.
It's not the first time that the keeper has asked me to help them so we are both clear on procedure and will submit things correctly.
Date first NTO issued - will be on the charge certificate;
They were waiting for ages after the CC to receive the OfR. I have the CC here:
(https://i.ibb.co/4TjDCLv/CC1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/0mrgmf1/CC2.jpg)
Date TEC ordered the CC and NTO cancelled(the revocation order) - is on the order which the keeper received from TEC.
The OfR? I don't have a copy of this but can get one if it's important.
-
NTO posted 10 Oct, therefore presumed served 14th. Last day of 28-day reps period is therefore 10 Nov.
OP, you posted 'I was not the driver or keeper' which means everything that's required to be done procedurally must be done by someone else.
The period between initial PCN and current NTO is 16 months. This is excessive IMO and means that the keeper needs to discover what was sent and when. Potentially, this could be resolved procedurally.
Date first NTO issued - will be on the charge certificate;
Date TEC ordered the CC and NTO cancelled(the revocation order) - is on the order which the keeper received from TEC.
-
(n.b. I was not the driver or keeper, so can't take any "credit" for the quality of the parking, nor explain their thinking...!)
This was for a PCN initially served in June 2023. The NTO did not arrive, so after receiving the CC the keeper waited for the OfR and got the process set back to NTO stage.
Here is the NTO and reps details:
(https://i.ibb.co/G5PK5ZS/NTO1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/7QzTjp5/NTO2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZHgWtXr/NTO3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ydxV1yY/NTO4.jpg)
Here is a copy of the PCN that was served on the car. The keeper doesn't have the original any more and did not take a copy of the reverse.
(https://i.ibb.co/mHBwH9B/PCN.jpg)
Here are the CEO pictures taken from the online portal:
(https://i.ibb.co/3SJTFTd/CEOPics1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hRW5JhT/CEOPics2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/XLRjLLf/CEOPics3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/whmQVh2/CEOPics4.jpg)
Since the incident, the markings have been repainted, and this is how they appear now:
(https://i.ibb.co/s9XvmNr/Markings-Now.jpg)
- The driver stated to the keeper that they could not see any markings on the bay when they parked. The first CEO pic supports that they were heavily worn at the side at which the driver presumably entered the space. They claim that the vertical line in pic 2 faded out shortly after it goes under the car, and (as can be seen from pic 1) does not meet the horizontal line. The faint white splodges outside the horizontal line are the remnants of "DISABLED"
- The driver did display a BB and clock as required
- It is not clear why the CEO took a picture of the disabled bay sign as a) the BB was properly displayed and b) the ticket is not for anything to do with disabled bays
- The bays have since been repainted, as per the final pic, which does suggest that Harrow knew they were worn
Thank you for any suggestions
Initial ideas - FOI request to Harrow for details on why the bays were recently repainted? Would an admission that they were worn help?