Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mezzyd on February 02, 2025, 10:02:56 pm
-
This is going further, I can assure you all.
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr Phillip Morgan to have foresight
enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record this
supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has viewed no such issue on this PCN and has
made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN website on this
PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against this PCN.
Formal complaint registered and FOIR too.
If Mr Chan can entertain the notion of costs against representatives, then surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. My fresh evidence was dismissed and I wonder why my name doesn't even appear anymore in decisions - not that I care. This evidence could not possibly have been placed before the adjudicator before the time it was adduced by me.
************
Dear Sir or Madam
Complaint
I refer to this statement from yourselves as stated ......... attached:
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr Phillip Morgan to have foresight enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record this supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has viewed no such issue on this PCN and has made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN website on this PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against this PCN.
This is tantamount to calling me a liar.
If this weren't bad enough, you also said this about me in Heather Sullivan v London Borough of Lewisham Case No: 225006218A and the other linked cases:
In response to the Mr Morgans comments regarding the website threatening, LPS must advise that the website text is not threatening or inviting the appellant to abandon the appeal process. LPS would like to point out that just because Mr Morgan has wrongly perceived the website text as a threat, this does not make it so. Mr Morgan has been privy to the prior website wording which was considered threatening by an adjudicator and has since seen it corrected accordingly. As no such threatening wording or phrases are present, LPS must conclude that this is an attempt to waste adjudicator and LPS time due to lack of actual evidence in the favour of the appellant, due to the PCN’s being valid and correctly issued.
Any further assertions from Mr Phillip Morgan that the website dates are wrong are a waste of LPS and adjudicator time and LPS will ignore any further misinformation regarding what dates are shown on the website.
Ironically, Adjudicator Kaler agreed with me.
While I did not seek costs with regard to the latter case(s), I shall be doing so in 225009462A whether the review is allowed or not.
Therefore, I make the following Freedom of Information Request in terms of your website and PCNs for moving traffic contraventions.
I am aware that you have redacted "Also acts as Notice to Owner" from your PCNs. Please say when and why?
I am also aware that you have also amended your website as attached i.e. at the early stage of the process. Please say when and why?
Yours faithfully
Tommy Poirot
-
Who is 'AA' and is he, she, it authorised to determine formal reps under the council's Scheme of Delegation?
There would be a presumption at common law that official correspondence would be sent by an officer properly empowered to do send it, you could challenge that point but you would need evidence to rebut the presumption.
-
Who is 'AA' and is he, she, it authorised to determine formal reps under the council's Scheme of Delegation?
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1DBGFlr9_ntUcXktLdGKyEFtvlLwoDg/view).
-
Review refused and application for costs too even though they called me a liar.
-
@mezzyd Please can you email me the original PCN? I am working on the appeal hearing and wish to check the original.
-
Refused unfortunately.
-
@cp8759 Not much to go on save for the NOR response and the website issue still saying one can still pay! I don't think the OP took screenshots so I am providing redacted ones post NOR from similar times pertaining to cases pending. Hearing imminent..
NOR: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0qs9gbe5i7ulzf0qeq3t3/AKY_8DwCh5ZvIpqLYpagSOA?rlkey=7nfzukpmeqfbk6nz0o1peru3c&dl=0
Update: I found one screenshot pre NOR with the dates wrong.
Well, this will be interesting to say the least. Veracity v mendacity. What do you expect when you win 30 odd PCNs against them?
-
Appeal filed.
-
Unhinged response. PM sent. The case mentioned:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pxma4KYaYgK48C1yrlsbkRsLQYPXMseA/view
-
Just in case previous link didn’t work:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0qs9gbe5i7ulzf0qeq3t3/AKY_8DwCh5ZvIpqLYpagSOA?rlkey=7nfzukpmeqfbk6nz0o1peru3c&dl=0
Sorry for my IT inadequacies!
-
Lewisham have responded to the appeal, I would appreciate any further input
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0qs9gbe5i7ulzf0qeq3t3/AKY_8DwCh5ZvIpqLYpagSOA?rlkey=7nfzukpmeqfbk6nz0o1peru3c&dl=0
Many thanks
-
Great thanks, have submitted the appeal as suggested
5Please keep an eye on their website regularly.
-
Great thanks, have submitted the appeal as suggested
-
I make a collateral challenge against the wording of the PCN which "acts as notice to owner" which, in turn, is a conflation of two legislations and, considering the inclusion of a considerable part re 56 days etc - this belongs to parking legislation - it is perfectly reasonable to expect you to include the grounds of appeal from that legislation in addition. I have attempted to reconcile this conflation to no avail as, very simply, this PCN is invalid in my view.
Furthermore, your nomenclature also describes it as PCN/Notice to Owner et al.
In light of the above, please cancel.
Choose: no contravention.
-
Notice dated 24th January
Alleged contravention 18th January
-
What is the date of the PCN please?
-
ZY10696428
EY59 JXO
Many thanks
-
Thanks for the offer Hippocrates, hope you got on well in the big scrap with Lewisham!
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lewisham-53j-pedestrian-zone-restriction-bellingham-road-junction-with-longhill-/msg56859/#msg56859
Please can I have the PCN and VRM details so I can get started on your case?
-
Thanks for the offer Hippocrates, hope you got on well in the big scrap with Lewisham!
-
You've got the second street name wrong; it is Allerford Road. No wonder I couldn't find the junction !
I have now seen the video, which shows you driving with no hesitation whatsoever into the box, then the vehicle in front stops just beyond the box thus forcing you to stop in it. This is the exact circumstance the statute is designed to prevent. So on the basis of the video, the contravention is made out.
Quite what you could put into any representations, I don't know, hopefully others on here can suggest something. It may be they will suggest a 'technical' appeal unrelated to the contravention itself. These can, and do, win appeals on their own.but are only considered properly at London Tribunals.
I will draft something. I have a big scrap tomorrow with them.
-
Thanks & sorry for the mistake about the road name, I appreciate your input
-
You've got the second street name wrong; it is Allerford Road. No wonder I couldn't find the junction !
I have now seen the video, which shows you driving with no hesitation whatsoever into the box, then the vehicle in front stops just beyond the box thus forcing you to stop in it. This is the exact circumstance the statute is designed to prevent. So on the basis of the video, the contravention is made out.
Quite what you could put into any representations, I don't know, hopefully others on here can suggest something. It may be they will suggest a 'technical' appeal unrelated to the contravention itself. These can, and do, win appeals on their own.but are only considered properly at London Tribunals.
-
Apologies, try this one:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c3nazwswc4ethxbstn3j2/Photo-02-02-2025-21-37-18.jpg?rlkey=f59w0yskxe007mqn2kz505fxe&dl=0
-
Your link doesn't work.
-
I’d be grateful for any advice concerning possible grounds to appeal this PCN please
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7ejsf1ckc8v38yne7bkzw/Southend-Lane?rlkey=s8jmlt9dcqpcbutpxyodlwrv4&dl=0