Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: wasio on May 22, 2025, 10:13:35 pm
-
All decisions are sent by e mail to the appellant usually ca. 1.30 hrs. although they are usually online just after midnight.
As the schedule letter would have stated teams with a link, and a phone number, frankly I would move on.
-
It's Microsoft Team they use not Zoom.
-
You can, in theory, request a review under the ground "(iii)a party who failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his failure to appear"
You'll have to write to the Tribunal PDQ. The request must arrive with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date the decision arrived with you. So the date of the email they sent to you. Or the date of the 2nd working day after the date of the outcome notice if the decision was only posted. And they're very strict.
So you would have to present a good explanation as to your troubles with Teams. Why didn't you phone and tell them you were in trouble?
However the others have focussed on the actual contravention and don't seem to hold out much hope in getting the original decision overturned even if a review was granted.
-
@Enceladus this was a microsoft zoom meeting, not in person.
I don’t use Zoom regularly, so when I tried to join the hearing, Zoom just wouldn’t connect — it kept failing to join the meeting. I was then sent into a frenzy and ended up uninstalling and reinstalling the app to try to fix it. That eventually worked, but by the time I got Zoom working again, it was too late to join the hearing.
I understand this is partly a lack of preparation on my part but I did not expect Zoom to fail during my hearing.
Do I have any grounds on which they'll reopen the case and give me another hearing date?
Thanks
-
I raised "camera approval" as I was interested in whether this was mentioned or not and surprised to see it in the decision. Of course, not relevant in this Act - but see my petition!
-
The adjudicator did not directly rule against you because of your absence but because on balance he preferred the evidence of the council. It was a judgment he was entitled to make. A different adjudicator might, or might not, have found for you.
-
Camera approval not required for this type of contravention. There was also a painted go left arrow on the ground. You have to pay within 28 days regardless of a review request and I don't see grounds for one
-
Yes that's right, the case number is 2250052437.
Was the hearing scheduled as a Microsoft Teams meeting or a hearing in person at the Tribunal offices?
Either way, why did you miss the hearing?
-
Camera approval? Please explain the technical issues. Also, would you have been able to say anymore?
-
Yes that's right, the case number is 2250052437.
-
Good research.
Let's see what the OP comes back with.
-
Do you have a tribunal case number? It would be highly irregular to rule against you directly due to non attendance.
Just checked. 2250052437 or 2250154630?
-
The adjudicator has the power to decide on the paperwork. What were the technical difficulties as there is the option to attend by phone?
-
Do you have a tribunal case number? It would be highly irregular to rule against you directly due to non attendance.
-
My case hearing was on 16 May, but I missed it due to technical difficulties on my end. The adjudicator has now ruled against me and in favour of TFL because of my absence. Is there any point in emailing London Tribunals for a rescheduling or should I just pay the fine?