Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mezzyd on July 14, 2025, 09:08:30 pm
-
So basically, the review process might as well not exist.
Is there any process to sack adjudicators that continue to make basic errors of law ? Recently we've already seen an adjudicator refuse an appeal re a Yellow Box Junction where the vehicle had perforce to stop on the box to get the gate opened, and not because there was a stationary vehicle in front of it, (the YBJ NOT being at the junction of two or more roads, yet another error). With adjudicators like this, London Tribunals will soon be a laughing stock for the public, although the councils will no doubt be enjoying the perverse decisions.
@Incandescent: "Complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk" <complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk>
-
@cp8759
Grounds
1. Her statement at para. 8 is wrong because the section of the Act cited refers to fixed penalty charge notices.
2. At para. 9 she has failed to apprehend/consider that the PCN goes on to state, contrary to Schedule I of the 2003 Act, that an authority cannot progress enforcement as per this statement on its PCN: “If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice then we may increase it by 50% to £240.00 and may take steps to enforce recovery of the increased charge.”
In light of the above, I ask for a personal hearing please to determine the matter.
I believe 2 above does not amount to an error of law.
I am really really concerned. No more to say.
-
This has been known for years, it's saved hundreds of Appellants, see Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Transport for London (2230282004, 1 March 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZMSH2FLCFqwFerIEHyLZbTUCYj9bgeaJ/view).
It's generally much easier now to apply for a review than it was prior to J Swift's judgment, however it has to be framed on grounds other than an alleged error of law.
-
So basically, the review process might as well not exist.
Is there any process to sack adjudicators that continue to make basic errors of law ? Recently we've already seen an adjudicator refuse an appeal re a Yellow Box Junction where the vehicle had perforce to stop on the box to get the gate opened, and not because there was a stationary vehicle in front of it, (the YBJ NOT being at the junction of two or more roads, yet another error). With adjudicators like this, London Tribunals will soon be a laughing stock for the public, although the councils will no doubt be enjoying the perverse decisions.
-
Case reference 2250437817
Refused thanks to the High Court.
This really really does concern me.
I sat in Court 1. The current Chief Adjudicator does not agree with it.
For the uninitiated: this now means that, if any adjudicator makes a fundamental error of law, one has to go to the High Court. C'est la vie. But I managed to overturn this one: Case reference 2250439685.
-
@mezzyd I have emailed you.
-
I say Tribunal time. PM if you want my help.
-
Is that the whole of it?
Scrolling down, it seems to be all there, and contains the usual tosh too !
-
There’s also the appeal form, do you need to see that too?
-
Is that the whole of it?
-
Notice of Rejection now received, would appreciate any further help, thanks.
https://imgur.com/a/7ztJM8J
-
Appeal submitted as advised by Hippocrates & screeenshots taken
-
BEFORE you put this into your representations, please click on Appeal Information and take a screenshot. This is useful for later.
You can make a pdf.
I make this formal representation against the PCN:
1. The alleged contravention did not occur, because there is no such location as High Street Bromley South, Bromley Police Station is located on High Street Bromley, but that is not the location of the alleged contravention in any event as the location shown in the video is the junction between High Street and the unnamed access road to the Waitrose supermarket car park, which is not the location stated on the penalty charge notice. I rely upon cases 2230349433 and 2240008359 in this regard.
2. I make this collateral challenge against the PCN which misstates the time period in which you may serve a Charge Certificate.
Considering the above please cancel
-
Ok. The PCN is even more pants it seems to me as no mention is made of reps. period. Draft tomorrow.
Thank you, that is much appreciated.
-
Ok. The PCN is even more pants it seems to me as no mention is made of reps. period. Draft tomorrow.
-
https://imgur.com/a/pTRkmnu
-
Also unsuccessful. Maybe just try linking to it.
-
Apologies, did it not show?
Second attempt (https://imgur.com/a/pTRkmnu)
-
This is the reverse:
(https://imgur.com/a/pTRkmnu)
Thanks very much
???
-
This is the reverse:
(https://imgur.com/a/pTRkmnu)
Thanks very much
-
This thread may be of interest:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bromley-31j-box-junction-pcn/
Indeed. 8) But we need the whole PCN as already said in order to advance the same arguments.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XdV0Z3MNrFFdUnrv04G_WngsMj-jSgKu/view
I said nothing!
-
Whole PCN please.
-
This thread may be of interest:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bromley-31j-box-junction-pcn/
-
Hi,
Please can anyone advise possible grounds for appeal of this PCN:
(https://imgur.com/a/JM4gH37)
Thanks in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]