Show Posts - Dewedin

Quote from: Incandescent on 17 Dec, 2023 19:20Sorry, but I think the adjudicator handled your appeal fairly, bearing in mind your sister parked right beside a double-yellow line. As a motorist she's expected to know what this means and that it applies to the whole road. You can, of course, ask for a review, but I can't see it being granted.Thanks. Yes there were three drivers in the vehicle and none of them thought it was wrong. Had I been there myself I would have stopped it! An adjudicator should not find a TRO to be enforceable though unless its wording actually makes sense.Quote from: Pastmybest on 18 Dec, 2023 11:00The Halton case is going to come up a lot in the future, I lost a case based on it,s ruling basically any mention of a point raised will be taken to be consideration, on the flip side though when councils do their usual ignore because we don't understand it makes clear that a PI occurs You can apply for a review but I cannot see you getting one everything the adjudicator found they were entitled to so do The moral of the story come here first. I have not checked the docs but CP found you an outright winner re the copy PCN but it appears you did not use itThe uploaded PCN was identical to the original so could not run with that. I've had a look at the Halton v Curzon case too now and seems clear that failure to consider will now only be adjudged as a procedural impropriety when there is a 'complete' failure to consider.

This appeal has been lost. I am thinking about requesting a review particularly over paragraphs 7/8. It seems perverse for the adjudicator to find that a contravention occurred when we clearly showed that the entry in the TRO did not make sense. The adjudicator did not even ask the council how it was supposed to be interpreted, he accepted a map from them with two points marked with the eastings and northings. We submitted evidence that clearly showed that these are not grid references as the TRO states and what the correct grid references would have been. It does not seem reasonable to find that the order adequately conveyed the restriction.I'm also wondering about the Halton case mentioned in paragraph 12/13, has anyone encountered this before? Would appreciate any thoughts  1. Miss X and Mr Y took part in the scheduled video hearing.  The Council was not represented.2. Mr Y, as the representative, has raised a number of technical issues.  He says the wrong location has been used, the Traffic Order is invalid, does not provide for the restriction at the location identified (within it) or enable identification, and that contrary to Regulation 3(1)(c) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations the required information is not provided, that the online portal only allowed one ground of challenge to be made and the representations were not considered.  Further contrary to the Traffic Signs Regulations 2016 the bay was not correctly marked.3. The Council says “The Penalty Charge Notice was served as the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours on the C2057 Portinscale to Grange Road, Keswick.”  It has addressed the appeal in its Summary.4. It is important that the PCN is sufficiently clear in regard to the information it provides so that the recipient can determine what occurred and where it occurred.  Miss X confirms she received the PCN at the place of parking.  She will have therefore known at that time and date, where she received it and because of the description of the alleged contravention why she received it, notwithstanding that the reason may be challenged.5. While there may be disagreement as to the detailed location, I am satisfied and find because of what has been provided and set out, that the PCN has correctly identified and adequately described the location where the incident was recorded and the vehicle was parked.6. Where there is a valid Traffic Order in place, an adjudicator is unable to challenge the restrictions imposed.  A challenge to the validity of an Order must be made within six weeks of the Order being implemented, by way of application to the High Court.7. In response to my directions, the Council has identified the specific provision in respect of the place of parking.  It states; The relevant entry for PCN is on page 47 of the Schedules (as numbered on the sheet) and reads as follows: Keswick - C2057 Portinscale to Grange (Swinside/Catbells) - West - From a point at Grid Ref 324584/521811 to a point 355m south to a point at Grid Ref 324699/521485.8. Mr Y has challenged that response further.  I have considered his argument and comments.  The issue for me, is whether a restriction has been imposed and have the Council by its method, identified to where it applies.  From a purposeful approach, the motorist will be informed by the signing as to what restriction applies rather than searching for an Order to verify what might apply.  Considering the evidence and explanations before me, I find that the Council has imposed a no waiting at time restriction at the place of parking and that the Order by way of the description / entry used has adequately conveyed and confirmed that fact.9. The required form of signing for the no waiting restriction is a double yellow line.  The restriction applies from the crown of the road up to the adjoining property line.  It includes the area between those two points.  The Highway Code reminds motorists it applies to the verge.10. Where there is a parking bay to the side of the carriageway, the yellow marking should run along the inside of the bay.  Examination of the photographs and the evidence confirms there is no bay provided at the place of parking.  Vehicles have parked beyond the yellow line on the verge with the result that the verge has been worn down and the surface below exposed.  The restriction still applies to that point.  The fact motorists may have incorrectly parked there before does not enable another to do so without risk of penalty.11. The manner / wording in which the required information for the Notice is provided is not prescribed.  That means it is not required for the provision to be recited in full or a particular form of words used.  Reading the relevant entry, I am satisfied and I find that, read as a whole, the Notice does provide fairly and substantially the required information to be conveyed under the regulation.12. In R (Halton Borough Council) v Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon (interested party) [2023] EWHC 303 (Admin), the Court found that if an appeal was to be allowed on the basis of a failure to consider representations, this can arise only where it can ‘clearly be shown that there were no considerations of the duly-made Representations, or for that matter supporting evidence’. 13. I have read the Challenge and Representations and considered the notices of rejection to each.  I find that the Council did consider the representations made to them in each.  Even if Mr Y considers the replies to be inadequate, or failed to satisfactorily address specific issues that did not, in my view, equate to a failure to consider representations at all.14. The online representations have been made (and explained) on more than one ground.  The system used by the Council has not precluded the appellant from therefore advancing several grounds.  If that ability was considered to have been fettered, an alternative method of submission was available by post.15. I find that no procedural errors have occurred.16. I find that the vehicle was parked where a no waiting restriction was imposed.  I find a contravention occurred.17. An unintended error about parking, because of the worn surface and another parked vehicle may amount to mitigation, but that is not a reason for the appeal to be allowed because mitigation is not one of the statutory grounds of challenge to a parking penalty.  I cannot therefore take mitigation into account when delivering a determination; It is established law that I do not have that power or authority.    18. Mitigation is something for the Council to consider when it determines whether to pursue the original penalty.  It is a decision for the Council alone to make, as is whether to use discretion in response to what has been explained.  I do not have that discretion.  Because consideration has been given to the representations, I am not able to challenge the decision made despite the outcome being unfavourable or simply because it is disagreed with.19. This appeal is refused.

Quote from: cp8759 on 27 Nov, 2023 19:16The first thing to do in all TPT cases is to check that the copy of the PCN they've uploaded to the portal is identical to the original, if it's not that's a trump card that will win any appeal.Just noticed that it isn't. The uploaded copy of the PCN states the time of service as 10:54. The actual PCN shown in my original post states 10:53. The uploaded PCN also does not show the 'Payment Slip' header/footer and detach line. Is all that enough?

Thank you for taking a look through the evidence pack. I hadn't even realised that the 2022 TRO wrongly labels the coordinates as being a grid reference when they are actually eastings and northings, so the length of road in our case is specified as an invalid grid reference. That should be a strong challenge for the TRO being invalid?Something else I found is the length of road is now registered as 'PORTINSCALE TO GRANGE AT NEWLANDS, NEWLANDS' (instead of mentioning Keswick) perhaps based on previous challenges.

Hello everyone, I am representing my sister at a TPT hearing in mid December. She parked in a verge next to double yellow lines so I'm not particularly surprised that she was issued a PCN, and she realises her mistake. Could any helpful knowledgeable people here please let us know if there is anything we might have missed in our appeal or similar past cases?Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rWcaTK49ri3T3LsB7We are appealing on the grounds summarised below:1. The location stated on the PCN says 'Keswick' when the vehicle was several miles outside Keswick in a different civil parish area. The Notice to Owner omitted Keswick from the location.2. The PCN says 'If you challenge this Penalty Charge but the enforcement authority issues a NtO anyway, the owner must follow the instructions on the NtO' which is not equivalent to the statement required by Regulation 3(1)(c) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.3. When rejecting our informal challenge:3(a). Failure to consider the above grounds #1 by not addressing the fact that the vehicle was not parked in Keswick when that was part of the contravention location stated on the PCN.3(b). Failure to consider the above grounds #2 by failing to address the specific non-compliant wording in its rejection.4. The authority's website only allows selecting one reason for challenging a PCN.5. When rejecting our formal representations:5(a). Failure again to consider the above grounds #2 by failing to address the specific non-compliant wording in its rejection.5(b). Failure to consider or make any reference whatsoever to the grounds included in our representations about its previous failures to consider grounds in our informal challenge.5(c). The end of the Notice of Rejection stated 'If, after 28 days, you take no action, we may send you a charge certificate...' which is not compliant with Regulation 6(6)(a)(i) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations which says the decision notice must state that the charge certificate may be served after 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice.6. Invalid TRO because the authority claimed in its rejection that the TRO states the location where the vehicle was parked is in Keswick, when it is not in Keswick.