Show Posts - rh.95

Hi @mrmustard, thats correct. The appeal was rejected. After considering this thread and other peoples threads who also  received the same pcn as I did, I decided to not take it further and pay the fine. Despite how I felt about the pcn and how unfair the signage and road markings were.  

hi @mrmustard thanks for the reply, I appreciate that you cant guess whether you'll get someone who is lenient or strict. What I will do is appeal the decision with the points made here and the points @stamfordman made about clutter, because if I lose the appeal then I still get the discounted penalty, not the full penalty, so worth a try. Many thanks   

hi @mrmustard, thanks for getting back to me. For clarification I parked outside The Woodford (previous known as Slug and Lettuce) which was in the white bays, not the yellow bays outside of M&S. That is no problem if you cannot take on anything more, thank you for considering it and its good that you know your own capacity. So based on your response, am I right in concluding that you do not think it is unlikely I'd win the appeal? Despite, the cluttering of signs, the taxi sign being at the top and unreadable, despite there being no markings on the ground saying "taxi" and not complying with the civil enforcement handbook, the appalling Redbridge website, the error on the pcn etc.? many thanks @mrmustard

hi @stamfordman thanks for your input, thats very helpful hi @mrmustard, please see attached. Many thanks. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi @mrmustard, I have seen that you helped “flash2005” wife with his PCN on 23/11/2023 on South Woodford, George Lane (number plate: YU02SEF), where you won the appeal on 7/04/2024 as the council notified you this PCN was cancelled. Unfortunately, in very similar circumstances to “flash2005” whilst I was driving my fathers car I received a PCN when parking on the same spot in the taxi rank and I was wondering if it worth appealing and risk paying £130 or just paying £65 whilst the price is discounted. Unfortunately, there are no signs on the floor/ writing that these 3 specific bays are taxi ranks, all the other bays on the road (both sides of George Lane) are parking bays and the disabled parking bays have signs/ writing saying “disabled” on them, and as per attached google drive images, the actual sign which says that the 3 bays are taxi ranks sits at the very top and its in such small writing that you can barely see it, it was also raining outside as well, therefore much poor visibility and even harder to read small text especially when it is raining outside. (I personally think this is completely designed to catch people out, because why its not the lowest sign or in big writing like the other two signs is beyond me). Additionally to “flash2005” wife I am also dyslexic (I have a report to prove it too which I can happily provide). Additionally you can see the taxi rank outside M&S (please see link attached) is yellow and clearly a taxi rank, therefore this is ambiguous. Having read your message/ reply on 29/2/24 on the thread I can see that your argument/ grounds to appeal this PCN was due to a procedural impropriety. In short, due to the council not clicking on external links with evidence your “flash2005” attached and tracking the number of times they clicked on the links (which they did not) and then referencing other cases whereby council have cancelled charges due to not reviewing all the evidence provided, and that the notice to owner non-compliant.  Therefore, would it be fair to say this case is reliant on hoping the council aren’t thorough with their procedures (such as not clicking external links and us tracking that etc), and then catching them out on that? Also as per the Civil Enforcement Handbook V2 The contravention occurs when a vehicle that it is not a licensed taxi with a licence plate on the rear waits on a taxi rank marked ‘TAXIS’and this did not have the writing. https://maps.app.goo.gl/pLZTf3ckBeQiTZX27 parked outside of The Woodford (formerly Slug and Lettuce).

hey @mrmustard could you please check your inbox, many thanks!Quote from: mrmustard on 29 Feb, 2024 23:37I started the Appeal on 31 January 2024, as follows:1 Procedural improprietyThe Appellant provided live links in his formal representations to the supporting documents. The links are contained in a google drive folder which records the number of times they have been read i.e. by the use of a 'clicks' count. The record of those clicks given to me today shows that the Enforcement Authority ('EA') did not click on them at all. They did not therefore read the four documents before rejecting the representations which they were part of. The duty on the EA is to consider the representations. If they have not looked at them the EA cannot have considered them and that is a procedural impropriety.As it happens the subject matter of the decision in Malcolm Newman v London Borough of Hounslow has been subject to refused decisions by Mr Houghton in later cases. The fact that the decision which was prayed in aid is no longer followed by the adjudicator is irrelevant as to whether the EA should have read it or not, they should have looked at it and decided if it was legally persuasive or not.2 Notice to owner non-compliant.As formal representations3 Procedural Impropriety as regards the Notice of RejectionThere is no evidence that the EA considered the representations to the effect that the PCN is non-compliant (two adjudicators now say it is) nor that the Notice to owner is non-compliant. That is a procedural impropriety.I was at the tribunal today and gave them my list of next week's hearings, seven of them, for 7 March, including this one. They told me that the council had just notified them that the Appeal would not be contested and the PCN is cancelled. I have checked the council site on line and the PCN does show as cancelled.