Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - cp8759

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
This is a general announcement that all TFL's red route PCNs have another systemic flaw that renders them all open to challenge, but only if the motorist does not take any action without being given some specific instructions which I'd rather not ventilate publicly. If all such cases could be flagged to me I'll do my best to deal with them individually.

This is separate to the section 76(3) point which affects all their roadside PCNs, with the consequence that all TFL's parking PCNs are open to appeal one way or the other.

This issue might also affect bus lanes, moving traffic, ULEZ and congestion charge PCNs, I'll have to wait to see one before I can confirm.

If TFL are reading this, I promise you I'm really, really not trying to target you more than any other authority, it's just that your processes are $hit and have more holes than a sieve, that's not my fault.

2
Starting this up again, I'm not going to bring over all the ones from pepipoo as life's too short for that, but here are handful:

Fiona Onasanya, former Peterborough MP: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46602635

Blackburn women sentenced for perverting course of justice https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23550937.blackburn-women-sentenced-perverting-course-justice/

Police officer tried get his wife to take speeding tickets on his behalf, been jailed for six months: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64401782

A motorist has been given a six-month prison sentence after trying to get out of a speeding ticket: https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/20225854.kidderminster-man-29-jailed-trying-get-speeding-ticket/

4
This will be interesting: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/21/computer-always-right-law-sub-postmaster-horizon-scandal/

It could place the burden on councils / the Crown to prove that equipment and devices is working correctly. The CPS might pull it off in the majority of cases, local authorities not so much.

5
The Flame Pit / *Press story* - Yellow box junctions and costs orders
« on: January 15, 2025, 12:43:48 am »
It seems costs can be obtained if the PCN should never have been issued in the first place, see Ricardo Bowden v London Borough of Newham (2240295228, 2 January 2025)

They won't care about having to pay costs as they made £22,975.00, see the EIR response here, however I might use the formal complaints route to force them to refund the whole lot.

@mrmustard one for the auditors.

6
The Flame Pit / Cricklefield Place, Redbridge, code 62 PCNs
« on: January 08, 2025, 12:40:22 am »
I seldom mention off-forum cases on here, but this one is significant:

Amna Shaukat v London Borough of Redbridge (2240472061, 6 January 2025):

1. Ivan Murray Smith attended by telephone as the Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to. Mr Murray Smith confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack.

2. The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in breach of the prohibition against "footway parking".

3. Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked anywhere in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, unless an exemption applies.

4. The restriction against parking on a footway applies twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week and the vehicle need not be causing any obstruction. There is no requirement for signs to indicate the restriction and the vehicle need not cause any obstruction.

5. Mr Murray Smith relied on his skeleton argument, which asserts that the Authority has not provided any evidence that Cricklefield Place, the location of the alleged contravention, is an adopted public highway, or that it is a road to which members of the public have unfettered access. In his skeleton argument, Mr Murray Smith has provided images from Google Street View showing a metal barrier at the entrance to Cricklefield Place. That barrier is visible in some of the Appellant's contemporaneous photographs of Cricklefield Place. In the skeleton argument there is also a photograph of a sign on Cricklefield Place, which informs motorists that the car park will be locked from 10pm daily and that there is no access to the car park from 8-9am and 3-4pm on weekdays. This indicates that access to Cricklefield Place and the car park, which appears to be accessed by Cricklefield Place, is limited to the public at certain times.

6. In R (Bowen & Ors) v. Isle of Wight Council [2021] EWHC 3254 (Ch) Keyser J concluded at paragraph 49 that:

"a road will be a “road to which the public has access”, and thus within the definition of “road” in section 142 of the 1984 Act, provided that the general public do as a matter of fact exercise access to it and provided that those members of the public “have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied” (in the words of Lord Sands in Harrison v Hill, as approved and applied by the Divisional Court). The enquiry is thus essentially a factual one. If the conditions are satisfied, it is, as the Divisional Court sought-apparently unsuccessfully-to make clear in Cox v White, irrelevant to enquire further whether the presence of the public on the road was merely by the tolerance of the owners or whether the tolerance is to be taken to have given implicit permission.

7. Applying Bowen to the facts of the present case, the question to ask is whether it is a location to which the public has access, which has not been obtained by overcoming a physical obstruction or an express or implied prohibition.

8. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and in light of the evidence of the sign and the barrier, I am persuaded that there is some ambiguity as to whether the road is one to which the public has access without prohibition. I am therefore not satisfied on the evidence before me that the location in which the vehicle was parked was part of a “road”. I therefore find that the contravention has not been proved and this appeal is allowed.

Cordelia Fantinic
Adjudicator
6 January 2025
2240472061
AF07703565


The location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kdk6vHTWUYbQxEWp9

9
The Flame Pit / Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok
« on: November 27, 2024, 11:00:50 pm »
While I am 100% against any form of misogyny or harassment, I find this story a bit puzzling: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2450d5993vo

As I understand it, this person has gone around filming what was in public view, and frankly the content doesn't appear dissimilar to what is captured by Channel 5, ITV & BBC camera crews on various police programmes following public order officers around on a Friday and Saturday night. It's not my choice of viewing but if filming a drunk girl throwing up in a gutter or passed out on the pavement is now a criminal offence, surely those camera crews working for TV production companies should also be arrested?

It's also tricky to see how allegations of harassment or stalking could be sustained if the conduct was done without the knowledge of the person being filmed, and with the intention that the person being filmed would never find out about it.

The person who has been arrested was, as I understand it, engaging in this activity for business purposes i.e. to provide entertainment content to his viewers. While commercial activity has less protection under article 10 of the ECHR than, say, political speech, this seems to me to be an abuse of the criminal law. The fact that many people would find his content distasteful or even extremely distasteful seems to me to be irrelevant as long as it doesn't amount to hate speech or an incitement to violence.

After all nobody is made to go out and get so drunk as to cause an embarrassment to themselves, and it seems absurd to make it a criminal offence to film people who have made themselves so drunk as to end up in an embarrassing position in a public place.

What am I missing?

11
The Flame Pit / Over 200 PCNs overturned in Newham
« on: July 19, 2024, 05:15:23 pm »
I just had to write something about this: https://tflcameras.blogspot.com/2024/07/over-200-wrongly-issued-pcns-overturned.html

Over 200 people saved from the "mugged club"!

12
Lambeth council chief executive, 46, is charged with drink driving and having Class A drugs after 'fleeing the scene of an accident'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13571553/Lambeth-council-Bayo-Dosunmu-charged-drink-driving.html

13
A story involving myself, @Nosy Parker and the Chief Constable of Norfolk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0j13x75

14
The general rules on the 50% discount:

Very consistently, all councils in England & Wales reoffer the discount:

1) For roadside PCNs, at long as the PCN is challenged within 14 days of the date of issue,
2) For the notice to owner, as long as the NTO is challenged within 14 days of the date of issue,

There are virtually no circumstances where anyone should be advised to pay the discount upon receipt of a roadside PCN. Regardless of the contravention, everyone should have a shot at making representations. No matter how clear-cut the case might be, the council might mess up the response or miss a statutory or common law deadline.

The only notable exceptions to the above are:

1) Nottingham City Council, which has form for not reoffering the discount and advice on whether to make representations or pay the discount must be given on a case by case basis, and
2) Birmingham City Council CAZ PCNs only, where there are grounds to challenge the PCN but the motorist should be made aware that making representations means foregoing the discount,

Guidance for all PCNs except Nottingham City Council and Birmingham City Council CAZ PCNs:

In all other cases, motorist should always be advised to challenge everything, even if only to buy time. Sometimes all senior experts are busy but making informal representations against a roadside PCN can buy several weeks if not a couple of months. If a motorist appears to have a hopeless case, it's always worth mentioning the strategy of last resort, as most adjudicators accept that failing to open a link can amount to a failure to consider.

Roadside PCNs should always be challenged, please never advise anyone to pay one of these unless there is something truly exceptional about the case.

For discount purposes postal PCNs are the same as roadside PCNs, they should always be challenged and doing so within the discount window will see the discount reoffered. If you cannot see a clear ground of appeal, whether a motorist should be advised to put in a "holding" representation within the 14 days to preserve the discount or whether the assistance of a more senior expert should be sought before representations are submitted is a judgment call you will have to make.

Notice to Owner guidance:

If an informal representation is rejected, then (Nottingham City Council excepted) always advise motorists to wait for the notice of owner and explain that as long as the notice to owner is challenged within 14 days of the date of issue, the discount will normally be reoffered even if the representation is rejected. There is always a risk that a given council might follow Nottingham's lead, but any given OP would have to be exceptionally unlucky to become a victim of such a change in policy. It is important to explain that the formal rejection will reoffer the discount, sometimes OPs get confused and expect to see the discount reoffered on the face of the NTO, which obviously cannot ever happen.

When to advise to pay the discount:

Those seeking advice should only be advised to pay the discount if:

1) All opportunities to make representations (formal and informal) have been exhausted and,
2) There are no viable grounds of appeal identified by any of the recognised experts on the site.

15
NOTE: This guide is for PCNs from authorities in London only.

These are the steps that you should follow if either of the following have been accepted by the traffic enforcement centre:

1) A statutory declaration using form PE3 on the ground that:

I made representations about the penalty charge to the local authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice, but did not receive a rejection notice.

2) A witness statement using form TE9 on the ground that:

"I made representations about the penalty
charge to the enforcing authority concerned
within 28 days of the service of the Notice to
Owner, but did not receive a rejection notice.
"

You will normally first know that the TEC has accepted your TE9 or PE3 when you get the revoking order issued by the court, it's a templated order that looks like this:



However this is not the only way you might find out. If the penalty charge has dropped from the Order for Recovery amount to the PCN amount, this also means the TE9 or PE3 has been successfully processed.

For TFL cases, you will see the following entry on the TFL website:



Once you know the application has been processed (either because you've received the revoking order in the post or because you see the amount drop on the enforcement authority's website), add queries@londontribunals.org.uk to your trusted email contacts and then follows these steps:

1) Call London Tribunals on 020 7520 7200.
2) Give them the PCN number and ask if the case has been referred to the tribunal by the authority. If yes go to step 3, if not wait a week and then repeat step 1 (carry on doing this once a week until the PCN has been referred to the tribunal).
3) Give the tribunal call centre your email address and telephone numbers to be added to the case record.
4) Ask for the comms preference to be changed to email (this is very, very important as it removes the risk of any further postal issues).
5) Ask for all the authority's evidence to be emailed to you.
6) Ask for a copy of the "show us your reps" letter to be emailed to you.

Once you have completed the steps above, seek guidance on your thread which you should have posted here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/

Pages: [1] 2 3 4