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.

Messages - H C Andersen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
The LBC gave you one choice: pay.

If you didn't by 29 Feb. then they say they will initiate legal proceedings.

Good.

Don't concern yourself about who sent what when and why it didn't arrive until *** IMO it's not a material issue. Even if you think they post late, it would not affect legal proceedings because the court issues the claim document, not the claimant.

2

offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.

This is the only mention of 'council', no suggestion it's anything other than a private PCN.

OP, pl stick to answering the last post and to repeat an earlier post of mine - post the docs, what ever they are, and tell us to whom they're addressed.


3
The OP isn't at tribunal, they've yet to decide whether to pay the discount or submit reps. If submitting reps is risk free, and I don't know whether it would be, then submit reps. But if there's doubt as to whether the discount would be re-offered with unsuccessful reps then unless there are other more substantive grounds then IMO the OP should consider the discount.

4
Your draft goes to mitigation only.

Let me expand on my previous post.

The contravention has NOTHING to do with payment as such, it is that a ticket or voucher was not displayed which can and does happen whether payment is made or not. Therefore, as regards the alleged contravention your receipt is not relevant.

So:
If payment by RingGo is permitted then the contravention is wrong because display is not a condition of parking AND you paid, if you selected the correct numeric location, or

If payment by RingGo is not allowed then the contravention is correct and even if you paid it must have been for a different location.

GSV suggests that all parking places are P&D or pay by phone.

You've hidden your VRM so we cannot access the council's photos.

Pl either post your VRM or the council's photos.

Don't submit your draft pl.

5
Totally different circumstances IMO, de minimis is not applicable as the whole vehicle from the rear bumper to the back of the front wheels was in contravention and I wouldn't refer.


6
When I asked someone if the V5 had the correct address on they said yes. What they actually meant to say is no. This has now been rectified. But.. If my V5 has/had the incorrect address on how did DCBL get my new/current address?

??

You asked someone whether your V5C had the correct address? Who is the registered keeper?

IMO, because of this revelation CEL have no obligation to re-issue the NTK (and wind back their clock) because the keeper failing to maintain current DVLA V5C details is not an 'exceptional circumstance'.

But as you're beyond any stage prescribed under PoFA or the creditor's code of practice you might as well tell them because the ball's in their court anyway as regards the next step.

7
Part of the council's reasons for rejecting your reps was that the alternative of paying by phone was available and should have been used. IMO, it is therefore totally contradictory to insist that a pay and display ticket or voucher was required to be displayed. IMO, their own statement supports your claim and I would start your appeal with this. IMO, the correct grounds of appeal are 'tne penalty demanded.....circumstances of the case'. 

I would also add another point which is procedural impropriety. The NOR must, among other matters:

ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and

(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, and

The NOR states:
'There is no charge for appealing and costs are not normally awarded. Details about when an order for costs can be made can be found on the website..'

The regs provide at para. 13 of Schedule 1 to the Appeals regs:
3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—

(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—

(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or

(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;

(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.

IMO, 'costs are not normally awarded' does not meet the requirement for what the NOR must 'indicate'. What the authority have done is to signpost where, outside of the NOR, the mandatory info may be found.

cp has experience of this issue i.e. the distinction which the courts draw between whether something is presented e.g. evidence, as opposed to simply being referred to in another place e.g. a link.

I would add that this point is fundamental to the way most authorities outside London structure their NORs and therefore might be finessed by an adjudicator if they're minded to allow an appeal on the first grounds.

WaIt for others.

8
To the Adjudicator..

Sir,
I would draw your attention to pages 2 and 3 of the council's Case Summary, as follows:

Customer Reason for Representation

Item 3

Not owner ....not owner for purposes of TMA.

Authority Reason to Uphold (sic) Appeal
Please be advised......therefore the council had done(sic) a transfer of liability ..Evidence E

I would also refer you to Evidence C(council's log) which shows that on 15 Dec. representations were received from VWFS Finance challenging liability.

This letter can be seen in Evidence E and states that the vehicle is on lease to ******** and supplies my name and address. On the basis of this letter alone the council accepted the owner's representations, see their Notice of Acceptance dated 17 Jan. I would add that although VWFS wrote to the council again, their duplicated letters dated 21 Dec. refer, these add nothing to their representations as regards the nature of the hiring.

I submit that their letter dated 15 Dec. failed to meet the requirements of representations under regulation 5(4)(d) of the Appeals Regulations 2022 which require that the owner not only states the name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was hired at the material time but also include the following documents:
A signed statement of liability acknowledging their liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any relevant road traffic contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement.

No such evidence was submitted by VWFS or by the council to justify their decision to accept the owner's representations and to issue a NTO to me.

As support to your appeal on these grounds.

Some thoughts.

9
second appeal from me advising them to not contact my husband anymore and address me.

They should ignore, this matter has nothing to do with you. Your husband could name you as driver or authorise you in writing to act on his behalf and then you could if you want name yourself.

If they do take this to court what would be my defence. None, because until they write to you in your name then you won't have to defend anything.

Be clear. Until they write to you with a demand for payment then it is your husband as keeper who they would apparently hold liable - but whether successfully would depend upon whether the 'not PoFA compliant' argument would win in court.

You cannot unilaterally interject yourself into these proceedings.

10
Private parking tickets / Re: DCBL (debt collection bailiffs ltd)
« on: February 29, 2024, 04:46:13 pm »
We need to see the docs themselves(hosted externally), pl do not try to transpose. 

11
I've set out the legal test.

You were parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - fact.

There is no law to which you could refer which would require an adjudicator to find in your favour.

If the balance of relevant tribunal decisions is in the authority's favour then I could not see them accepting any reps from you based on the inadequacy of signs. Which would mean adjudication if you want to pay nothing. Your risk would be having to pay the full penalty.

Extracts from a couple of 'appeal refused' decisions:

There was no legal requirement for additional signage at the junction of Hodford Road.

The waiting restriction that applies within a CPZ is signed at the entry points to the zone. The motorist is expected to note the restriction that applies on driving past such signage. There is no duty on the council to post repeater signs within a CPZ. That is why the appellant did not see any such signs. This council enforces yellow line restrictions on Sundays. It is not a defence to this penalty charge that the appellant believed otherwise. I acknowledge the photographic evidence of signage provided by the appellant but I am satisfied that this CPZ was clearly and correctly singed and that the restriction conveyed by signage was in force at the relevant time.

12
Your contract(nothing to do with parking) will not allow you to require your lease company to take specific action such as to transfer liability to you as the hirer. But you may ask them to do so.

But let's see the PCN, your reps and their reply first pl.

13
One adjudicator's decision is not binding on another.

Of the three cases cited one, the third, was decided in the appellant's favour because the authority's evidence was unreadable. In the other two, the phrase 'in the circumstances of the case' or equivalent leaps out.

Your circumstances are not the same. You did not see another CPZ sign and we don't know which route you took.

Therefore, under the particular circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that a contravention took place and this Appeal is allowed.

In those circumstances, whilst a contravention occurred, I take the view that the signage was not fit for purpose and so I allow the appeal.
Much of the council's map evidence at 'H' is blurred and unintelligible and on none of it can I identify zone entry points. It may well be that Hodford Road junction with Golders Green Road is not in fact a CPZ entry point but I cannot be satisfied on the council's case that it has established that its CPZ is clearly and correctly signed at its entry points and I accordingly find that the contravention has not been proved.


The council's duty in law is to place and maintain '..on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;'

Because appellants are in the main the equivalent of litigants in person and not legally trained, the tribunal extends to them what would otherwise be denied to a qualified lawyer i.e. they tolerate references only to cases which support their appeal and which ignore perhaps a body of contrary decisions.

Here's Hodford on the ETA register for the last few years. I suggest you look through these decisions and where the circumstances are the same create two columns of appeals allowed and refused. Then decide whether you would want to risk the discount by taking your case all the way.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:60:10303268843615:pg_R_12214301622549612:NO&pg_min_row=16&pg_max_rows=15&pg_rows_fetched=15

14
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN but was never at the parking site
« on: February 29, 2024, 02:56:14 pm »
OP, IMO either their photographic evidence confirms it's your VRM or it doesn't.

If it does, then they're obliged to send you these photos because according to DVLA you're the keeper and it's your 'personal information'. If this occurs then you've established that your car has been cloned.

If it does not then, as observed by others, they should not send these photos because they are not and never were your 'personal information' and cloning doesn't arise.

15
Your husband received a Notice to Keeper, yes?

He appealed. We should see this and their reply.

' I then took over as I did not want to pay however my husband did not want to be involved and said I must inform them to address me as he did not want to be caught up and it affect his credit rating etc.'.

You cannot 'take over', you have no standing - yet.

All your husband can do is to appeal to POPLA or name you as driver.

Barring stupidity or a bizarre set of postal anomalies, including you moving address, this process would not affect anyone's credit rating.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35