3. Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?  (Read 889 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
« on: »
Since procedural impropriety is not a ground afforded in moving traffic or bus lane legislation, we have had much success in  regard of the collateral challenge. But now, things have changed.

First this: Anisha Moosafeer v London Borough of Havering (2240500622, 21 February 2025)

Then this: Mohammed Miah v London Borough of Bromley (2250050555, 16 September 2025) (BTW: the complaint is still live with my MP and beyond)

Leading to this: Maeve McGarrity v Transport for London (2250183490, 30 October 2025)

And finally this: Oishik Banerji v London Borough of Haringey (2250336977, 2 December 2025)

Houston, we have a problem!

It seems that councils can now put whatever they like on their PCNs, NORs and websites as per the two legislations above. And as far as prejudice is irrelevant is concerned, I don't believe this has been tested at the Court of Appeal - yet.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2025, 11:52:35 am by cp8759 »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
« Reply #1 on: »
It would seem to me that an argument that the PCN is defective in not giving unambiguously all the information required is not a lawful PCN thus cannot be enforceable would have merit

Arguments re the website giving different information would have to evidence prejudice

At the end of the day the council cannot send a letter saying you owe us so pay up they must comply with the requirements of the regs

On a personal note I have stopped looking at these as they are invariably taken off the forum to be delt with by individuals. The collective mind seems to be no longer wanted 
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?