Jump to content

nero12

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,003
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

184 Excellent

About nero12

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. This is called a ghoster , silly CEO. The way round this is to send something similar to this adding whatever else you need to go with it Dear Sir / Madam, I write to inform you that until I received this Notice to Owner I wasunaware that a Penalty Charge Notice had been issued to the vehicle for which Iam the Registered Keeper. A Penalty Charge Notice was never handed to me ,attached to the vehicle or sent through the post and is therefore a procedural impropriety. then your bit regarding the contravntion and signage and the CEO was not prevented Should you decide to pursue the Penalty Charge then I wish to put you onnotice that I will require the following: Any photographicevidence that the PCN was attached to the vehicle Confirmation that the Parking Attendant recorded the tax disc detailsfrom the vehicle Copies of the entry in the Parking Attendant's Notebook detailing the issue of the PCN The traffic order for the area concerned. and documentation that confirms the estriction you alleged I contravened has been legally enabled by regulations 6 to18 of the 1996 Traffic order procedures andevidence that a Notice of Proposal waspublished, that the statutory bodies such as the three emergency services wereconsulted, that those affected by living and working in the vicinity werenotified, that the draft order was made available for public inspection andthat a Notice of Making was also published. I also wish to put you on notice that I require the attendance of theCEO in question at the adjudication hearing inaccordance with Section 6 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicator)
  2. Had a recent one from here where the CEO was telling porkies. What you have is a ghoster -- which is more common than you think His pocket book notes can normally give the game away. Agreed about the scan -- can we see this more clearly please. Yes jamberson is correct Redbridge reject even if you are legally parked so throw the kitchen sink at this one.
  3. But YOU can -- make an application to recover your reciprocal costs at £9.25 per hour following the 'no contest' by the authority. 4 or 5 hours at formal stage is not unreasonable to claim plus postage. There are a few case numbers to use which you can find on the PATAS website Can we see the new tickets please just to see if anything has changed.
  4. If this is for a reg 10 PCN --IE issued via cctv then you have to go formal as thess act as the nto Can you let us know what you went in with and how many times you have written
  5. Authorities have 56 days fromn the date they recieve representations to offer a response. If they fail to respond they are deemed to have accepted that the contravention has not occured. Is this your second go at the formal stage
  6. What area are we talking about ?? Why do you think the CEO has committed a fraud ??
  7. When you go formal with this You need to ge the contemporaneous notes the CEO made at the scene -- the photos and a copy of the traffic order for that area persuant to 6 to 18 of the traffic orders procedures 1996 so you can make a decent judgement as to where to go next. Did they not respond to your informal appeal ?? Sorry i havt read all of this !
  8. Nice one mate -- any chance we could have the case number for this -- it may help others in the same predicament. (they should have taken the 50 quid , what a bunch of wallies LOL)
  9. Seeing as CEO's do not have the powers of detention the last time I checked this CEO in this particualr instance has indeed got off light -- the kind police man could well have charged the guy with a public order offence section 5 possibly , which inturn would have got him the sack. If we are to believe the OP there are atleast 2 witnesses to this Unless someone wishes to deffend this course of action --
  10. For a CEO to grab a member of the public and attempt to hold that person against thier will is against the law --- he has absolutely no right to do so. The operationla guidance is quite clear -- if there has been a crime then there is a duty to report --nothing more. IMV this person got off light
  11. My copy of Part two of this NTO has similar deffects with regard to the time frames - it also fails on other issues. Part 2 documentaion defective - flawed time frames (again) NTO does not comply with section 66 (3) © Of the RTA 1991. On blue section 'You Must Not Ignore this Notice' and section 'Notes for Completion' It specifically states in order of the above 'within 28 days you must either pay this notice or make representations to the council' 'If neither payment or representations have been received within 28 days of you receiving this notice to owner' The statutory requirement of this legislation is thus © that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; The effect of disregarding the statutory requirements of the RTA 1991 for time limits were considered in Moulder v Sutton London Borough Council (1994 LPAS 1940113243) . The adjudicator GR Hickinbottom following Sedley J's Judgement in R-v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association determined that where the Road Traffic Act 1991 stipulated that a Penalty Charge Notice ''must state" certain requirements (section 66(3) those requirements are mandatory Therefore a Penalty Charge Notice failing to contain each of the requirements set down in section 66(3) is void and unenforceable Since Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 6 of the act sets out requirements to be contained in a NTO in the identical words, namely ''A Notice To Owner Must State'' It follows that the requirements are mandatory Any Notice to Owner that does not comply with those requirements is void and unenforceable' Also Aspire Loft Conversions v Camden PATAS Case No. 2070172175, London Borough of Barnet v. Parking Adjudicator. 2.8.06 High court ruling on non compliant paperwork. No prejudice has to be proved. Tick box issue Taken without consent ------TWOC A vehicle does not have to be stolen to be 'Taken without consent'. Members of family or friends can 'take the vehicle without consent' however there in NO statutory requirement whatsoever to inform the authorities NOR a requirement to obtain a crime number in these situations. FROM TPT website Vehicle taken by a lodger. A vehicle taken by a lodger (BH468) The appellant, issued with an NTO following a parking contravention, appealed on the ground that the contravention had taken place when the vehicle had been taken by his lodger without his consent. At a personal hearing, the Adjudicator heard from the appellant that the vehicle's keys were kept in a box by the front door, but that there had been no discussion concerning the vehicle's use and the lodger had a car of his own. The Adjudicator found that the owner had given no implied or express consent to the vehicle being used by the lodge, who had thus taken it without the owner's consent and was liable to the penalty. No crime number was asked for nor was any criminality brought into the tribunal. Again, paperwork defective and no prejudice has to be proved. Anyone who has suffered this is prejudiced as the council require a crime number to realise the appeal. I think it also prejudices the appealant into thinking only one appeal point can be used. It states 'tick the relevant box' it should finish with 'tick the relevant boxes' Im sure I post this elsewhere on here but cant remember where LOL
  12. Hammersmith are having a laugh with this, you cant possibly be expected to remember what happened in detail nearly 4 years after the event. I think there was a tribunal on this --Davis v Kensington and Chelsea --reasonable period of time I recon they wont have a true copy of this PCN nor the notes made by the parking attendant, which may win this persuant to Chase vs Westminster
  13. HI mate this is indeed a Notice to owner , under no circumstances do you wait for the 'fine' to go up. I have a hunch that there isnt any proof by way of photographic evidence in which case the CEO should have made some sort of diagram in his pocket book notes, I could well be wrong though. What is certain is the fact that you appealed informally as per procedure -- they have aknowledged reciept of the appeal by sending a response. In my view -- you have an appeal based on a procedural impropriety by the authority not sending any proof whatsoever of the contravention as the promised to do, in which case you have been denied the right to make an informed decision Hall Vs Brighton and Hove city council case number BH56043013 and Appeal Not considered (the case number I cant remember LOL) persuant to section 87 of the TMA and DFT guidlines.
  14. Hi mate -- are you the person with the disabled daughter
×
×
  • Create New...