Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Spaceman69

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Spaceman69

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This is not a procedural impropriety. A procedural impropriety is defined in section 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as: "a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum..." Extending the period beyond which the reduced penalty must be accepted by the enforcement authority is not a requirement under the TMA 2004. It can be argued that including such an extension in documents places an obligation upon the authority to comply with this. However, this is mitigation and not a ground for appeal in itself as 'procedural impropriety' is.
  2. The IAS is an alternative resolution service established under EU directive and is not the appeals service set up under the PoFA. This is POPLA. In its latest annual report, POPLA states that their assessors have allowed 34.4% of appeals made by RKs. If you add cases where the operator withdrew before the appeal was determined, this increases to 50.6%. In short, using the appeals service intended under the legislation does give RKs the opportunity to appeal successfully.
  3. Unfortunately some, if not most, of this is inaccurate. You cannot transfer this to a local county court as they do not have jurisdiction. The Traffic Enforcement Centre in Northampton was established for the purpose of processing statutory declarations and witness statements in relation to decriminalised enforcement. The driver of the vehicle is irrelevant as owner liability for the penalty charge applies. Photographic evidence of who this is would be of no value. The TEC will not be interested in representations against the penalty charge, this is not their concern. Their purpose is to reset the appeal process where a step has been missed and/or where statutory procedures have not been followed. This applies to BOTH sides. You can claim costs but £18 per day is not an established figure. Costs can be applied for, by either side, to the adjudicator at the independent tribunal (either London Tribunals or Traffic Penalty Tribunal) but these are rarely awarded. The burden of proof does NOT rest with the authority. This is not a criminal case, it is a civil one. If it goes to appeal, the adjudicator will decide the matter based on the balance of probabilities. Their decision is binding on both sides but are not precedents. Finally, this is not an 'offence' as that relates to criminal activity. It is an alleged contravention.
×
×
  • Create New...