Jump to content

spaceman61

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You can't "take advantage of the discount period and argue later" if this means pay up at discount and then appeal. Paying closes the case, at discount or otherwise. Only time it doesn't is for removals.
  2. From what you have said, it seems that your ground for making a witness statement is not that you didn't receive the pcn but that you made representations against the notice to owner but did not receive a notice of rejection of those representations. If your witness statement is accepted, then the matter is referred to the adjudicator who will decide what happens next. This might be the register of an appeal at the tribunal or a request for a copy of your representations followed by either a direction to pay or registration of appeal. Not receiving the pcn is NOT a statutory ground of appeal since there are legal processes in place to address this situation, which you have availed yourself of.
  3. The Authority are entitled to issue a pcn when you drive away provided they had begun to prepare the ticket before you did so. Taking photos of a vehicle are NOT a part of ticket issuance so does not count (source: London Councils). Nor does the simple observance of a vehicle in alleged contravention constitute 'beginning to prepare a ticket'. If he/she had begun to enter your details into their HHC and then stopped to take pictures, you may be in difficulty. You need to see the CEO's notes really to know what actually happened. You also need to be aware that a regulation 10 pcn (which this should be) also acts a Notice to Owner so you are straight into formal representations. If the pcn has been issued under regulation 9 then, if what you've said is correct, this would be a procedural impropriety and will win on its own at appeal to the tribunal.
  4. It's irrelevant who the driver was. The owner is liable under decriminalised enforcement for council issued tickets. There are no CCJs under decriminalised parking enforcement.
  5. I think I'm right in saying that the Dart Charge pcns state that payment at the discounted rate should be made within 14 days beginning with date of service. That being the case, you need to go back and explain this to them. Have your pcn to hand when you speak to them so you can refer to it. There is a time limit for them issuing a pcn from the date of the contravention. This is 28 days in parking, not sure what it is for Dart Charge pcns, which are basically issued under the same regulations as congestion charge and ULEZ pcns. They can't 're-issue' beyond this date, so you'll need to look up the regulations to see what they say. You can find them on www.legislation.co.uk. For info, 'procedural impropriety' is only a ground of appeal for pcns issued inder the Traffic Management Act 2004.
  6. I love how their phone number is 'temporarily unavailable'! Appears to relate to a congestion charging scheme somewhere outside London. Quite a convincing scam unfortunately and I can see people being taken in by it.
  7. Firstly, there is no NIP in local authority parking enforcement. Secondly, the quote reproduced by Andyorch states: "...if you can prove you were not driving the car at the time, you should be able to avoid the fine". This is simply not the case for pcns issued by local authorities as a part of decriminalised enforcement.
  8. Andyorch's advice above refers to parking notice charges issued on private land. Owner is liable for penalty charges arising from pcns issued by local authorities.
  9. I see no problem with the signage but you are free to challenge/appeal if you wish. Decriminalised enforcement has been around since the Road Traffic Act 1991.
  10. Quite correct. OOT applications are almost universally opposed by authorities because they take the view, rightly or wrongly, that if the matter has reached that far it is almost certainly due to the RK/Owner's own actions, either by not updating their details at the DVLA in a timely fashion or simply ignoring correspondence from earlier stages in the process. This can of course be challenged before a district judge, either in person or on the papers, but it will cost a (normally) non-refundable fee to do this.
  11. Yes, it's a defence. But it is not one that can be put to an adjudicator. Pulling to the side of the road in the rain, no matter how heavy, is not one of the statutory grounds of appeal. And yes, there is a document which sets out the limit of an adjudicators powers. It's been around for 15 years and I attach it. It's well worth a read by those who do not understand these limitations. WalmsleyJudgmentCA171205.pdf
  12. No, don't "put the arguments anyway". Not to an adjudicator. They are barred by the High Court from considering mitigation. Think of something else.
  13. Forgetting things appears to be something you do quite well. I'm just trying to point out something your will be asked further down the line if you persist.
  14. I would just point out that it is not the authority's fault that you forgot, it's yours!
  15. These 'arguments' amount to mitigation and therefore cannot be considered by an adjudicator.
×
×
  • Create New...