Traffic Penalty Service Hearing.

[Hobbie]

Hi,

 

I received a NtO few weeks back in which I made representation to the Council in question, although the Council rejected my representions.

 

I have now requested a personal hearing with the Traffic Penalty Service, and also wishing to claim costs.

 

How much can I request to be considered? - What is seen as reasonable costs to claim back.

 

The council have no evidence, as I've received everything that council will use to rely up on, which is the CEO's pocket note book that is VERY badly kept.

 

The council are acting totally without merit in this matter, as I've already provided them with GPS Data showing the vehicle was NOT even in the same city or for that matter same Country. On the date/time that the council are stating the vehicle was in Scotland and had been for 3 days prior and 2 days after.

 

Thanks

[lamma]

is that the whole of their evidence - pocket book entries ? ? if so I am surprised the TPT hasn't already kicked it out. this is a PATAS document but still very usefull http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/documents/ParkingandTrafficAdjudicatorsatPATASPracticeGuide-February_2009.doc

[Hobbie]

That is the WHOLE evidence, just received today direct from the council. I am in the opinion that TPT may "kick it out" based on the evidence or lack of it, I had previously made a FOIA Request to the council concerning this which again was only a copy of the Pocket Note Book as evidence stating "HTD" Which according to the Council is 'Handed To Driver' although no description is recorded. But the wheel valve position is recorded!

[lamma]

no copy of the PCN submitted ? thats a slam dunk win. How many days until the hearing ? do the council still have time ? that is an exceptionally poor effort from the council even by council standards. I haven't seen your bundle but it certainly sounds like the council is acting vexatiously and unreasonably. And that they showing disrespect and contempt for the tribunal itself.

[Hobbie]

Sorry, yes the PCN was also supplied, although not in with my FOIA Request, the Council had refused to provide it until I filed the papers with the TPT in Manchester.

 

Although I had sent a holding statement to TPT supplying copies all correspondence between I and the Council showing the Council refusing to supply a copy of the PCN in my FOI Request. The TPT accepted this.

[Al27]

How much can I request to be considered? - What is seen as reasonable costs to claim back.

 

Mmm. Time dealing with council £20, time attending TPT £20, petrol £5?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Remeber, you have to show that the council have been acting wholly unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously.

[Jamberson]

Have you asked the council whether they have the tax disc details? If they do, you can show them a copy of your tax disc from the date in question, and it will have a different number on. Point out they have no photos to back up the fact that it's your car, and they may decide to drop the case.

 

 

Give them a bell and enquire. You never know - and it would save you the trouble of attending a hearing.

[crem]

Have you asked the council whether they have the tax disc details? If they do, you can show them a copy of your tax disc from the date in question, and it will have a different number on. Point out they have no photos to back up the fact that it's your car, and they may decide to drop the case.

 

 

Give them a bell and enquire. You never know - and it would save you the trouble of attending a hearing.

 

Hobbie has already given them GPS details showing the vehicle wasn't even in England at the time, I don't see any hope of them changing their mind if he can find a tax disk number.

[Jamberson]

Maybe you're right, but I personally would give it a go. The tax disc detail is on their record and if it disagrees with the actual disc, the council's case collapses and there's no point in them contesting it with the OP.

 

Just a suggestion.

[Hobbie]

Update:

 

The hearing took place, and my appeal was allowed, the adjudicator wrote a 3 page decision as to why he allowed my appeal and ordered the council to withdraw the PCN and NtO. The choice of words the adjudicator used was quite strong and stopped very short of calling the CEO a liar.

 

Those who want to see the adjudication let me know and i'll scan/post it to here.

 

Thanks again to those who responded.

 

Hobbie.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Well done! How did it go on costs?

[Hobbie]

BtB,

 

I had requested £60.00 costs. Unforutnately the Adjudicator refused my application on this matter, simply citing.

 

I do not consider that the Council has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that the Council's actions in resiting this appeal was wholly unreasonable. Accordingly i Refuse application or an order awarding costs and expenses.

 

When I get a chance latter today, I'll PDF my representations (minus my personal details) and i'll scan the adjudicators decision. I am now considering action against the Council for questioning my honesty and integrity, I strongly denied the Council's allegations to them, yet the Council refused to accept I was telling the truth. I'll need to consider if any action I take next.

 

Hobbie.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Hobbie

[Al27]

You could always take civil action against the council.

[Hobbie]

Attached is a censored version of my representations to the TPT and the TPT Decision.

 

When I say censored, I merely mean any personal and identifiable information is removed, which I'm sure most will understand the reasons as to why.

TPT Decision.pdf

HOBBIES SUBMISSIONS.pdf

[Hobbie]

Oddly enough, today the Council involved has sent me letter... copy of which is attached.

 

Thoughts from anyone?

CoS Letter.pdf

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Pursue for entertainment value only.

To expect anything further or of tangible worth will result in disappointment.

[Hobbie]

Bernie,

 

I'm not looking for any payment, simply for the Council to admit it was wrong, and that the CEO lied, as the adjudicator said he was not satisfied that the vehicle was where the CEO said it was, nor that the PCN was handed to the driver... My interpetation of this is the adjudicator is stopping short of calling the CEO a liar.

[lamma]

I agree with Bernie. But would point out that the 'vexatious' point only applies to parking regulations. It would carry weight in a civil case but a civil case obviously would not be limited to the parking regulations. Also the council's point about the adjudicator's decision being binding on both parties. A decision can be appealed further within the Tribunal and then taken to a Judicial Review. Lots of public cases where councils have appealed adjudicator's decisions. I would be interesting to find out of this council has done that as you could use that fact in your fun mission.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Hobbie,

 

I know, I've been there myself.

It isn't going to happen.

All that has happened is that the evidence in this case tends to give greater support to your explanation than the council's.

I don't read that the adjudicator came close at all to calling the CEO a liar.

 

My experience of PATAS adjudicators (and I have never lost a case - yet!) is that they do not have the higest of regard for the circumstances in which the enforcement officials work (on street and in office). They are poorly paid, poorly motivated and doing an unpopular job. They may be many things but liars and dishonest is a big, big label. For an adjudicator to call an official a liar, they would be accusing them of being a criminal and would need solid evidence, not just an allegation.

 

My advice is to drop this and move on to a constructive use of energies - such as local campaining against poor signage etc.

[Hobbie]

Bernie & Lamma,

 

Your posts are noted, and with that I leave it where it stands, at least I won against the corrupt corporation.

 

Thanks again