Jump to content
Bernie_the_Bolt

The Penalty Exceeds the Applicable Amount

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3604 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I tend to be an advocate of using the statutory ground for appeal that "The penalty exceeds the applicable amount" as something of a "catch all" particularly in cases where the challenge is that the PCN, NTO or any part of the enforcement process is or are claimed to be flawed but may not fit into the narrow scope of "procedural impropriety".

 

Not everyone agrees with this approach.

 

However, I have now tracked down the PATAS decision that first led me to think this way. It is Elaine Patricia Lavall -v- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Case No: 2040135996 which is a review case and as such should carry more weight. In the decision it is stated by Martin Wood (who I believe at some time was appointed chief adjudicator:

 

8. As to the argument that the circumstances do not fall within one of the statutory grounds for contesting liability in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act, they seem to me to fall within ground (f): that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. If the PCN was not valid, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the local authority.

 

The full text can be seen here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Elaine%20Patricia%20Lavall%20v%20LB%20of%20Hammersmith%20&%20Fulham.doc

 

I hope some people find this helpful.


********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I disagree with the adjudicator on what the phrase means, but as a line of appeal, this is no doubt going to be useful for people to cite - so thanks for digging it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...