loading bay PCN, lost at tribunal - can you help?

[fynba]

I stopped in a loading bay at Hammersmith to load items in my car,

 

 

their traffic management Order states clearly that

"if you are disabled or are injured you can stop for as long as it takes to set down or pick up with your bags/luggage, no time limit.

 

 

The council lied at the tribunal and refused to give a copy of this traffic management Order.

 

 

The tribunal Judge referred the decision to the council who still wanted the money from me.

 

 

The tribunal is aware that they lied but will not do anything about it,

 

 

I tried judicial review but they said the tribunal had no case to answer so they did not deal with it.

 

 

I have contacted the ombudsman but they said to write to the council again and have this investigated first before they will deal with it,

but the council will not investigate because the tribunal has found in their favor so they still want this injustice to continue.

 

 

They have now applied for a recovery Order again and I need to apply for a TE7 extension of time in order to have this dealt with by the ombudsman.

 

Any one has any help and or advice? TNX

Edited November 7, 2014 by fynba
spelling

[Jamberson]

The TE7 process is not a route to the ombudsman. It will just make the whole thing go around again - you'll get another NTO.

 

In general, the adjudicator's decision is final, but in what way did the council lie?

[fynba]

the council withheld the information from the traffic management Order, this document would have shown that I had proper permission to stop in the bay for the time I did. They only sent me the document over a year of repeatedly asking them and nearly six months after the tribunals decision. They sent the document to me attached to the same email telling me that they were issuing a charge Order. Its like them forcing me to pay a fine for correctly parking in a disabled bay with a disabled badge.

 

I also feel that the tribunal judge did not have the knowledge to deal with it or deliberately sent it back to the council to make a decision which the tribunal should have made. I had a similar case where another council tried to do the same but the tribunal judge at that time, had the knowledge to deal with it correctly, and that is how I knew about the traffic management Order. I feel the tribunal is supporting the council because they feel ashamed of this but will not do the correct thing same as the council.

 

The tribunal is now aware that the council withheld this document and therefore amounts to lying but wont do anything about it.

 

nx for your reply

[green_and_mean]

A copy of the traffic order must have been sent to PATAS with the evidence pack of the PCN would just have been cancelled.

[ericsbrother]

you could try applying to the ombudsman again based upon the council's refusal to reinvestigate. Make sure that they know that this is a formal matter and not just an enquiry. I suspect that the best that will happen is the council are told to reconsider not investigating so you may have to go around in circles for a bit longer. A SAR to the council regarding the documents sent to PATAS and copy of any other data they hold in this regard may help but I would add a FOI request about the papers sent to the tribunal as well to stop them saying that the TMO and its non-appearance isnt your personal data. Likewise a SAR to the tribunal to get a copy of the evidence submitted and compare the 2. Again, may not tell you what you want to know but at least it will be harder to hide the facts if they are as you say.

[Jamberson]

You can seek a review of the tribunal's decision if they made an error in law. I am not certain of the precise definition of 'error in law' but if you were legally entitled to park there, and the tribunal upheld the PCN, then that seems to me to be an error in law.

 

You'll need to tell us more. You said above, "I stopped in a loading bay at Hammersmith to load items in my car" - and "their traffic management Order states clearly that "if you are disabled or are injured you can stop for as long as it takes to set down or pick up with your bags/luggage, no time limit."

 

This provides unlimited time for you to stop and to pick up with luggage. It doesn't allow you any leeway for parking for any other reason (unless there is more you haven't quoted). So, were you away from the car for any time? How long? Were you sitting in the car not loading/unloading for any period? How long? Was there a vehicle type restriction on the bay (eg 'goods vehicles only')?

 

And can you clarify if you are disabled? You said you had a blue badge on display, but are you the blue badge holder (and is it valid and in date etc)?

[green_and_mean]

The entire thread makes no sense, he is claiming that he got a PCN for being in a loading bay whilst loading?? He goes on to claim that an exemption exists to drop off or pick up a disabled passenger and the Council hid this fact from PATAS yet he claims he was loading and makes no mention of dropping off or picking up a disabled passenger? Surely if you are loading in a loading bay you are not contravening and that should have been the grounds for dismissal? The TMO must be supplied in the evidence pack given to both parties if not that should have been raised at PATAS.

Maybe if help is required some facts that make sense would be a good start, the PATAS case number would be a good starting point!