Seeking advice

Neil_B

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

Have you seen the pictures? He was driving on a restricted bit of road! He shouldn't be on the road if something so simple eludes him :rolleyes:

If he drove down the pavement would that be okay?!

I love your signature! It's probably depressing here because of ignorance like yours!

I don't dispute he commited the contravention. He should be more careful and learn about signs.

That said, a penalty has been imposed by a large Local Authority. Now given their huge resources, highly trained staff (sic) and a large expert legal dept. is it ok for them to mislead him as to his rights? I think not.

Neil_B

Ok Thomas, here we go. I'll start with just the contentious issue and then post the legal stuff in a minute.

I still can't read your images very well so I'm working from one that should be identical - and appears so.

On the front, where it says Do not ignore. the two sentences underneath that.

"you are legally responsible for dealing with this notice" Yeah kinda correct. Actually, as i understand it, the owner is only liable for payment of any resulting penalty. Tey fail to tell you that anyone may deal with it on their behalf, with permission, as happens to be the case here!

The next sentence is worse. "Do not pass to the driver". If anyone rceiving such a document as owner had not been the driver then I see this as an obstruction to the ability to appeal. It infers that the driver may not be involved, may not deal with the matter and may not explain the circumstances.
Legal principle - prejudice, does not have to be shown to have occurred but only that the potential existed. If an owner had actually been the driver - the document itself is still potentially prejudicial - because the Council cannot possibly know the circumstances of the recipient.

- and, just note, that such wording appears nowhere in the legislation covering the required contents of the PCN. It is just made up.

---

get your head around that one and i'll do the legal flaws in a mo.

Neil_B

ok. Most significant and valuable legal error.

Nowhere on the PCN do they inform you of the correct period in which you may make representations (appeal).

LLA&TFL 2003 has a bit of a ball-up in it that has never been corrected. Councils struggle to get their heads around this.

Payment deadlines are correct at 14/28 days beginning with 'date of notice'.

However, you may actually make reps in the period 28 days beginning 'date of service' (the date you received it). that is what they fail to tell you.

This is stipulated in LLA&TFL 2003, the Schedule, para 1, sub para (3).

As you actually have a longer period to appeal than they have informed you then this is clearly prejudicial.

---

More later or more likely tomorrow now.

sturll

Neil_B wrote: »

I love your signature! It's probably depressing here because of ignorance like yours!

I don't dispute he commited the contravention. He should be more careful and learn about signs.

That said, a penalty has been imposed by a large Local Authority. Now given their huge resources, highly trained staff (sic) and a large expert legal dept. is it ok for them to mislead him as to his rights? I think not.

Fair enough.
Given that this driver has passed his driving test and is supposedly a professional driver. Is it ok for him to drive in a manner which is dangerous and in contravention of the laws of the road potentially causing serious injury to himself or others?

I think not.

What will he 'not see' next? A red light at a busy junction?

Icequeen1

Before I post anything, I know nothing about the ins and outs of the legal situation here, however what hit me looking at the images is that at the time of both offences, there are other vehicles going the correct way on the outer part of the road. I can possibly understand the first time, but after seeing the cars in front go the right way, it would be harder to argue the same for the second offence I would think.

IQ

Neil_B

Ok more stuff (I'll discuss the judgemental comments later)

Neil_B

Next one. Reps form again. Ground C

Vehicle taken without permission. It says 'my' but actually it is without the permission of the owner.
In brackets they ask for a crime report or ins. claim. The law requires nothing of that nature. This limits your ability to appeal by restricting the circumstances to theft. A number of other circumstances may have been the case without Police or Ins. Co. involvement.
Again, it is not relevant to any individual circumstance, there is potential prejudice to any recipient - it is the document at fault - not how it affects your own situation.

---

On Reps form again, in para 'After we have considered ---'

They say that if they reject your appeal 'you will have a further 28 days to --'
As far as i understand there is no requirement for them to say so on the PCN. This info is required when they actually reject you. The fact that they choose to do so though also means they have to get it right! They don't.

If they reject you you have 28 days beginning with the date you receive the rejection to submit an appeal to PATAS. 'further 28 days' is wholly ambiguous. If it is 28 'from' then in law that equates to 29 and wrong but they don't say when it starts anyway!

This is at odds with LLA&TFL 2003 the Schedule, para 3 (a)

---

Probably more in a mo. It's a lot to take in!
-

Neil_B

Last one. On the front this time.

Where they say that if not paid or appealed the charge will increase and a Charge Certificate may be issued.

The law says this. LLA&TFL 2003 Part 1 para 4, sub para (8) (v)

(v)
that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

Not the same is it. Whether or not they pursue it is optional which is why the law says may. To say the charge will increase is incorrect.

A bit pedantic that last one but technically incorrect.

---

Lastly in a mo. How to approach this.

Neil_B

As I said earlier, Islington, as others, will be in no hurry to concede that their docs are illegal. It helps then, to include something else to give them a 'way out' and cancel the PCN so it doesn't get in front of the Adjudicator (implications are too great for them).

For you, presumably this would be your issue about not understanding the rules in this Country. To be honest it does not hold much water but you have to say something because the contraventions were clear.

In appealing - I recommend you open with this point. Then you move on to quote the legal errors as best you can. Strongest is the Reps deadline issue and the TWOC issue is pretty bad IMO.

Be aware that nowhere on the PCN do they gaurantee to extend the discount payment period so it is possible you will be fighting for the full £240-.

They may extend but there is no requirement for them to do so in response to an appeal. IME Councils normally will (often to encourage you again to pay rather than the Adjudicator getting a look IMO) - but it is a gamble you take - or not.

If you want to proceed then draft an appeal and I don't mind checking it.

---

Thomask

Thanks Neil - have sent you a PM.