Seeking advice

Thomask

Neil_B wrote: »

Just to re-iterate Thomas. To submit your appeals will possibly risk the loss of the opportunity to pay at a discounted rate. I have said so in previous posts. Islington may well extend it as you have told me you are getting the appeals in inside the 14 days.

The thing is, whether they do or they don't, where do you go from there? This is the game. IMO it is a winnable case because an Adjudicator cannot allow a substantially non-compliant PCN to be enforced. Your problem will be whether you have the patience to pursue that. It certainly isn't an easy game!

Of general interest for everybody.
Statistics for cases that went to Adjudication 2007/8. Islington, moving traffic only.
Depending on how you read it (some confusion) either 72% succesful or 55% succesful.
Again depending how you read it, Islington failed to bother contesting either 21% or 16%.

I will pursue this until the end!

You've been a great help Neil.


Squee: No, it's not clear at all. Funnily enough, the PCN notices clearly state the notice should not be passed onto the driver.

Neil_B

squee wrote: »

In the 'evidence' pics is it completley clear that you're the driver?

It wouldn't matter squee. Owner is responsible or, in this case as he has signed an agreement, he is.

The actual driver is only relevant to criminal cases. As i got the impression in another thread that your local Council still uses RTRA 1984 then yes - driver.
For speeding - criminal - also driver.
For decriminalised enforcement - owner.

Thomask

Good news - the council have decided to cancel 2 out of the 3 PCNs issued.

In their original response they failed to address any legal issues highlighted. I requested these be addressed and recieved the following response:


I understand that you are keen to speak to me regarding the above Notice. As is obvious to me, my staff have already exercised a certain degree of discretion in cancelling two of the 3 Notices issued to your vehicle although they were under no obligation to do so. In doing so, they were very mindful of the fact that in all 3 cases, the contravention was clear and enforceable. Nevertheless, you have suggested that the Notices that have been served are in some way invalid. I am perfectly satisfied that the Notices are in accordance with law and their validity has been tested at the Appeals Service. Nevertheless, if you feel that flaws exist, then you have every right to take the case to the PATAS. In doing so, you will also appreciate that, in the event that the Notice is upheld, we will seek full payment, rather than the discounted payment that has been re-offered to you, as we will be fully entitled to do.



In specific response to the issues you have raised regarding the notice,

1. The LLA&TFL 2003 (Part 2, para 4 (8) (a) (iii) states that (A penalty charge notice under this section must state…..) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

2. Part 2, para 4 (8) of the Act informs what should be stated on the PCN and there is no mention of ‘advising recipients that we are required to consider all appeals received in that period’

3. Part 2, para 4 (8) (a) (v) states that “that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;”. It only mentions the “28 day period”

4. You have stated that the PCN prejudices recipients regarding use without consent, but then again we are following the direction of legislation in what we put on the PCN. The request (on the PCN) for evidence such as a crime report etc. does not exclude appeals when these documents are unavailable.

5. You have expressed some concern that the letter of rejection mentions that an increased charge ‘will’ result. I find this far from ambiguous, as clearly if there is a refusal to settle at the offered discount rate, then the charge will rise, and if there is a failure to pay the Notice at the full charge, then undoubtedly the costs will escalate at the Charge Certificate stage.



As I have stated above, I am of the opinion that this notice is perfectly valid. Should you wish to contest that opinion, I would suggest that you take the opportunity to submit your appeal to PATAS as outlined in Mr X's letter.


----



I plan to appeal their decision. Is there any disadvantage in choosing to appeal and having the case heard via the postal system (rather than in person)?

If I appeal in the correct timeframes can the charge (£120 or £60 at

Neil_B

WOW!

That is so interesting! I need a proper copy if poss - will PM you.

Just taking bits >

5/. is just a dodge. It wasn't a greatly strong point but they are responding with tosh. Earlier they say how well they had complied with legislation (according to them) - here they say it doesn't matter?

4/. Their wording was clearly misleading then and did indeed IMO indicate that only theft would count. now they suddenly advise you after the event that you could have described other circumstances.

2/. is the crucial one! now that's interesting. I know what they are saying and I've heard that argument from another Council. they kinda have a point - and kinda don't. Too much for one post - laterz!

Well done so far! Hope you are happier! You tailed off at the end? if your question was how much are you fighting for if you continue then the answer is the full £120-.

greenface

I know the OP stated that he has spent time in NZ and just returned to UK still getting used to roads and signs etc and in a way i understand other people saying you shouldnt be driving.
I have been driving in this country for 25 years live in North West England and have driven for a living in the past (taxi /deliverys Inc 3.5 tonne glazing van) mainly around NW --Manchester/ Liverpool /North Wales but All of England in the past . I can honestly say i have never noticed this type of road (could have driven through correctly in a car and not noticed )or (signs before actually driving through this box have diverted me while in a van) i dont know but without the foresight of earlier signs im not sure what i would do in this situation.
good luck with your appeal ..

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

2/. is the crucial one! now that's interesting. I know what they are saying and I've heard that argument from another Council. they kinda have a point - and kinda don't. Too much for one post - laterz!

ok as simply as I can!

What they appear to be saying is that they have complied very literally with what the Act specifies for required content. On the face of it, this is so - BUT >

That required content - the very last item refers to the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Act. The point we have challenged them on is indeed in Schedule 1.
They say there is no specific requirement to tell a recipient the contents of that Schedule - possibly technically so and presumably a recipient is supposed to be able to trawl the legislation which is noted on the PCN to find it?
My argument against this >> Why then, do they choose and feel it appropriate to include every single relevant part of that 'not required' Schedule except the one item we have challenged them on????? Clearly misleading IMV.

Common sense opinions on fairness for this would be very welcome!?
-

Neil_B

Apart from the PM I've just sent you - I notice they claim that PCN compliance has been confirmed at Adjudication ('the Appeals Service').
Interesting! Can you please contact them politely, saying it is with a view to saving everyone time, and ask for the PATAS case numbers, dates and names.
A few interesting possibilities here (mostly positive ones).

Neil_B

Thomas.

i have PMd you twice with no response?

As I said in one of those I have no problem at all if you have paid the significantly reduced amount or have decided to do so. That is entirely up to you.

You should note, however, that a PATAS case took place yesterday which raised many of the issues I have here.
Rather worryingly the ruling was witheld for further consideration - but should be known in the next few days. Perhaps you should consider holding any payment until that result is known? - as long as it doesn't take you out of the £60 option period.

---

As an aside. some info for those who commented earlier on the more obvious common sense issues of driving.
At a nearby identical restriction in Islington a car was actually parked almost IN the restricted width restriction. I have no idea what happened in connection with that BUT - someone who was then forced to go through the restricted shaded part (as was clearly proven on the video) received a PCN.

So as much as Thomas made a daft manouvre - how do Councils compare!?
-

p1an0player

Neil_B wrote: »

Statistics for cases that went to Adjudication 2007/8. Islington, moving traffic only.
Depending on how you read it (some confusion) either 72% succesful or 55% succesful.
Again depending how you read it, Islington failed to bother contesting either 21% or 16%.

What's the definition of successful here? The council won or the appellant won?

Neil_B

Appellant succesful.