any help please..

peter_the_piper

Nothing new there then. Post up both sides of the NTO (after removing your details of course)

Neil_B

jodie114 wrote: »

would it be possible/ socially acceptable (?) to post this thread link on there, save re-scanning, and typing everything out again?

It wouldn't get a nasty reaction in any way. Sometimes I've noticed that it leads to a lack of responses. if they see you've been correctly advised then they probably won't bother adding - but would add such an 'I agree' if it was one of their own.

I'm relieved that 'Bogs' has now confirmed what I said and Sarah initially pointed out. You could probably safely keep it here now and especially as you have expressed some determination.

The difficulty I'm having with this forum at the moment is the lack of support/correction/constructive opinion - compared to that found elsewhere.
That isn't a criticism of MSE because clearly well intended but it does take time to get things established.

Bogs, Sarah and I know each other from elsewhere. Bogs and I particularly will often disagree on a debatable point and that is helpful to establish facts and appeal formulations. Likewise, for me personally, I can rely on being corrected if I make a mistake. I simply can't here. Neither then, can anyone know if I am talking sense or rubbish?
On t'other place we frequently correct each other constructively and amiably. It gets the right results.
We also recognise each others particular areas of expertise and talk in the background to alert each other to issues of interest or where their particular input is needed.

Soooooo - end result is, posters here simply can't be sure what they are being told is correct. One case i'm quite concerned about is 'ManUtd99' who has a really strong case IMO but still seems unsure if to proceed. I can't decide for him and he hasn't sought that second, third and fourth and more opinion.

Likewise, your case since the response from Redbridge. I would say you have a stronger case now than you did to start with (we often win on flawed responses like that - shooting themselves in the foot). I still can't tell you what to do.

I'll post case specific later or tomorrow.
-

jodie114

NB: I know its my decision, and on a place like this you have to take things you read with a pinch of salt, but i for one am the first to admit that i am out of my depth here.

I am getting advice from other sources, but i am finding them more brash, or with more of an attitude because they think i am trying to "get away with it because i am disabled".

This site seems more factual, people get to the point and thats what i need.

I certainly am up for a fight if needs be, i am used to tribunal etc for benefits, so thats not a problem, its just nice to know how stable the chair is that you are balancing on.

All help is most welcome:j

Neil_B

Basically, if Redbridge are now saying that it was a different contravention then they haven't issued a PCN for it (and can't). They have invalidated their own original PCN because they have said it is wrong themselves.

Whether the mention in HC is 'advisory' or backed up by legislation elsewhere is largely irrelevant because of the above.

yes next step would be to submit representations against the NtO when it arrives - but show it here first.
Personally, even if RB reject a formal appeal and you have to submit an appeal to PATAS I really can't see them contesting this one. Just my general impression of RB - tend to be a bit more sensible and careful of their own credibility.
Remember, informal appeals are dealt with by juniors and senior appeals officers and Managers probably don't even know that ridiculous rejection letter has gone out to you.
-

jodie114

Finally got the NTO this morning, so any new advice on what to do next please!









Thank you

Neil_B

LOL. they can't make up their minds can they! back to the original contravention.

just a case of repeating the original appeal i guess. No markings and that awful joke of a sign.

NtO is tidy.

jodie114

thanks neil, do i also mention about the change of contravention they keep having?

Neil_B

jodie114 wrote: »

thanks neil, do i also mention about the change of contravention they keep having?

Well theoretically (and they mentioned earlier) it will be dealt with by someone more senior - so yes.
Point out that the informal rejection is nonsense, failed to properly address the points raised (i.e. the appalling sign, etc.), digressed onto an entirely different issue --- and as such amounts to a procedural impropriety.
-

jodie114

so do i quote procedural imp. as my reason for appeal? sorry i have never gone this far with a ticket before and am a little confused.
Also, i asked originally for the wardens notes(can't think of the actual name now), and i never recieved those, should i request these with the appeal or request first to complete the appeal with?

Neil_B

'Contravention did not occur' - due to flawed signage, etc.

'Penalty exceeded ---' - cos the contravention did not occur! LOL

'Proceural impropriety' - cos failed to properly consider your appeal and gave an invalid response. Also failed to supply copy of CEO notes as requested. failed to comment on the poor signage and lack of road markings.

just repeat the request for the notes in the text of appeal - easiest.
-