Author Topic: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.  (Read 5523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« on: 10 November, 2011, 08:50:09 AM »
Please see my attached Grounds for this Appeal.

The appeal was allowed on another ground that the Adjudicator found for herself! This was done so that, wrongly she thought, I would be unable to apply for a review.

Please see the attached Adjudication. This Adjudication allows Hounslow to continue with their unlawful enforcement. Apparently the Adjudicator did not even think that it was appropriate for her to inform Hounslow about any of my evidence. They will still therefore be unaware of their unlawful activities. This demonstrates where PaTAS loyalties lie.

The reference given in the Adjudication to Deeds v The Parking Adjudicator [2001] EWHC 1921(Admin) is a reference to a High Court decision in 2001. It is not possible to find any reference to this anywhere. PaTAS have used this 'decision' before.

The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom is only the fourth solicitor to be appointed to the High Court Bench.
He is even more of a rarity - having chosen to start his judicial career as a Parking Adjudicator!

Please also see my attached application for a review of this 'decision'.

N.B. It is not currently possible to view any attachments to posts without registering on the forum and signing in. I am told that this issue is being addressed.
« Last Edit: 10 November, 2011, 01:38:55 PM by Nigel W »

Offline seggsy

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #1 on: 11 November, 2011, 09:56:10 AM »
And there was me thinking that a case should only be decided by the facts presented. Certainly when I did jury service we were directed by the judge to come to a decision based only on the evidence presented in the court room and nothing else....... Amazing that an adjudicator, supposed to rule on the facts presented could, of his/her own volition generate other reasons to rule....... That is not adjudication that is something entirely different.......
Politicians doncha just 'ate em

Offline Belplasca

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 306
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #2 on: 11 November, 2011, 03:07:24 PM »
And there was me thinking that a case should only be decided by the facts presented. Certainly when I did jury service we were directed by the judge to come to a decision based only on the evidence presented in the court room and nothing else....... Amazing that an adjudicator, supposed to rule on the facts presented could, of his/her own volition generate other reasons to rule....... That is not adjudication that is something entirely different.......
No, the "facts presented" will include the PCN and she may have spotted a glaring error in that. So, she would claim, she IS ruling on the "facts presented"...

Of course, the objective would be to avoid giving a precedent to something that would effectively invalidate all the issued PCNs...

Bob
Blanka (my partner) has signed up on a challenge to help the Marie Curie Hospice in Hampstead.

Help her at http://www.justgivin...lanka-Rathauska

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #3 on: 11 November, 2011, 03:43:03 PM »
Belplaska,
You have hit the nail on the head.

Some questions still remain.

Why did the adjudicator spend three weeks trawling through the evidence to 'cost effectively exercise a judicial function.' This was done to ensure that an 'appropriate share (and no more than an appropriate share) of the tribunal's resources' was expended?

It should not have taken any competent Adjudicator more than 10 minutes to determine the Appeal based on my incontrovertable Grounds having already heard them.

Why was the LB of Hounslow apparently not informed of the contents of my grounds so that they could put right their unlawful practices?

Why were several other Appeals disallowed at PaTAS for mobile CCTV PCN's when they all would have presented the same evidence without a Witness Statement?


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #4 on: 11 November, 2011, 03:46:20 PM »
Of course, the objective would be to avoid giving a precedent to something that would effectively invalidate all the issued PCNs...

Perish the thought that the adjudicators and their paymasters (enforcing authorities) would ever collude to manufacture the results that benefit the paymasters Bob. That kind of thing could never happen in today's fair and just society.
 
Could it? <_>
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #5 on: 29 November, 2011, 02:12:07 PM »
PaTAS First Rejection of Review: (See first application in post higher up).
« Last Edit: 29 November, 2011, 03:35:04 PM by Nigel W »

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #6 on: 29 November, 2011, 02:17:15 PM »
Second Application for Review:

15th November 2011
For the attention of the Chief Adjudicator
Dear Madam
As the representative of the Appellant Malcolm Muir I hereby make a repeated application for a
review of the Decision in this appeal of Adjudicator Ms Dhanani, in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 12 of the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
(England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.
For your convenience I attach herewith the self explanatory initial application that was made on
3rd November 2011 together with the Tribunal’s response of Mr Reeve dated 8th November
which reports the incomprehensible response to the application of Adjudicator Mr Thorne.
You will see that Mr Thorne purports as a matter of law that “the regulations do not allow an
appellant a review of an appeal where he has been successful”. Unless you are able to identify
for me any provision in the 2007 Representations and Appeals Regulations which supports that
suggestion then the response of Mr Thorne is inevitably wrong and void, and also reprehensible.
The Ground of application for review was clearly stated as in furtherance of paragraph 12(1)(vi).
I inadvertently stated that it was regulation 12 but did not refer to the Schedule although that
error will have been obvious. It provides, as you will already know:
Review of adjudicator’s decision
12.—(1) The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review—
(b) any decision to determine that a notice of appeal does not accord with paragraph 2 or to
dismiss or allow an appeal, or any decision as to costs, on one or more of the following
grounds—
(vi) the interests of justice require such a review.
It could not be stated more clearly that, where the interest of justice can be identified (as I have
done) arising from any appeal Decision, either party to the appeal is entitled to apply for a
review of that decision. It contradicts the position that Mr Thorne has chosen to adopt for
reasons yet to be discovered.
Moreover, the Tribunal’s own Practice Manual (which I find is no longer available on the
PATAS website!) reiterates at Section 18 the statutory situation of the Regulations Schedule at
paragraph 12, as it could not do otherwise.
Further to this Mr Thorne’s response to the application is self-evidently dubious because,
according to Mr Reeve, he “has also looked at all the other evidence in the case”.
If Mr Thorne had honest belief in his suggestion that the Review Application was inherently
impermissible for his reason stated, there could have been no possible need for him to waste his
time and that of the Tribunal in examining any evidence or other material, especially as
adjudicators repeatedly claim a requirement for their minimal involvement in parking appeals
regardless of the content of appeal submissions and evidence.

PaTAS Case No. 2110391236 Repeated Application for Review
Page 2 of 2
Mr Thorne had clearly examined and considered the matters in issue before choosing to evade
their being reviewed (either on his own account or in concert with others) by purporting that “the
regulations do not allow an appellant a review of an appeal where he has been successful”.
Madam, the present situation arising from Mr Reeve’s letter is disturbing for more than one
reason. I hope and expect that you will recognise this to be so and take appropriate action.
In summary I hereby make application again for a Review of the appeal Decision in this case, to
be considered in an impartial and sufficient manner either by you, yourself, or by an adjudicator
other than the appeal Adjudicator or Mr Thorne.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Wise
Copy: Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #7 on: 29 November, 2011, 02:23:55 PM »
PaTAS Rejection of my second application for review: Note the request for payment!!

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #8 on: 29 November, 2011, 06:30:58 PM »
 W:T:F:
I found myself comparing the case numbers there! The two pages appear to be from two completely different letters. I think they are asking you to pay sod all. In 28 days, sod all will be increased by 50% to a grand total of f  :o ck all. Monkeys.
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline chalky

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Another PaTAS Win v The LB of Hounslow.
« Reply #9 on: 29 November, 2011, 10:20:02 PM »
W:T:F:
I found myself comparing the case numbers there! The two pages appear to be from two completely different letters. I think they are asking you to pay sod all. In 28 days, sod all will be increased by 50% to a grand total of f  :o ck all. Monkeys.
:pmsl: :rotfl: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: