Author Topic: Another low for Wastemonster  (Read 6088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #15 on: 30 November, 2011, 11:07:13 PM »
In this case they took his money for parking and then gave him a ticket!  They're 'avin a bubble. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:


Case Reference: 2110009377
Declarant: Lan
Authority: Westminster
VRM: LY07OCR
PCN: WM61648740
Contravention Date: 25 Jun 2010
Contravention Time: 17:13
Contravention Location: Maiden Lane
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Parked in a suspended bay/part of bay
Referral Date: 11 Jan 2011
Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:

The Appellants' case is that the suspension of the bay was not clear, particularly as payment by phone was accepted. The onus is on the Council to show the suspension was clearly indicated. Although the CEO's photographs show a suspension sign its location in relation to the bay or the vehicle cannot be seen , and there appears to be no sign on or near  the pay by phone sign itself. I am unable to be satisfied the suspension was clearly indicated and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

I also have to say that in any event I have my doubts as to whether the relevant Traffic Management Order would allow a bay to be suspended for the purpose of  creating a parking place for electric vehicles. However in the absence of a full copy of the relevant TMO and any amendments it is impossible and unnecessary to come to a final view on that issue.
 
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #16 on: 01 December, 2011, 12:26:01 AM »
You know what, i shudder to think just how long this would have gone on for and how many people would have had these disgraceful threats, by local authoritys no less, How much money that would have been taken from ordinary citizens if the bikers hadn't been tipped over the edge and got off of their backsides and done something about it. The ntbpt, the NoToMob and now many of the general public are making them pay. It makes you realise that millions have been taken unlawfully over the years.
« Last Edit: 02 December, 2011, 12:04:01 AM by Staps »

Online The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #17 on: 01 December, 2011, 02:27:33 AM »
You know what, i shudder to think just how long this would have gone on for and how many people would have had these disgraceful threats by a local authoritys no less, How much money that would have been taken from ordinary citizens if the bikers hadn't been tipped over the edge and got off of there backsides and done something about it. The ntbpt, the NoToMob and now many of the general public are making them pay. It makes you realise that millions have been taken unlawfully over the years.

There's lots more to come, courtesy of the Mob. ;D
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 659
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #18 on: 08 January, 2012, 09:02:05 AM »
Case Reference:   2110445936



A Notice of Rejection was issued in this case on 21 July 2011.

The Notice of Appeal is dated 11 August 2011 and was lodged at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 15 August 2011.

The Appellant's representative has produced to me a Charge Certificate dated 22 August 2011 that was thus obviously issued to the Appellant after this appeal had been registered.

The Charge Certificate informs the Appellant that the penalty is now £195, threatens enforcement action through the courts if it is not paid, and states that it is now too late to challenge the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice

Issued as it was whilst the appeal was pending, this is an entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the threat of court action. For a public authority to issue such a document is utterly unacceptable. It is possible that the Charge Certificate was issued in error. That at least may be the explanation but it does not make it any the less unacceptable.

Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, by the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 or by those Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document.

Considering everything before me carefully I find that in the issuing of a Charge Certificate whilst an appeal is pending before the Adjudicator, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority, within the meaning of Regulation 4(5) of the said Appeals Regulations.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #19 on: 08 January, 2012, 09:31:54 AM »
Disgusting behaviour by a lawless Authority charged with upholding the Law.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 659
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #20 on: 19 January, 2012, 07:57:10 AM »
It's still happening;

Case Reference: 2110608768
Appellant: Mr Thomas Howat
Authority: Westminster
VRM: PX02SJV
PCN: WM68821559
Contravention Date: 29 Jun 2011
Contravention Time: 17:11
Contravention Location: Greek Street
Penalty Amount: £80.00
Contravention: Parked without payment of the parking charge
Decision Date: 18 Jan 2012
Adjudicator: Kevin Moore
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Most of the facts of this incident are not in dispute. In essence the appellant parked in Greek Street and was observed by the CEO to be unloading from his vehicle. The CEO then issued a PCN after a period of observation lasting between 22-23 minutes, and in normal circumstances this would not in my view be an issue,; however in this case it is.
I found the appellant to be a frank and reliable witness. There is a written statement from the Chairman of The House of St.Barnabas that the appellant on this evening was attending a charity event that evening, and that he was delivering furniture to the charity that evening.

The Chairman was aware that the appellant was having difficulty getting through by his mobile to the pay by phone parking telephone number and he was also aware that he explained this difficulty to the CEO. Indeed I am satisfied that the appellant was in the presence of the CEO by his vehicle when on two occasions he unsuccessfully tried to telephone the pay by phone number from his mobile phone. He was unsuccessful, but there are telephone records from "Verrus" confirming the appellant's account, and the one document appears to show that at 5.19.pm a payment was made by the appellant; oddly it appears to show the call was made and payment accepted from the appellant's mobile. This is inconsistent with the appellant's account that he made the payment later on the landline in St.Barnabas which raises the issue of whether double payment had been made; I do know the answer but I am satisfied that the appellant did all he could in order to make the payment for the parking and through no fault of his own on two separate occasions he was cut off having pressed the correct option that he had previously paid for that same vehicle.

The Authority in stating the appellant's grounds of appeal state that the vehicle was parked "without payment" during controlled hours. This in incorrect since the Authority appear not to dispute that the appellant had in fact made a payment, albeit, after the PCN was issued, and there is evidence to demonstrate such.

In all the above circumstances I am not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.

The appellant also expressed concern that he received a letter from bailiffs dated 3 November and that this was during the process of his appeal. I am satisfied that this appellant has maintained a reliable and regular communication with the Authority and to receive such correspondence can be seen as intimidating and not appropriate

In all the particular circumstances of this matter I allow the appeal.

This is a continuing action by Wastemonster.
 
Your example is obviously not the only one BGB. Wastemonster are fast becoming a joke.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Reference: 2110510969
Appellant: Mr Nesba Lubanzadio
Authority: Westminster
VRM: X108TCX
PCN: WM69328481
Contravention Date: 19 Jul 2011
Contravention Time: 05:54
Contravention Location: Great Cumberland Place
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Parked in a restricted street
Decision Date: 22 Oct 2011
Adjudicator: Michael Burke
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:

This Enforcement Authority has been reprimanded by Adjudicators on a number of occasions for the issue of unlawful demands for money in the shape of Charge Certificates issued despite appeals having been submitted to PATAS. In this case the Enforcement Authority appear to have gone one step further in the issue of a bailiff's letter on 23.09.11. The Enforcement Authority say that a Charge Certificate was issued on 19.09.11 because notification of the appeal was not received until 20.09.11. Even if this is correct it does not explain or justify the sending of a bailiff's letter on 23.09.11.The bailiff's letter amounts to a serious procedural impropriety and on this basis I allow the appeal without consideration of the evidence.

I expect an Enforcement Authority to have sufficiently robust systems in place that Appellants are not threatened with unlawful demands for money.]I have drawn my concerns to the attention of the Chief Adjudicator.[/b]

« Last Edit: 19 January, 2012, 10:27:30 AM by BGB »

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #21 on: 24 March, 2012, 08:39:18 PM »
They are still bang at it:

2110595655

"In this case the authority was notified of the Appellant's appeal on 27 October 2011.

The authority issued a Charge Certificate, while the appeal was pending, increasing the penalty from £80.00 to £120.00 and threatening court action. However, the Appellant does not have the Charge Certificate, but I accept that she called the authority and told them that she had appealed.

On its own the issuing of a Charge Certificate so near to the lodging of an appeal would not be a procedural impropriety, however the Appellant has produced two further letters from bailiffs instructed by the authority dated the 3 and 14 November 2011.

I find the letter dated 14 November 2011 to be an unlawful demand for money and I find a procedural impropriety. By the 14 November 2011 the authority should have instructed its bailiffs to cease pursuing the Appellant for the penalty amount, increasing the penalty amount and threatening court action.

"Procedural impropriety" means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the General Regulations or Representations and Appeals Regulations. This includes, pursuant to Regulation 4(5) (a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required to be taken.

I find that the issue of the second letter from the authority's bailiffs, dated 14 November 2011, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in Regulation 4(4) above applies, "he shall allow the appeal". There is no discretion about this.

The appeal is allowed."

They do not give a toss about anything. There is no sanction on them no fine nothing. They just continue to break the law with impunity.

« Last Edit: 25 March, 2012, 09:37:27 AM by Nigel W »

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player