Author Topic: Another low for Wastemonster  (Read 6036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 658
Another low for Wastemonster
« on: 10 November, 2011, 09:58:45 AM »
From the PaTAS Statutoty Register

"Case Reference: 2110555639...

Contravention: Parked in a restricted street
Decision Date: 09 Nov 2011
Adjudicator: Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice, the Notice to Owner and any Charge Certificate issued and cause all enforcement action in respect of this penalty charge to cease forthwith.

Reasons:
This appeal was received at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 10 October 2011.

The Appellant says that she has subsequently received letters from a bailiff company, one instructing that the 'debt' needed to be paid as soon able possible, another being a 'debt recovery letter', that were obviously issued to her after this appeal had been registered.

Issued as they were whilst the appeal was pending, these are entirely unlawful demands for money. For a public authority to issue such a document, whether by itself or by its servants or agents, is utterly unacceptable. It is possible that these documents were 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 issuing, or causing, instructing or permitting the issue of, demands for payment, 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."

 


"

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #1 on: 10 November, 2011, 10:17:48 AM »
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.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #2 on: 10 November, 2011, 10:32:36 AM »
Here is another strange thing. Yesterday The Chief Adjudicator at PaTAS allowed 13 Westminster Appeals. THERE IS NO REASON GIVEN FOR ALLOWING THESE APPEALS.

Not only that but the following details have been deleted:
Contravention Date:  BLANK
Contravention Time:  BLANK
Contravention Location:  BLANK
Penalty Amount:  BLANK
Contravention:  BLANK

Decision Date: 09 Nov 2011
Decision: Allowed by order of the Chief Adjudicator.   THAT'S IT. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON GIVEN.

So nobody knows what the PCN's were for or why they were cancelled.

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #3 on: 10 November, 2011, 10:34:46 AM »
Do we smell a rat? HELL YEAH.
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #4 on: 10 November, 2011, 10:49:33 AM »
A Rowley Rat, no doubt. He comes up with an endless stream of new and imaginative schemes to disgust the public. Each one more brazen than previous efforts.
What's the difference between a Rhinoceros and Cllr. Rowley?
One is a lumbering beast with a thick skin and small brain who makes ridiculous charges on vehicles and the other is native to Africa and southern asia.
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 coco

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • Northampton
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #5 on: 10 November, 2011, 12:18:45 PM »
I love that definition, Ewan   :pmsl:   :pmsl:   :pmsl:

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #6 on: 10 November, 2011, 12:56:15 PM »
Ewan that is sooooo accurate it is spooky. :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #7 on: 10 November, 2011, 03:36:41 PM »
This all seems very odd :idea:
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #8 on: 10 November, 2011, 07:10:24 PM »
Ewan that is sooooo accurate it is spooky. :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

If you think that's accurate, Sir Olly has a description that is a dictionary definition of our favourite parking furher.

     
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 BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 658
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #9 on: 30 November, 2011, 03:53:18 PM »
Westminster are still at it.
___________________________________________________________________________________"Case Reference:   2050339777
Appellant:   Mr Somru Miah
Authority:   Westminster
VRM:   H69DOU
PCN:   WM02107635
Contravention Date:   14 Apr 2005
Contravention Time:   18:13
Contravention Location:   Broadley Street
Penalty Amount:   £100.00
Contravention:   Parked in a meter bay showing penalty time
Decision Date:   05 Nov 2005
Adjudicator:   Martin Wood
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons:   The Appellant has produced to me a Charge Certificate that was issued to him on 10 October. At that time this appeal was pending. The Charge Certificate informs the Appellant that the penalty is now £150, 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. But this is not an isolated case. I am aware of other instances of this happening that have occurred over a period of time. My understanding is that such unlawful Charge Certificates are being issued because of a problem with the local authority's computer system. That may be the explanation, but it does not make it any the less unacceptable. Nor does it seem that in the meantime the local authority has put in place steps for a manual scrutiny of the documents it issues to intercept any unlawful Charge Certificates to prevent them being despatched.

That the local authority continues to issue such documents, knowing full well that it is happening and that they are unlawful, and that this has persisted for some time, appears to suggest a lack of appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness of the situation and a lack of urgency in resolving it.

The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.

I allow this appeal.

I am drawing this decision to the attention of the local authority's Parking Manager"

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 658
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #10 on: 30 November, 2011, 03:57:41 PM »
And another...

"Case Reference:   2110506407
Appellant:   Mr Mohammed Mujibur R Chowdhury
Authority:   Westminster
VRM:   W309PBJ
PCN:   WM68969593
Contravention Date:   02 Jul 2011
Contravention Time:   07:39
Contravention Location:   Denman Street
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign
Decision Date:   28 Nov 2011
Adjudicator:   Michael Burke
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons:   The Notice of Rejection in this case was dated 17.08.11 and PATAS received an in-time Notice of Appeal on 14.09.11. The Local Authority issued a Charge Certificate on 19.09.11.I am satisfied that at this stage they had no good reason to believe they had any right to issue a Charge Certificate.
The Local Authority will be aware of the then Chief Adjudicator's decision in case reference 2050339777 Miah v. City of Westminster in which the Local Authority had issued a Charge Certificate in similar circumstances. The Chief Adjudicator pointed out that the Charge Certificate amounted to an unlawful demand for money coupled with a threat of court action in default, and stated:
'The procedural impropriety in the issuing of this unlawful demand in my view fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of this tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.'
I take the same view in this case as the Chief Adjudicator took in Miah and accordingly I allow the appeal."


Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #11 on: 30 November, 2011, 04:10:03 PM »
They need to be sued for harassment or similar surely  :idea:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #12 on: 30 November, 2011, 05:27:33 PM »
They should be compensating the drivers especially as they know their kit is no good, doesn't fraud come into this somewhere
suggest a lack of appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness of the situation

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #13 on: 30 November, 2011, 05:34:17 PM »
Yes PCN's issued by Uncertificated equipment that is not capable of receiving certification anyway. Then more unlawful activity by requesting payment.

Take them down! .... To the cells.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Another low for Wastemonster
« Reply #14 on: 30 November, 2011, 10:41:50 PM »
It just gets worse and worse.


Case Reference: 2100585473

Appellant: Mrs Roselyn Marie N Scott

Authority: Westminster

VRM: S59RLF

PCN: WM64060789

Contravention Date: 19 Sep 2010

Contravention Time: 18:26

Contravention Location: Charing Cross Road

Penalty Amount: £120.00

Contravention: Parked in a restricted street

Decision Date: 03 Mar 2011

Adjudicator: Henry Michael Greenslade

Appeal Decision: Allowed

Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice, Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate and do all that is necessary to cause any and all enforcement action to cease forthwith.

Reasons:

In this case the Enforcement Authority issued a Notice of Rejection on 1 November 2010. The Appellant's appeal was lodged at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 23 November 2010.
 
The Appellant has produced to me a Charge Certificate dated 3 December 2010 that was thus obviously issued to her after this appeal had been registered.
 
The Charge Certificate informs the Appellant that the penalty is now £180, 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 in itself 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.
 
However, the Appellant has also produced to me a letter from Philips Specialist Bailiff and Debt Recovery Agents, acting on behalf of the City of Westminster in respect of this present Penalty Charge Notice and making further threats of legal action.
 
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 issuing this Charge Certificate and also instructing bailiffs, 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.


Never mind "Take them down!" Nigel.  For demanding money with menaces, these bastards need nailing up!
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player