Author Topic: Interesting Hounslow Adjudication. Mods. Hounslow Board Required Please.  (Read 2626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
2120015296
In any event, I would have allowed this appeal as the local authority has failed to provide me with a copy of the Notice of Rejection (as required by Paragraph 3(3)(c) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007) or if the document supplied was the Notice of Rejection is manifestly defective - see Regulation 6 of the said Regulations.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
"Rejection of representations against notice to owner 6.—(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall(a)state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
(c)describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.
(2) A notice of rejection served in accordance with paragraph (1) may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate".

If the NOR does not contain all of this required detail the PCN is a nullity.

Further to this:

2120011830

"However, in considering the evidence filed by the Enforcement Authority in support of their case, it was immediately apparent to me that the form of Notice of Rejection used was based on a template document more suited to an informal challenge against an "on street" Penalty Charge Notice, notably by its reference to the Notice to Owner procedure which was inappropriate, and to the omission of certain prescribed statutory details under regulation 6(1) of Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007  (the Appeals Regulations) required by law to draw an appellant's attention to the charge certificate procedure, the power to award costs and the appeal process.

Regulation 4(4) of the Appeals Regulations provides the grounds on which representations may be made against a Notice to Owner Regulation 4(4)(f) provides that one of these grounds is: 'that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.'   In considering an appeal, the Adjudicator may conclude that a ground in regulation 4(4) applies and allow the appeal. "Procedural impropriety" in this context means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 or the Appeals Regulations

This includes, pursuant to Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Appeals Regulations 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 failure to incorporate in the Notice of Rejection reference to the matters set out in regulation 6(1) of Part 2 of the Appeals Regulations to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.  Regulation 7(2) of the Appeals Regulations 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".
 

« Last Edit: 04 March, 2012, 03:03:55 PM by Nigel W »

Nigel W

  • Guest
More on NOR's

2110713999

However I am concerned to read of the catalogue of irregularities on the part of the Enforcement Authority in the conduct of this Case.

"The Enforcement Authority indicate that it had accepted a transfer of liability in respect of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice yet the salient details on the Hire document are obliterated, there is no evidence of the initial issue of a Penalty Charge Notice to the Appellant and I note the incorrect address on the re-issued Penalty Charge Notice.

I am concerned to read that the Enforcement Authority consider the inappropriate issue of a Charge Certificate,  an entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the threat of court action,  as "an administration fault."

Further the Notice of Rejection has the appearance of a formulaic response. The points raised by the Appellant deserved proper consideration, I therefore carefully examined the wording of both the Notice of Rejection itself, and the Case Summary to assist in my determination as to whether or not the Enforcement Authority had accorded requisite consideration as it is obliged so to do. 

In addition to the overt failure to adequately identify/rebut or retort to the Appellant's issues in the Notice of Rejection, I observed there to be a similar lacking of the same in the Case Summary.

I conclude that the Enforcement Authority has not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

In this context, 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management act 2004 or Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

This Appeal is allowed on that basis."

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
Duty of enforcement authority to which representations are made

5
(2) Where representations are made to an enforcement authority by virtue of regulation 4(1) and in accordance with regulation 4(2), it shall subject to paragraph (1) be the duty of the enforcement authority—
(a)to consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the representations were served on it, to serve on that person notice of its decision as to whether or not it accepts that—
(i)one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 4(4) applies; or
(ii)there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the notice to owner should be cancelled and any sum paid in respect of it should be refunded.

Offline tommy the trumpet

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 504
I have the same problem with Medway, have sent letter or representation they sent a letter saying they had receivecd representation and then say if I wish to make representations in the same letter.

No notice of rejection so unable to go to appeal, then they send charge certificate promptly revoked so what do they do, change the issue date on pcn and resend it, now they have issued a second charge certificate but still have not addressed problems why the first certificate was revoked.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.    
Ciao Marco #58

Nigel W

  • Guest
Tommy
I am not in the least surprised. They have clearly demonstrated their unfittedness to conduct any DPE to me as well. They are demonstrably inept at even the most simple task.
« Last Edit: 04 March, 2012, 03:56:56 PM by Nigel W »

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
So let me see if I've got this right -

An EA is not allowed to use 'template letters' to serve a "Notice of Rejection", they actually have to write each appellant an individual letter?

If so, I would guess that you could probably nail every EA in the Country on this one but unless you got hold of at least 2 of their NORs you'd be unable to prove it!

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Hounslow Council does this - they'll take any shortcut they can in most aspects of their activities (allegedly).

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
Does it not mean the template used was the wrong one, as the one actually used was "more suited to an informal challenge against an "on street" Penalty" 
It seems they just do everything wrong,