Author Topic: NoToMob 3 (Wise Wise Wise) Hounslow 1 (Disputed Penalty by Adjudicator!)  (Read 2008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
I have been involved with a total of four CCTV regulation 10 PCN's issued by Hounslow Council. Two of these were cancelled by Hounslow at the representation stage after I pointed out to them that the recipient had been sent the following in a letter in responce to my representations:

"You can formally challenge your 'parking ticket' by using a Notice to Owner form. The owner will automatically receive the form if the 'parking ticket' has not been paid within 28 days of being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your 'parking ticket', please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives".

I pointed out to them that the original PCN was the Notice to Owner. They had already received the formal challenge. The recipient was therefore wrongly issued with a charge certificate whilst waiting to receive the promised Notice to Owner that never arrived.

The third MEV PCN was one that I appealed at PaTAS on two Grounds:

The first ground of appeal showed that the Council operates contrary to the rules of operation to which it has expressly bound itself.  The second ground showed that evidence necessary for the Council to demonstrate that their CCTV equipment constitutes an Approved Device was not presented by them in evidence, more of material importance that it does not exist other than in a falsified form that should have cause immediate concern to the Tribunal, and that the impermissible wrongdoing involved was at the fault of both the Council and certifying agency.

The Adjudicator on seeing all of my evidence decided to find another innocuous reason to allow the appeal!

See: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1471.msg12036.html#msg12036

Below are the details of the fourth appeal. This is the only appeal that I have ever lost (I have done a great number of them):

The PCN was issued by fixed CCTV. There were two grounds of appeal that were both very solid.

GROUND 1  THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW'S VIDEO EVIDENCE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PaTAS

GROUND 2  THE INADEQUATE QUALITY OF THE VIDEO EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION AS PART OF AN APPROVED DEVICE.

The appeal was inexplicably refused and two separate applications for review were also recently rejected. See attachments.

A Charge Certificate was also issued by Hounslow before the prescribed period of 28 days had expired after the rejection of the first application for review.

Despite this irregularity the PCN has now been paid in full, on behalf of the Appellant, by the Mob at the Charge Certificate stage.

This does not stop us or anyone else from contuining to supply these grounds to PaTAS for other appeals. PaTAS will eventually start to take notice of them.

Also see: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1926.0.html for futher details of this appeal.


« Last Edit: 28 April, 2012, 10:48:49 AM by Nigel W »

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
that took some reading, cant believe Harmen and thorne can remain in their positions, corrupt comes to mind here

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
that took some reading, cant believe Harmen and thorne can remain in their positions, corrupt comes to mind here

According to some residents of Hounslow, the Council has been corrupt for years (allegedly)