Parking Appeals

[Scruff]

So you didn't drive down a road that was reserved for buses only then?!

I drove down a road that had insufficient signs warning motorists of the restriction. The Council, in its ignorance, and rush to collect revenue, failed to conduct due diligence, or comply with DOTAS legislation. Poorly drafted PCN's by poorly prepared poop-alls.

[VectraMan]

I drove down a road that had insufficient signs warning motorists of the restriction.

According to you. According to the (supposedly independent) adjudicator, there was no merit to that argument, the road did have sufficient signs that presumably the majority of motorists are able to see.

You are guilty, unless you're claiming that it was the incorrect number of days on the penalty form you were going to receive in the future that made you drive down a bus lane.

Imagine if a murderer walked free because of some tiny administrative cockup despite overwhelming evidence that he was guilty. There'd be a huge public outcry, even more so if he gloated in public how it was a victory for the little guy.

It's not a victory; it's a failure of the system.

[convict]

According to you. According to the (supposedly independent) adjudicator, there was no merit to that argument, the road did have sufficient signs that presumably the majority of motorists are able to see.

You are guilty, unless you're claiming that it was the incorrect number of days on the penalty form you were going to receive in the future that made you drive down a bus lane.

Imagine if a murderer walked free because of some tiny administrative cockup despite overwhelming evidence that he was guilty. There'd be a huge public outcry, even more so if he gloated in public how it was a victory for the little guy.

It's not a victory; it's a failure of the system.

It's a victory if it forces the authorities to adhere to the exact same laws that the people are forced to abide.

[Scruff]

Snip According to the (supposedly independent) adjudicator, there was no merit to that argument, the road did have sufficient signs that presumably the majority of motorists are able to see. /Snip

Erm - can you please point out where in the Adjudicator's assessment this is stated?

The Adjudicator didn't feel the need to comment on the validity of the signs, since there was a defect in the PCN, itself.

Your comment regarding the "(supposedly independent) adjudicator" is uncalled for, too.

Enjoy your day.

[captainham]

Erm - can you please point out where in the Adjudicator's assessment this is stated?

The Adjudicator didn't feel the need to comment on the validity of the signs, since there was a defect in the PCN, itself.

Your comment regarding the "(supposedly independent) adjudicator" is uncalled for, too.

Enjoy your day.

Unless there is more to add which you didn't include in your OP, then to me it reads like:

"He made some comments regarding signage. I won't make any comments on this myself as I don't agree with his comments.

However his comments regarding a PCN technicality are valid, so whether or not I agree or disagree with the signage claims, this point negates the whole lot, hence my lack of desire to comment further on signage."

Surely if the adjudicator agreed that signage was inadequate, he/she would have passed comment on this too. It would be very unusual for only one "wrong" to be highlighted if there were in fact more wrongs to be declared.

If several things are broken, they would all be addressed in the final verdict (you would hope), and not just the pure admin one.

[Scruff]

You Doubting Thomases operate in the land of the negative. I would hate to see that your attitudes in the work place are the ones where a blame culture defines your attitudes towards getting things done without obstacles and obstructive behaviour?

The last paragraph of the judgement is quoted below, verbatim, but for changing my nom de plume.

"I find that there is no requirement to make judgment on the adequacy of the signage issues. I have scanned onto the system Mr Scruff's photographic evidence and two decisions of Adjudicators in this Tribunal involving the place in question. He also produced DVD evidence of his own."

[captainham]

"I find that there is no requirement to make judgment on the adequacy of the signage issues. I have scanned onto the system Mr Scruff's photographic evidence and two decisions of Adjudicators in this Tribunal involving the place in question. He also produced DVD evidence of his own."

Which is another way of saying "The adjudicator (AND two others...not helping yourself here! ) all feel that signage is adequate/not an issue", which was the whole point from earlier.

If three adjudicators thought it was inadequate, then they'd make judgement. They haven't, so it's not.

So going back to the summary...you ignored the apparently clear signs but got off on a technicality.

[Scruff]

Which is another way of saying "The adjudicator (AND two others...not helping yourself here! ) all feel that signage is adequate/not an issue", which was the whole point from earlier.

If three adjudicators thought it was inadequate, then they'd make judgement. They haven't, so it's not.

So going back to the summary...you ignored the apparently clear signs but got off on a technicality.

Captainham

I am afraid that you are incorrect. The two judgements that I provided to the Adjudicator, were two which were allowed on appeal, due to the signage being inadequate. The reason that the signage wasn't taken into account, in my instance, was due to the fact that the initial PCN was defective, so the Adjudicator did not have to even go so far as to refer to the evidence relating to the signage. "I find that there is no requirement to make judgment on the adequacy of the signage issues"

I would suggest climbing down from your lofty perch, since it appears that you know less about Jurisprudence than your post implies? A parking Adjudication does not have to take into account precedence, but each case on its own merits and his adjudication doesn't set a precedent, either. They can be used in other cases as points of reference.

semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

[captainham]

Calm down dear. The way you described it up until now, it could easily be interpreted that signage was not an issue, as the only mention of signage was "I'm not going to mention signage".

Now you have finally stated clearly that yes, it was an issue in two other cases, only now do I have the whole picture.

[Scruff]

Calm down dear. The way you described it up until now, it could easily be interpreted that signage was not an issue, as the only mention of signage was "I'm not going to mention signage".

Now you have finally stated clearly that yes, it was an issue in two other cases, only now do I have the whole picture.

That was pointed out in my post of 06h58.