Reply to: Parking Appeals

[Scruff]

Which mentions two decisions by other adjudicators, but not what those decisions were.

I do hope you communicate more clearly with your clients.

I am not here to justify myself to you, or anyone else here. I posted the original thread in order to inform? If you really want to "get into it", start a new thread in General, where there are no holds barred, and I am sure that it will provide ongoing entertainment?

My client communications are well received, and largely appreciated.

[captainham]

That was pointed out in my post of 06h58.

Which mentions two decisions by other adjudicators, but not what those decisions were.

I do hope you communicate more clearly with your clients.

[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.

[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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Old Greg]

It's a victory for me and all the victims of Council ineptitude. Most just get bullied into submission. I was clearly not guilty of the offence, so clearly pointed out by the adjudicator.

A little bit of retrospective legislation should sort you out, my lad.

[CheeseSlice]

Has anyone ever appealed a FPN (fixed penalty notice) rather than the PCN (penalty charge notice)?
I wanted to appeal a FPN once but it was issued by PC Plod for my parking on a 'bend'.
The bend was about as sharply curved as the surface of the planet, but I chickened out of appealing because FPN issued by police are backed with a power of criminal prosecution if the penalty is not paid. As opposed to PCNs which are only backed by powers to obtain payment by civil action.

[captainham]

It's a victory for me and all the victims of Council ineptitude. Most just get bullied into submission. I was clearly not guilty of the offence, so clearly pointed out by the adjudicator.

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