 | ||
| Improve your Latin |
In December 15 there were 100 Barnet Council cases which ended up as allowed or refused. The motorist only won 43. Barnet Council are on a roll. A 50/50 split is the average outcome across London.
Only two non-routine cases.
Costs are rarely awarded.
I allowed this appeal on 31/07/15 following a personal hearing.
(The local authority do not deny that they received this payment but say in their case summary that the Appellant has not provided any evidence that this payment was for the vehicle the subject matter of the contravention.
The local authority having accepted that a payment was received should be able to trace from their records what the payment relates to and whether or not they incorrectly failed to credit the payment to the Appellant's vehicle.
In addition they should have explained why they were rejecting the Appellant's representations that a payment had been made, as not being valid, in their Notice of Rejection. Instead they have merely informed the Appellant that the evidence is not sufficient without any explanation as to why or what evidence the Appellant was expected to produce.
Considering the evidence carefully I am not satisfied that the contravention did occur or that the local authority have addressed the Appellant's representations properly.)
The Appellant has now applied for an order for costs and expenses to be made against the authority on the basis that their conduct in rejecting her original representations and resisting this appeal has been frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable. The Authority have been sent copies of everything submitted, and have been requested to make any representations as to why an order for costs should not be made. They have not responded.
I allow the appellant's costs in the amount claimed of £54
(The local authority do not deny that they received this payment but say in their case summary that the Appellant has not provided any evidence that this payment was for the vehicle the subject matter of the contravention.
The local authority having accepted that a payment was received should be able to trace from their records what the payment relates to and whether or not they incorrectly failed to credit the payment to the Appellant's vehicle.
In addition they should have explained why they were rejecting the Appellant's representations that a payment had been made, as not being valid, in their Notice of Rejection. Instead they have merely informed the Appellant that the evidence is not sufficient without any explanation as to why or what evidence the Appellant was expected to produce.
Considering the evidence carefully I am not satisfied that the contravention did occur or that the local authority have addressed the Appellant's representations properly.)
The Appellant has now applied for an order for costs and expenses to be made against the authority on the basis that their conduct in rejecting her original representations and resisting this appeal has been frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable. The Authority have been sent copies of everything submitted, and have been requested to make any representations as to why an order for costs should not be made. They have not responded.
I allow the appellant's costs in the amount claimed of £54
Barnet Council are often disrespectful in not replying to tribunal correspondence. perhaps a cost order will make them more polite.
Don't drive before you vomit
The Appellant does not deny the contravention as such, but claims the exemption that he was unable to move his vehicle because of circumstances beyond his control - that his passenger, his wife who was pregnant, felt sick and he had to pull over, into what was in effect the middle of the road in a hatched area, where she vomited as seen by the civil enforcement officer.
The burden is upon the Appellant to prove this exemption that amounts in effect to a medical emergency. Clearly, the driver feeling unwell can be such an emergency as it could prevent a driver driving a vehicle safely. Where the feeling unwell is of a passenger, if it is not life threatening (requiring immediate medical attention), it is more difficult for this exemption to apply as in most cases the driver could have pulled over where it was legal to park as he was not prevented by sickness from driving.
In any event, the burden is upon the Appellant to establish that he is entitled to the exemption.
The civil enforcement officer recorded the following: driver returned after pcn was printed icO male 30’s 1.70m medium build he asked me to delete the pictures, his wife icO female 30’s . 1.70m medium build
she said she is pregnant and she came out from the back seats
after pt, pcn printed, awc, nbbv, nlul, pt, vda
I am not persuaded that the passenger became ill as he suggests, but even if I am wrong and she was, the exemption does not apply because the driver did not have to stop where he did double yellow line as the sickness was not an emergency in the sense of a serious illness requiring immediate medical attention.
In these circumstances, this appeal must be refused
The burden is upon the Appellant to prove this exemption that amounts in effect to a medical emergency. Clearly, the driver feeling unwell can be such an emergency as it could prevent a driver driving a vehicle safely. Where the feeling unwell is of a passenger, if it is not life threatening (requiring immediate medical attention), it is more difficult for this exemption to apply as in most cases the driver could have pulled over where it was legal to park as he was not prevented by sickness from driving.
In any event, the burden is upon the Appellant to establish that he is entitled to the exemption.
The civil enforcement officer recorded the following: driver returned after pcn was printed icO male 30’s 1.70m medium build he asked me to delete the pictures, his wife icO female 30’s . 1.70m medium build
she said she is pregnant and she came out from the back seats
after pt, pcn printed, awc, nbbv, nlul, pt, vda
I am not persuaded that the passenger became ill as he suggests, but even if I am wrong and she was, the exemption does not apply because the driver did not have to stop where he did double yellow line as the sickness was not an emergency in the sense of a serious illness requiring immediate medical attention.
In these circumstances, this appeal must be refused
You must tell the tribunal the truth otherwise you lose.
Gosh, we'll be in 2016 soon.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment