Mr Mustard's eye wanders when he looks at the daily register of decisions by independent adjudicators at London Tribunals and when he sees multiple entries he is tempted to click through.
When you click through you get the outline data about the vehicle and the alleged contravention and the text of the decision.
It is also possible to look at the excise duty and MOT status of the vehicle on the DVLA website. This vehicle has possibly been scrapped.
It is impossible to prove a negative, that you didn't own a particular vehicle as you will not have paid for it, insured it, taxed it, driven it etc. Anyone can register a vehicle, if they so desire, in your name.
What Mr Mustard doesn't get is two things.
The first is why PCNs from 2016 are only now reaching the tribunal, that alone is good cause for cancellation as the facts of the parking (if there were any) cannot be recalled from so long ago and so there is the risk of unfairness.
The second is why Newham Council didn't believe Mr Ersoy when he has clearly been the victim of identity theft and has a huge file of other PCNs which were cancelled by other enforcement authorities as none of them have reached the tribunal.
(Never having been the owner of a vehicle is a standard ground of representation. The registered keeper isn't, by law, the owner, that is a rebuttable presumption and once you rebut it the council have to prove you were the owner and they have zero proof.)
Newham's behaviour wouldn't be dictated by the lure of revenue of £520 would it? Yes, probably and sadly it would.
End.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.