A motorist received two letters, one of rejection and one of acceptance, of even date (an old phrase meaning the same date) in one of which the door to the tribunal was opened so he (very lazy to use the words 'Dear Sir/Madam' unless you can't make your mind up which you are) could continue to contest the PCN at the tribunal and on the other hand could forget all about it as no longer being the liable party (the vehicle had not been rented out).
Mr Mustard had an argument about the Traffic Order which had previously won at the tribunal so wasn't worried about the actual alleged contravention (all council letters about PCNs should refer to alleged contraventions until after a tribunal hearing confirms a PCN as valid, until then they are not set in stone although many councils treat them as sacrosanct and cast iron penalties and probably have a little cry when they have to cancel one).
Mr Mustard's client having been left befuddled by two letters dated 8 July 24, Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the tribunal on 15 July 24 on the basis of the contradictory responses and the council threw the towel in and cancelled the PCN on 24 July.
It was 10 years ago that Mr Mustard chatted to another regular representative at the tribunal, who he became friends with after seeing him each week at the tribunal, and expressed his surprise that councils kept lashing up the process. The consensus was that all errors ought to be corrected and those escape routes closed off from challenge but each time a route to success closes another one seems to open. Mr Mustard has come to the conclusion that the piecemeal way in which enforcement takes place and the extensive use of automation and lowly paid staff to process millions of PCNs on a conveyor belt are root causes. Long may it continue.
The 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.