PATAS - 6 Grounds for Appeal?

[green_and_mean]

 

As mentioned earlier, does anyone have a samle page of a legitimate Notice of Rejection, or the minimum requirement that must be met for it to be an official Notice of Rejection ?

 

Rejection of representations against notice to owner

 

6.

(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;

(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicators power to award costs; and

©describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.

[Arthur Dent]

Hi Chaps,

 

Currently not in a "predicament" - well at least not as far as PATAS goes (yet)

 

I originally posted the question because I'd heard (but couldn't at that time find) that there were only 6 grounds for appeal at tribunal stage and wondered what they were.

 

I am confident that my rejection of the P CN is fine as the signage is missing and should it go to tribunal because the council refuse to back down, then the tribunal would agree with me that the signage is indeed missing.

 

Interesting discussion though folks.

 

Cheers

 

Art

 

(still not heard from the council btw)

[Jamberson]

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but I just looked for a copy of the application form to PATAS, and yes it does list gounds for appeal and says they are the only ones they can rule on. There are nine of them (paraphrasing slightly below):

 

- The contravention did not occur

- You were not the owner of the vehicle

- The vehicle was parked by someone else without the owner's consent

- The vehicle was owned by a hire firm and was on hire

- The penalty charge exceeded the applicable amount

- Procedural impropriety

- The Traffic Order is invalid

- The CEO was not prevented from issuing (where a postal PCN was served)

- The PCN has been paid

 

In your case, you would look to item 1 (no contravention if no signage).

[green_and_mean]

Whilst the grounds are the same unless the OP has 2 PCNs he will not be dealing with PATAS anyway he will be going through the TPT.

[Kiki1]

There will be a few scans floating around the forum somewhere if you want to search, or look on Google images. They take the form of letters, with the heading "Notice of Rejection", which is a meaningful term and differentiates them from some other form of correspondence. I don't know what you mean by official (they all are), but the minimum requirement is that they carry that heading and pertain to the appeal.

 

I've had a good look round and there are five with the words 'Letter of Rejection' on other sites which appear to be both pre and post NTO.

 

What is the difference between 'Notice of Rejection' and Letter (or Notice) of Rejection of Representation' or are they one and the same ?

[green_and_mean]

I've had a good look round and there are five with the words 'Letter of Rejection' on other sites which appear to be both pre and post NTO.

 

What is the difference between 'Notice of Rejection' and Letter (or Notice) of Rejection of Representation' or are they one and the same ?

 

One is a notice served under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regulation/6/made the other is a letter.

[Kiki1]

One is a notice served under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regulation/6/made the other is a letter.

 

Which is in contradiction to the point made by Jamberson

 

'Whatever the council puts in writing is formal'

 

 

 

Is Arthur Dent hedging his bets on little more than a gesture of goodwill from the LA ?

[green_and_mean]

Which is in contradiction to the point made by Jamberson

 

'Whatever the council puts in writing is formal'

 

 

 

Is Arthur Dent hedging his bets on little more than a gesture of goodwill from the LA ?

 

Formal also means official so in essence he is correct anything they write is formal, but its not a notice of rejection to a NTO.

[Kiki1]

Formal also means official so in essence he is correct anything they write is formal, but its not a notice of rejection to a NTO.

 

Thanks

 

So, (in the eyes of the legal procession), any pre-emptive acknowledment of refuting a PCN, should an informal letter of rejection be the response, is of no use to anybody.

 

The LA, in proceeding forwards, are now on a taxpayers time/resourse wasting exercise if the same argument is put forward by the recipient following the NTO, only now the DVLA has been contacted/paid, to establish nothing more than the detail of registered keeper. Or is there something else that the legislation allows them to achieve, which might be at their advantage in going forwards (PATAS?)

[green_and_mean]

Thanks

 

So, (in the eyes of the legal procession), any pre-emptive acknowledment of refuting a PCN, should an informal letter of rejection be the response, is of no use to anybody.

 

The LA, in proceeding forwards, are now on a taxpayers time/resourse wasting exercise if the same argument is put forward by the recipient following the NTO, only now the DVLA has been contacted/paid, to establish nothing more than the detail of registered keeper. Or is there something else that the legislation allows them to achieve, which might be at their advantage in going forwards (PATAS?)

 

Sorry haven't got a clue what what you are going on about. If you are asking if a letter of rejection is a wase of paper, its obviously not as it usually allows those that have made an invalid challenge to pay at the discount before the NTO arrives. If you are asking if any Council that decides to enforce a PCN despite getting an informal challenge is wasting tax payers money then the answer is obvously no as most challenges are without merit.

[Kiki1]

Neither of those. A valid challenge is a valid challenge, however the LA and - often - PATAS will have missed the reasoning, sometimes deliberately. Otherwise there would be no requirement for further stages in the procedure - review and judicial review.

 

If you are asking if any Council that decides to enforce a PCN despite getting an informal challenge is wasting tax payers money then the answer is obvously no as most challenges are without merit.

 

Do you have a link to that statistic ? The 'merit' would 'obviously' be different, depending on which side one is on.

[Jamberson]

Kiki, I think you are getting mixed up, because you are trying to interpret official terms by picking out the individual words that they contain. You seem to be arguing that since there is an "informal" representation, then there must also be an "informal" rejection - but that's not the case.

 

"Informal representation" is a precise term for specific part of the appeals process. However there is no such term as an "informal rejection"

 

There is a rejection letter which is the appropriate response to an informal representation, and (in everyday, common English) the rejection letter is both formal and official. There is no such thing as an "informal rejection".

[green_and_mean]

The 'merit' would 'obviously' be different, depending on which side one is on.

 

The grounds for cancellation are set out by law, you would be surprised how many people appeal on grounds such as 'gone to get change', 'yellow lines are usually free after 6.30', 'stopped on a stopping restriiction only to drop someone off' ' (and my favourite) 'you get 5 minutes on yellow lines' etc etc

[Kiki1]

The grounds for cancellation are set out by law, you would be surprised how many people appeal on grounds such as 'gone to get change', 'yellow lines are usually free after 6.30', 'stopped on a stopping restriiction only to drop someone off' ' (and my favourite) 'you get 5 minutes on yellow lines' etc etc

 

The ones above are of course without merit, but the PATAS historic archives do have references to many that were found to have merit, and both this site and the Pepino one have many threads where the motorist has been treated by the LA and the adjudicator in a seemingly vexatious manner up to the point of a review.

 

In those situations there is still no apparent financial comeback for 'being in the right' from the outset.

[green_and_mean]

The ones above are of course without merit, but the PATAS historic archives do have references to many that were found to have merit, and both this site and the Pepino one have many threads where the motorist has been treated by the LA and the adjudicator in a seemingly vexatious manner up to the point of a review.

 

In those situations there is still no apparent financial comeback for 'being in the right' from the outset.

 

Thats your opinion but rarely do you see all the evidence and sometimes people actually lie I have yet to see a LA posting their side of events on here or pipepooh. Going to PATAS is a gamble for both sides some you win some you lose I don't think I can recall many occasions where the person was taken to PATAS when the actual contravention did not take place usually people get off on technicalities, poor evidence from the LA or get given the benefit of doubt.

[Newbie21]

@ArthurDent

 

Thank you for starting this thread!

 

Apparently PATAS only allow six grounds for appeal - otherwise they throw out your appeal automatically.

 

I wasn't aware of this

 

and

 

@MichaelBrowne thank you for supplying the relevant PATAS website links in post #6

 

Visiting the PATAS bus lane webpage and reading the four grounds of appeal, am so happy to see that what I'm appealing on is listed.

 

If it wasn't, would have cost me £130 for sure because I would be thinking I had a case and by the PATAS stage would have missed the £65 discount time slot!

 

Thanks to you both:-D

[Kiki1]

Kiki, I think you are getting mixed up, because you are trying to interpret official terms by picking out the individual words that they contain. You seem to be arguing that since there is an "informal" representation, then there must also be an "informal" rejection - but that's not the case.

 

"Informal representation" is a precise term for specific part of the appeals process. However there is no such term as an "informal rejection"

 

There is a rejection letter which is the appropriate response to an informal representation, and (in everyday, common English) the rejection letter is both formal and official. There is no such thing as an "informal rejection".

 

Thank you, that makes it much clearer.

 

The attached is apparently a pre-NTO rejection letter following a representation over a PCN. There is however no title - notice of rejection. Does this have any bearing on it as a correctly worded and formal response ?

 

Image - link (as the attachment appears to have shrunk by 90%)

 

http://104.imagebam.com/download/f0A-hJ4miGdHm5aHGFJmAQ/24617/246162467/Rejection%201.JPG

Edited March 29, 2013 by Kiki1

[Jamberson]

 

The attached is apparently a pre-NTO rejection letter following a representation over a PCN. There is however no title - notice of rejection. Does this have any bearing on it as a correctly worded and formal response ?

 

 

No, it doesn't. It will not carry the heading Notice of Rejection because it isn't a Notice of Rejection. It is a letter rejecting an informal rep.

 

A Notice of Rejection is different and contains different information pertaining to the appeals process. This letter is in every sense formal and official however - it just isn't a Notice of Rejection.