 Barrie Segal is the founder of AppealNow.com – the website that has helped thousands of drivers facing unfairly dished-out PCNs. Barrie also assists in fighting parking tickets issued to Dial-a-Cab drivers whilst doing credit trips, with the result that money the Society now pays out in fines has been slashed! His ongoing battle against PCN bureaucracy sees him often being interviewed on radio and TV programmes around the world and Call Sign came to meet him when he phoned to say how pleased his late mother had been using the disabled TaxiCard. Over the years, his successes against authorities that think they can walk over motorists and especially taxi drivers, whose only crime is the need to park briefly in the course of their work. Now in a landmark decision and triumph over authority, Barrie - acting on behalf of clients in front of a Parking Adjudicator - heard Camden Council pronounced as being guilty of illegal conduct in the way they produce evidence for parking adjudications. The Adjudicator held that Camden Council had acted unlawfully by failing to make full disclosure of evidence to motorists when cases are submitted to the Parking Adjudicator. Barrie argued that Camden Council had removed evidence from the bundle that is required to be sent to all motorists when appealing to an Adjudicator. DaC drivers such as Martin Hizer (M47) and John Shakeshaft (P52) are just two of many who know all about receiving PCNs and how important the batch of papers containing evidence sent to those |
DAC’S BARRIE SEGAL DEFEATS CAMDEN! Council failed to make full disclosure of evidence at parking adjudications |
|
|
who appeal against the ticket
is. So if some papers were deliberately left out, the whole
appeal could be threatened – and that’s what Camden Council did! Barrie Segal told Call Sign: "I have complained about Camden Council’s behaviour in dealing with appeals for several months, but the complaints had fallen on deaf ears. There have been cases where evidence in the form of copy parking tickets supplied to the Adjudicator but not submitted to the motorist, have been different from the original parking tickets received by the motorist and the motorist was none the wiser." Barrie added: "It is not surprising in my view that Camden is the council with the lowest percentage of winning appellants (34%) at the Parking Adjudicator. The council’s scandalous behaviour in the above case (case 2090479625: Hilton v Camden) and others I have now won demonstrates that motorists have been treated unfairly, particularly where they have relied on the paperwork received from the council. I believe that motorists who have lost cases at the Parking Adjudicator and have not received the full evidence, can seek a refund from Camden Council." DaC are certainly lucky to have someone with Barrie Segal’s undoubted knowledge of the rights and wrongs concerning PCNs – especially as regards to Camden where in 2009 (the last year for which figures are available) they issued 419,666 penalty charge notices and towed away 3,474 vehicles. Then according to those figures, Camden Council had 2,679 appeals heard by the Parking Adjudicator and |
won 1,769 (66%) of them.
Certainly not an encouragement to take on a council who seem to
be constantly looking for taxi drivers – whether it’s stopping
to use the loo or daring to want to U-turn in Southampton Row. The Adjudicator said that the bundle of papers Barrie Segal’s client received was "deficient in a number of relevant documents whereas the enforcement authority (ie the Council or TfL) must send a complete and equal copy of the case papers to both parties. Camden also apparently sent colour photos to the tribunal but black and white to the Appellant! The authority should also serve evidence by first class post on the Appellant at their correspondence address, so that in the ordinary course of post it would arrive no later than 4 days before the hearing. DaC drivers will tell you otherwise – some even getting evidence one day before the Appeal was to be heard. The Adjudicator said that failure to comply with the requirement could result in the Appeal being adjourned or allowed on the basis that the Appellant's right to a fair trial had been prejudiced. The Adjudicator’s decision regarding the non-sending of important paperwork to Barrie Segal’s client read: "I find that the authority has not complied with this direction and that there has been prejudice to the Appellant by the failure to make full disclosure; this is especially so when the authority is aware that an Appellant is represented. The appeal is allowed..." If you need help with a PCN that came other than when doing an account trip with DaC, go to AppealNow.com and get the best help available – from Barrie Segal... |
|
|
The following press release comes from Transport for London... Taxi Advertising and PH Signage New TfL guidance |
|
Transport for London has issued revised guidelines for
advertising on licensed London Taxis and signage on licensed
London Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs). The key changes outlined in
the guidelines are the removal of the existing advertising
approval process and the approval of full rear window
advertising for taxis. The new guidelines seek to help taxi drivers and advertising agencies to clearly understand what they are allowed to advertise on their vehicles without the unnecessary administrative burden of a formal approval process. The guidelines also clarify what signage PH drivers are allowed to display. They include detailed diagrams to illustrate on which parts of the vehicle advertising/signage is permitted. The revised guidelines seek to implement a common sense, less onerous process when it comes to installing and maintaining advertising on taxis, whilst providing an opportunity for taxi drivers to earn more money from full rear window advertising. The guidelines clearly state what owners and operators can and can’t do and, in particular, the taxi trade are no longer required to seek our approval for every advert. However, we are on hand to provide additional guidance and assistance should drivers or advertising agencies require it. If advertising or signage fails to comply with the guidelines, TfL may request a copy of the advertisement or sign and if it is considered appropriate, TfL will request that the advertisement /sign is removed. See A Case of Paranoia in this issue... |
 |
Powered by NetXPosure |
| Copyright 1997-2010 Dial-A-Cab Ltd, All rights reserved. |