The Dirty Dancing Adjudicating Scissor Sisters
19 May 2006
I have heard yet again from the Head Of The Parking And Traffic Appeals Services This is the body that I hoped would mediate between myself and Westminster Council.
Westminster Council don’t always act fair in these matters but I had hoped for a fair hearing from this quasi judicial procedure.
Read my reply which follows
Dear Ms Axelson,
Parking Ticket WM04171238
Thank you for your letter dated 16 May replying to my application for a review of the decision on the above appeal which you have not found in my favour.
I find your letter a little strange since you have apparently deferred responsibility for the content of the letter by placing a long passage of “reasoning” in quotations and refer to another adjudicator who has apparently “directed” you, the boss, to decline the review that I was after. So, apparently this reasoning was prepared by someone else, perhaps written or dictated by someone else, maybe Miss Oxlade, or maybe yet another adjudicator or some other dictator.
Since you are the boss I will continue as if you were personally accountable for the content of your letter, although I understand your reluctance to put your name to it.
So what is wrong with your reasoning?
Your agency had invited me to set out my justification for a review of the adjudicators decision, which I did at length and offered a helpful summary of the salient reasons so you would not loose the plot.
Repeat of My Summary
The adjudicator has made assumptions without providing evidence.
The adjudicator has referred to evidence on which the Council relies without seeing that evidence and/or without showing that evidence to me.
The adjudicator is partial.
In your reasoning you omitted to refer at all to what I had written, and you have simply repeated what you had said before including the same mistakes. Your reply is therefore disingenuous, and you are not entitled to reply in this way.
For example you have again asserted as if it were true, that my search was confined to the street itself when it was not. It is clear that you are continuing to make this assertion because you are not reading what I have written, and you are rather too keen to reread what Westminster Council has written and what your fellow adjudicators have written.
Also for example, you have referred to Westminster Councils Evidence concerning the ill-defined “Controlled Parking Zone” which I have still not seen, and which I am entitled to see, and which I have asked to see.
Since I have not seen the evidence to which the adjudicator refers, and as an interested party, I am entitled to see that evidence, would you please send this to me as soon as possible
You have written that the “ The decision made by the adjudicator was one that she was reasonably entitled to make based upon the evidence before her” Since I have repeatedly asked to see this evidence and none has been provided, this decision is palpably unjust, and indeed bizarre and certainly unreasonable. Furthermore, you also have not personally seen this evidence, but you refer to it formally as if it does exist and it does not.
I reserve the right to see and to comment on all the evidence provided to the adjudicator by Westminster Council
“Injustice” is a ground for a review.