denied for unpaid parking ticket

[jmarcille]

i was denied a ltcf permit due to an unpaid parking ticket back in march. i called the traffic and parking bureaus and they told me i had no outstanding tickets and faxed me a print out showing the same.i took it to the permit dept. gave them another copy of my drivers license, and they said i would be notified by mail.that was on march 6th.it is now may 25th and i still haven't heard anything.my question, is did they deny me and do i have to apply again or are they really that slow and trying to deter me in getting my permit.they did mention the reason they denied me for a ticket was because on my interview they asked if i had any unpaid tickets. i told them i had a parking ticket and it would be getting paid on friday. this was back in the first week of february 2011.

[MDJschool]

They have 45 days to issue or refuse to issue a license. Figure out the day in Feb. you applied and count 45 days from that for the approximate "due by" date for a decision. Failing to be issued a license should be deemed a refusal to issue. From there, only an appeal lies (or maybe a writ of mandamus), although through this continuing administrative misfeasance maybe you can still score a license.

Unfortunately there is this very fucked up situation where 6109 names the "chief of police" of a "city of the first class" a few times, but not enough times to give them any meaningful responsibilities. That makes it really hard to know how the Philly process really works. But if you read all of the "sheriff" references to mean "issuing authority", then (e)(1) and (g) provide for the denial. Since Philly ultimately issues LTCFs pursuant to 6109(a) and (b) even if the most of the rest of it doesn't apply, that means they're issuing under the UFA, so § 6114 applies, which states: "The action of the chief of police, sheriff, county treasurer or other officer under this subchapter shall be subject to judicial review in the manner and within the time provided by 2 Pa.C.S. Ch. 7 Subch. B (relating to judicial review of local agency action)."

Because of the contents of 2 Pa.C.S. Ch. 7 Subch. B, I don't know why anyone bothers with the L & I board. Even if Philly took the absence of chief of police being named through 6109 to mean that they, as a home rule municipality, can legislate on the matter, once the license is denied or revoked, the action has been taken, and can be immediately brought to court. There's no room for the L & I board inbetween those events.

Because no complete record is created prior to the revocation of the interest, the applicant/licensee is probably going to get a de novo hearing on the revocation (which is unfortunately much more likely outside philly than in it, for the very reason of the L & I board existing.)

I'm sorry to hear you submitted yourself to the interview (among the other unnecessary and illegal requirements Philly perpetrates.) If you knew you would be denied both for a unpaid parking ticket that was actually paid no differently than refusing illegal requirements, would you have subjected yourself to all of these things?

§ 751. Scope of subchapter
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this subchapter shall apply to all local agencies regardless of the fact that a statute expressly provides that there shall be no appeal from an adjudication of an agency, or that the adjudication of an agency shall be final or conclusive, or shall not be subject to review.
(b) Exception.--The provisions of this subchapter shall apply to any adjudication which under any existing statute may be appealed to a court of record, but only to the extent not inconsistent with such statute.
§ 752. Appeals
Any person aggrieved by an adjudication of a local agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure).
§ 753. Scope of review
(a) General rule.--A party who proceeded before a local agency under the terms of a particular statute, home rule charter, or local ordinance or resolution shall not be precluded from questioning the validity of the statute, home rule charter or local ordinance or resolution in the appeal, but if a full and complete record of the proceedings before the agency was made such party may not raise upon appeal any other question not raised before the agency (notwithstanding the fact that the agency may not be competent to resolve such question) unless allowed by the court upon due cause shown.
(b) Equitable relief.--The remedy at law provided by subsection (a) shall not in any manner impair the right to equitable relief heretofore existing, and such right to equitable relief is hereby continued, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a).
§ 754. Disposition of appeal
(a) Incomplete record.--In the event a full and complete record of the proceedings before the local agency was not made, the court may hear the appeal de novo, or may remand the proceedings to the agency for the purpose of making a full and complete record or for further disposition in accordance with the order of the court.
(b) Complete record.--In the event a full and complete record of the proceedings before the local agency was made, the court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by the agency. After hearing the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter B of Chapter 5 (relating to practice and procedure of local agencies) have been violated in the proceedings before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. If the adjudication is not affirmed, the court may enter any order authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 706 (relating to disposition of appeals).

While it's been suggested there may be an indefinite time to appeal, there's never been a citation for that which I can recall. Otherwise, as directed by § 752, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571 seems to provide 30 days or so.

(a) General rule.--The time for filing an appeal, a petition for allowance of appeal, a petition for permission to appeal or a petition for review of a quasi-judicial order, in the Supreme Court, the Superior Court or the Commonwealth Court shall be governed by general rules. No other provision of this subchapter shall be applicable to matters subject to this subsection.
(b) Other courts.--Except as otherwise provided in subsections (a) and (c) and in section 5571.1 (relating to appeals from ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.), an appeal from a tribunal or other government unit to a court or from a court to an appellate court must be commenced within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken, in the case of an interlocutory or final order.
(c) Exceptions.--
* * *
(6) Implied determinations.--When pursuant to law a determination is deemed to have been made by reason of the expiration of a specified period of time after submission of a matter to a tribunal or other government unit or after another prior event, any person affected may treat the expiration of such period as equivalent to the entry of an order for purposes of appeal and any person affected shall so treat the expiration of the period where the person has actual knowledge (other than knowledge of the mere lapse of time) that an implied determination has occurred.
(d) Interlocutory appeals.--A petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order must be filed within 30 days after its entry.
* * *

You may have only had 30 days from receiving the notice, or 30 days from the end of the 45 day period, by which to provide notice of appeal to the court of common pleas.

If you want to work the administrative misfeasance angle, call them up and ask what's going on. Keep doing it until they do something about it.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . .

Because of the contents of 2 Pa.C.S. Ch. 7 Subch. B, I don't know why anyone bothers with the L & I board. Even if Philly took the absence of chief of police being named through 6109 to mean that they, as a home rule municipality, can legislate on the matter, once the license is denied or revoked, the action has been taken, and can be immediately brought to court. There's no room for the L & I board inbetween those events.
. . . .

I'm sorry to hear you submitted yourself to the interview (among the other unnecessary and illegal requirements Philly perpetrates.) If you knew you would be denied both for a unpaid parking ticket that was actually paid no differently than refusing illegal requirements, would you have subjected yourself to all of these things?
. . .

Have you been involved in cases where the citizen achieved better results, either by refusing the interview, or bypassing the L&I appeal?

[MDJschool]

Have you been involved in cases where the citizen achieved better results, either by refusing the interview, or bypassing the L&I appeal?

If the only meaning of 'better' is the rate at which individual applicants actually receive licenses, then I would not know no whether their chance is better or not.

What we might reasonably surmise is that being party to the misfeasance that so many denied and revoked persons have done, following being party to the same misfeasance during the application process, has given Philly a big head. So when I consider that people are going AROUND THE LAW and going to the L & I board, I would not call the collection of activities versus licenses issued "better".

I find it hard to believe that there has not been some rather disinterested person (and upstanding candidate) coopted by some gun rights group to apply, fail to perform Philly extras, appeal straight to the CCP, and take it to at least the Commonwealth Ct. level. Every case I've read is about 'bad people' and either a poor showing on the appellant's part or completely horrible judges. I suppose all the good cases could remain unpublished, but any lawyer can read the Rules or on the AOPC website or whatever that one often just has to motion to make an unpublished opinion published.

So, do I want people continuously coming on PAFOA being encouraged to solicit misfeasance? No. I don't want more accomplices in the perpetual crime regime of Philly (not to mention other counties.) I suspect other counties look to Philly as an example of what they can get away with. Not only is it bad for philly, then, but for the commonwealth.

I encourage counterbalance to my first post because it's not exhaustive or dispositive to the OP's actual questions.