PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hopeless appeal - council PCN
CouncilFraud
post Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Hello Everyone,

I got a council PCN last year which I appealed with Bogsy's hopeless appeal letter (long story short theres nothing doing with appealing it on any grounds other than going for the hopeless appeal). So the council came back with a stock response of rejecting it. But they did not provide any of the info requested under the freedom of information act or even acknowledge the FOI request.

So I've emailed the FOI office at the council to dob the council parking department in for not processing the request in time or providing any of the requested info. So I'm wondering what the next action is, wait for NTO? Write back to them to say wheres my photos and other info?

Here is what I asked for, as per standard Bogsy goodness ;-)

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

The council responded with (note there were no photos in the email even though they say they are enclosed):

Thank you for writing to us. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your correspondence.


We have carefully considered your points but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

You were issued a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time when you were not allowed to park there. Single yellow lines mean no parking, except to load or unload. However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.

The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone.

The enclosed photo helps to show why your PCN was issued.

You have these choices:
You can pay the discount charge of £35.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter being served (delivered). (This is taken to be 2 days after the date shown on the letter unless you can show that it was not delivered by that date.)
You can pay £70.00.
You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £70.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives.

How to pay
Online at www under the heading "Do it online" click "Pay" and follow the instructions.
24hr payment line Payments can be made on the automated payment line using a debit or credit card. Please telephone xxx
At a Post Office Payments can be made at a Post Office by cash, cheque or debit card. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.
At a Paypoint outlet Payments can be made at a Paypoint outlet by cash only. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.



Do you think I have enough to let the NTO come, make representation that they mucked up by not supplying any information or photos that I requested? Any thoughts?

TIA

This post has been edited by CouncilFraud: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 21:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 21:35
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Thanks all for the advice I think I will go for them not complying with statutory guidance there. Do you think it might be seen by the adjudicator as clutching at straws/baiting for procedural impropriety and lessen the credibility of an appeal?

Interesting read here about 56 days and Sheffield:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/offici...peals-1-4729849

From their appeals process here:

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d.../procedure.html

Unsuccessful appeals
If your appeal is rejected, we will send you a Notice of Rejection letter and ask you to pay the full charge. We will also include an appeal form (see below).
We will re-apply the discounted charge if your representation against a postal fine was received within the discount period.


Do you read this as we will discount all tickets gain (including those nasty yellow packets attached to windscreens that I got) or just ones that were posted without ever begin stuck to a windscreen? I'm unclear if the notice of rejection acts as a postal fine (and probably being daft).

On another note Bogsy, that hopeless appeal letter is an absolute corker, had me in stitches at the thought of parking services people tearing their hair out at it, I'm glad it got some tickets kicked!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 21:51
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



2110237531 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 22:02
Post #23





Guests






QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 21:35) *
On another note Bogsy, that hopeless appeal letter is an absolute corker, had me in stitches at the thought of parking services people tearing their hair out at it, I'm glad it got some tickets kicked!


It still has use in hopeless cases. If only to make the appellant feel better. The Freedom of Information angle tagged onto it was a bit devious. Most councils have to reply free of charge to FOI requests that don't exceed a cost to them of £600. You would think that it is a no brainer for a council to cancel a penalty charge rather than go to the expense of a costly FOI request. Why spend £600 to obtain (in many cases)a penalty charge paid at discount which may be as little as £25? Also, FOI requests involving parking information will be passed to parking staff to gather. If they're doing this then they can't be issuing PCN's or considering appeals. It might be a devious tactic but it is legal.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 22:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 23:00
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Thanks Hippocrates, in that case I will await the NTO, they definitely did not attach a photograph to the email but said the attached photograph will explain why we are thieving.

The FOI bit is great Bogsy, it exploits the fact that Councils have no common sense and like to throw good money after bad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 23:02
Post #25





Guests






Just to clarify, is paying the discounted charge still an option?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 23:20
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Hi Bogsy,

Yes they reset the clock on the discount so its still and option for another 11 days
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 23:34
Post #27





Guests






OK. I'll be honest and say that so far I see nothing that is an absolute winner for you. It seems the strongest point thus far is the fact that the council failed to comply with statutory guidance and reply to your challenge within 14 days. I fear that the council may say that they do give regard but the xmas period contributed to the delay and that an adjudicator will accept this as a valid reason.

If you cannot afford to gamble paying the higher charge then don't. It's your money at risk so give it some serious thought. I'm not trying to be negative, it's just that none of us can guarantee that you will succeed, it's 50/50 at best.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 23:44
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Sorry, but I for one need to see all documents to make a final decision on this.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 00:42
Post #29





Guests






What do you need to decide H? Have you something in mind?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 00:45
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 00:42) *
What do you need to decide H? Have you something in mind?

Just my advice.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 00:53
Post #31





Guests






Can't argue with that. Your advice has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat on many occasions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 10:17
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You challenged. They took 2 months to reply. Although we haven't seen any docs yet, the discount is likely to expire on 18 Feb (14 days after the date of their letter).

IMO, the stat guidance angle is a distraction. The authority could have had regard and given itself an aspirational policy objective of answering within 14 days but IMO in no way would they tie themselves to having to, that would be madness. Just because they've had regard does not mean that the guidance, which itself only makes a recommendation, places a legally binding limit on the authority.

Can we please see the relevant docs, you've got 6 days left.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 14:16
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Hello again everyone, I am most appreciative for your continued assistance. I have pulled together the docs.

The original ticket attached.

My response I no longer have the exact copy due to an unfortunate incident with a beverage and computer hardware, but it was pretty much the same as from Bogsy's post here just adapted to my location, asking for standard FOI bits and info on uniforms:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry509013

Attached is the Councils rather lacklustre response with names/address removed (now please tell me if I am being daft but I can see no photos in the doc and this was the only attachment in the email, i've only removed my identifying text and name of the PS person responding).

For what its worth I also emailed the FOI officer to tell them PS did not respond to my FOI request:

Me:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you to you in regards to a FOI request that I made to Sheffield council parking services in response to a penalty charge notice that I was issued on 30/11/14. The PCN reference number is removed

As part of my written informal appeal in December I included a formal written request under the freedom of information act a number of pieces of information pertinent to my appeal. The information I requested was as follows:

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

I have today received a response from Sheffield council parking services in relation to my appeal. Unfortunately their response is both later than the 20 working days that the FOI act states I should receive a reply and it also contains none of the items of information that I have requested.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into why Sheffield council parking services have failed to respond to my FOI request within the timeframe and to provide the information that I have requested. If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely


FOI response:

Dear removed

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Request for information re: PCNs, traffic orders and appeals process which we received on 04/02/2015.

In regard to your request to Parking Services, we have contacted them in order to receive clarification of when/if your initial request was received. We will also remind them of the requirement of the Freedom of Information Act and to scan correspondence received in order to see if a request could be considered under the FOI and responded to accordingly.

In respect to specific elements of your request Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 relate to your own PCN and therefore we will be unable to supply information under the Freedom of Information Act as an exemption applies. Where an individual requests their own information this it is generally refused under Section 40 of the Act with a neither confirm or deny response whether we hold the relevant information. This is because the requests are deemed a request for personal data and therefore should be processed under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act. Details of how to make a request under this Act can be found at https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-coun...ss-request.html should you wish to peruse this element of your request.

This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for your request can be found above.

The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within 20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us by 04/03/2015.

In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact me on removed

Thank you.

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 

Attached File(s)
Attached File  PS_response.DOC ( 44.5K ) Number of downloads: 39
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 18:02
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Their response is bollocks.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 19:53
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 19:02) *
Their response is bollocks.


Haha I love it Hippocrates, I guess you think I should relish the the NTO landing on my doormat?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 20:15
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Why?

What statutory grounds of appeal do you have? Were you parked on a SYL when in force without an exemption applying? If so, on what basis would you intend to challenge the NTO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Mon, 9 Feb 2015 - 19:48
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



If I'm following these good folks then it seems that not providing the requested info and not enclosing photos that they said were attached could be grounds for procedural impropiety.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 9 Feb 2015 - 19:53
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I would say so, i.e. possibly.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 9 Feb 2015 - 20:05
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I wouldn't put my money on it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CouncilFraud
post Mon, 13 Apr 2015 - 19:11
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 4 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,543



Evening all,

Firstly apologies for digging up this time capsule of an old thread, but I got my NtO through recently on this ticket. I've had a go at writing my representations based on the advice that you have all graciously provided me with on this thread and wondered if anyone could please give it a once over and let me know what you think? I wasn't 100% sure on a few things:

1)Is it worth labouring the point about every bit of info they didn't provide or just the photographs and TRO?
2)Is it a good/bad idea to cite the PATAS case ref?
3)Should it be worded a bit more bolshy? i.e look at all these 'mistakes' how can you not throw the ticket

Dear Sir/Madam,

I herewith make the following representations in reference to PCN XXX issued on 30/11/2014.

I believe that a procedural impropriety has occurred in regards to your handling of this PCN. The Traffic Management Act 2004 S87 states that:

"87Guidance to local authorities

(1)The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.
(2)In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance."

The Secretary of State's Traffic Management Act 2004 Operational Guidance to Local Authorities states that:

"11.10 Statutory representations cannot be made until an NtO has been served but many motorists are likely to write to authorities before then if they do not believe that a PCN is merited. These objections are known as informal representations or challenges. They can be made at any time up to the
receipt of the NtO. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges against PCNs before they issue the NtO and authorities must consider them (the concept of informal challenge does not apply to PCNs issued by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). Authorities are likely to receive these within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days. Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the appropriate authority to deal with these challenges."

As my informal appeal was made within 14 days of the contravention and no response was received until 04/02/2015, I believe that there has been no regard to the Secretary of State's guidance due to the fact that it took nearly 2 full months to receive a response.

I further believe that a procedural impropriety has occurred due to your failure to provide requested information which I requested in order to adequately prepare my appeal. Included in my informal appeal was a request for the full title of the Traffic Management Order of which I am alleged to have contravened. Your correspondence dated 04/02/2015 contained none of the information that I requested. I would refer you to PATAS case ref 2110237531 which establishes that failure to supply requested TRO details amounts to a procedural impropriety.

Furthermore your correspondence dated 04/02/2015 also stated that "The enclosed photo helps to show you why your PCN was issued". Yet there was no photograph enclosed in your correspondance which I believe is yet a further procedural impropriety in your handling of my appeal.

Yours
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:35
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here