parking ticket tear off slip, parking ticket tear off slip |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
parking ticket tear off slip, parking ticket tear off slip |
 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 - 23:06
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332  |
Hi, my wife has just come back from seeing Cinderella at the Wimbledon Theatre with the kids, and one of the Ugly Sisters gave her an early Christmas present, a PCN.
My question: Is Glacier2's reply in http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t25440.html still valid in regards to the change in legislation earlier this year. This post has been edited by snowno: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 - 17:21 |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Sun, 21 Dec 2008 - 23:06
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 19:44
Post
#41
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
My wife has just got the NOR, with the councils own pictures
    The link for the PATAS case is http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...d%20version.pdf I appealed this PCN by email after not being able to do so online(see above post).And I was informed after supplying some pictures that the council would liase with the Highways team and conduct a site visit to ascertain the true scale of the problem. They have admitted that the bay is defective, but are going with the "lrifles"(sic) argument. Im just researching my defense, are the below judgements a good place to start Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145 Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305 If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed. Thanks in advance |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 19:52
Post
#42
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The above cases refer to criminal offences and in those cases strict compliance is required. There is an argument that under the decriminalised system only substantial compliance is required. I recently won a case using the above cases but going on to draw it into the decriminalised system using Letts v Lambeth and Burnett v Buckinghamshire. The latter case is particularly useful as it says:
“Therefore, any regulation of parking by a local authority under its powers under the the 1984 Act must be signed so that the motoring public knows of that regulation.” And “Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of the motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the [TSRGD].” You'd also need to include an argument as to how the errors in the markings in your case are more than de minimis. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:15
Post
#43
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Thanks Sp82, those cases add to the fight, just found another case which states:
However, save for de minimis variations, the design of signs, and marked-out bays on the road, must comply with the regulations The link http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/BO05375E.pdf What on the day is trivial or important, seems to be down to the adj. in charge of the case. The council have provided 2 images I have over 20, each of which could be trivial in isolation, but hopefully taken as a whole will become important. Any comments on the NTO from numerous councils, giving the option to appeal online would be welcome. How I understand the regs its not allowed except by email. Veni, vidi, valet = I came, I saw, I parked cars |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:19
Post
#44
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
What makes you think reps can't be made online?
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:31
Post
#45
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Its just me researching my new hobby fighting unjust PCNs.
I maybe wrong, and would defer easily to yourself and the other posters that have helped me get justice on this forumn, but my reasons that I found posted weeks ago are: I may have the wrong regs but according to: The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 PART 2 REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS IN RELATION TO NOTICES TO OWNER 3) A notice to owner served under regulation 19 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under that regulation, include the following information— C the address (including if appropriate any email address or FAX telephone number, as well as the postal address) to which representations must be sent and the form in which they must be made; link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073482_en_2#pt2 It does not state that you may appeal online, which is possibly why Merton Council have got a get out clause. But going through other london councils, they give you that option. Links are http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/forms/appealpcn.cfm https://forms.camden.gov.uk/cus/servlet/ep....h=211&ut=AX Have found a recent westminster nto giving the option to pay online link http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=Pr...=30&t=35328 To clarify this post, it seems the regs give different options on challenging the NTO, none of which is the option to challenge online except by email. Anyone got any comments on the above If online reps are allowed then is the below option from Westminster online fettering: The contravention occurred whilst the vehicle was under the control of someone without the owner's consent. You will have to supply the crime reference number and the name of the Police Station to which the theft of the vehicle was reported. Someone please tell me how to do the quote thingy so I dont have to highlight in blue? |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:33
Post
#46
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
QUOTE (including if appropriate any email address or FAX telephone number) I think the "if appropriate" makes them examples. I think it does fetter you. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:53
Post
#47
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Back to junior law school for me.
When I did my research I found a number of London councils were the same as Westminster. Merton council, although advertising the procedure did not allow reps to be made online. It could have been a possible point to be put towards the adj. in the future, but I noticed that Superman was reading this thread and will more than likely email every council tomorrow morning, telling them the errors of their ways |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 23:48
Post
#48
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 6,964 Joined: 27 Aug 2007 From: Brighton Member No.: 13,358 |
QUOTE (snowno @ Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:53)  Back to junior law school for me. When I did my research I found a number of London councils were the same as Westminster. Merton council, although advertising the procedure did not allow reps to be made online. It could have been a possible point to be put towards the adj. in the future, but I noticed that Superman was reading this thread and will more than likely email every council tomorrow morning, telling them the errors of their ways No far too busy to bother telling people things that are not relevant, Councils do not have to accept emails if they don't want to so feel free to chat about it at the next of your many appeals. I just like reading this thread because it always makes me laugh at peoples comical parking, why would anyone park in a bay worn or not that states Permit holders only sun 2-6pm and then be upset they got a PCN, especially if you look at the map of the CPZ and realise the next street is mon-sat only, lol. You may consider a worn bay to be to blame but personally I'd be sending the wife to the opticians.  Its a bit obvious you have to admit! |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 10:09
Post
#49
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12,878 Joined: 7 Jan 2008 From: London Member No.: 16,454 |
QUOTE (snowno @ Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 01:01) what is the best and quickest way to view the TMO Going to the council offices and taking photocopies. -------------------- Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42' Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87' Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge Goalscorer: I. Markings 79' Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86' Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19' |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 22 Mar 2009 - 20:44
Post
#50
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Finally got the TMO link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=6eb3177...04e75f6e8ebb871 Anorak or other, I dont really understand what to look for, in relation to 'permit holders' and 'resident permit holders', could you have a look and please advise Thankyou |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 - 12:19
Post
#51
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Just got the reply from the council as per Anoraks suggestion
All of the info I requested has not been given, any help on my next step would be helpful.   
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 22:18
Post
#52
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
so no proof - just 'trust us we did'
the statute does say 'Consult' and not 'inform' or 'dictate to' http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...;filesize=34048 why not worte back asking for 1) copies of documents sent to each the approriate consultees 2) names and official addresses of the consultees. be careful to word the latter request so ot cannot be 'mis-interpreted' by the council as a request for personal information. -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 22:32
Post
#53
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Thanks bama, will do tomorrow
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 22:35
Post
#54
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
be careful not to miss any deadline through doing this.
This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 22:35 -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 - 22:48
Post
#55
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
The PATAS hearing is on 18th May
From what I can gather from Merton Councils previous replies to me, they have up to 20 days to provide me with the info I have requested under the Freedom of info act. Hopefully they do the council thing, and miss the deadline |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 08:47
Post
#56
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12,878 Joined: 7 Jan 2008 From: London Member No.: 16,454 |
It's 20 working days.
-------------------- Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42' Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87' Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge Goalscorer: I. Markings 79' Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86' Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19' |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 18 May 2009 - 22:52
Post
#57
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,332 |
Success, thanks once again to all on pepipoo, with your help justice can be done.
I was not aware about the tolerences for size, as pointed out in point 5 of the adj. but happily they were both outside of the 10% limit. Thankyou 
|
|
|
|
|
Tue, 19 May 2009 - 14:07
Post
#58
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12,878 Joined: 7 Jan 2008 From: London Member No.: 16,454 |
Excellent. Good old Mr. Rayner.
-------------------- Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42' Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87' Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge Goalscorer: I. Markings 79' Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86' Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19' |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 15:56 |
