Loading and unloading |
Loading and unloading |
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 17:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
HI All
My wife collects the kids from school and parks in the same neighbourhood each day, notice to owner was received on 5th March saying that vehicle was seen stopped were prohibited on a red route. on the 6th March i sent an email stating that we never received a ticket and have no recollection of parking on that street on that day and asked for any evidence to back up their claim, heard nothing till June and filed a stat dec after they sent me a charge cert for £195 as they claimed no representation was made. in the copy of the original rejection they claim to have sent they state that the vehicle was observed stationary at 16.24 and the issuing officer observed the vehicle from 16.17 and they believe it is a reasonable time and therefore the pcn was issued, they also state that i had requested further information and they were not able to supply this as tfl is unable to reissue a pcn as it is a legal doc, they also say when a ticket has been issued photographic evidence is not required as proof the contravention took place and they can confirm the ticket was issued by a ceo who affixed it to the vehicle at the time of the contravention. TFL is satisfied the ticket was issued correctly and are unable to provide photographic evidence for the pcn. after filing the stat dec they have come up with a handwritten ticket which has a date received of 14/02/12 strange that this was not submitted when i said the contravention did not occur on the 6th March or when TFL sent through the rejection notice dated 3rd April, they also now have the road tax number on the ticket and refer to it in their case summary to the parking and traffic appeals. i cannot for the life of me understand why no reference was made to this at any time till now? surely that would have been the perfect reply for the original rejection? The ticket is handwritten so anything can be added later, and as i said my wife parks in that neighbourhood every day. the colour of vehicle is written as dark blue or black? pictures submitted by TFL of the bay are dated 16/6/2011 6 months before the contravention?, the signage showing is stained and lines in the bay are not full. i have gone back to take pictures and the sign has been turned the other way, it is still stained and the lines are as bad. can i fight this as never happening and stating all of the above? or is the legality of the bay in question as well? picture which is a little fuzzy is mine, but it shows sign pointed the other way and the sign is still as bad as previous. any help is most appreciated. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 17:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Guest_Bogsy_* |
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 18:06
Post
#2
|
Guests |
A PCN must state the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable. I don't see this. Is there another part to the PCN?
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 18:08
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 23 Apr 2012 From: plymouth Member No.: 54,480 |
bigger scan of PCN my eye sight is not very good
-------------------- D.Trotter
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 20:45
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
looks like nearly all the needed stuff is on the insert
haven't we had these before ? (it does have the 'reason to believe' on it but not much else !) I can't believe they are handing these out ! -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 21:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Is this really a certified copy of a PCN issued by the high and mighty Transport for London organisation ? It looks highly irregular to me; surely an adjudicator would not accept it ? It loks like the proverbial fag packet
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 - 22:04
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
Looking at it now there isn't even a penalty charge\cost for the ticket, this whole scenario is such a farce but can they get away with it?
What do you suggest I write to the appeals adjudicator? |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 00:15
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
when is the adjudication ?
what date do you need to get the appeal in to PATAS ? I would suggest The document that purports to be a PCN issued under the TMA 2004 utterly fails to be complaint with the statutory regulations namely: The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007:- Contents of a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 1. A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(2) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state— (a) the date on which the notice is served; (b) the name of the enforcement authority; © the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention; (d) the date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred; (e) the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable; (f) the amount of the penalty charge; (g) that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice was served; (h) that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount; (i) the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid; and (j) that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days referred to in subparagraph (g), a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle. This piece of that paper purports to be a TMA regulation 9 PCN with only a glance fails to comply with (e) (g) (h) (i) and (j). To fail to comply and to fail so comprehensively is frankly a disgrace. The motorist is expected to check and comply with lawful signage every time they park, and rightly so. The Local Authority is a statutory creature and it is trite law that it can only do that which is expressly or impliedly allowed by statute. Furthermore and of more import the public servants who work for the authority bear collectively and individually, the inescapable and ineluctable duty to ensure that each and every action they take is either expressly or impliedly allowed by statute. Each and every public servant have to uphold their duty in each and every action they take. The Authority has failed in its duty and failed in such a comprehensive manner that this raises serious questions as the purported PCN can not have been produced and approved by the CEO alone. The authority has breached their trust with me, and I posit with anyone else they have served with such a purported PCN I am sure others will chip in. the Adj won't like those args too much - he/she is also a public servant ! (but the PCN is utter pants.) But unlike the LA they have a blanket of immunity. Its not judicial immunity as they are not judges. Its that judicial immunity has been extended to cover adjudicators in tribunals where the decision is made based on written submissions from both parties and the adjudicator doesn't do any independent investigation. Some may think this is splitting hairs but it isn't. Having something extended to you isn't the same thing as having the thing itself in your own right. Ever stood under some else's umbrella.... So as they stand under that immunity why should they be concerned if args talk to breach of duty and trust. The Adj's do have an unfettered discretion to consider any and all collateral challenges. Though for the life of me I can't recall one single instance where an Adj has considered public duty args in their written decision. Just the opposite they have been some infamous contra-examples e.g. "The Redbridge scandal". but this PN is so poor the LA would be mad to let it get to adjudication so expect a DNC just before the date. If they are mad enough to let it go to adjudication the Ajd hasn't got much choice but to find for you IMO. Anything else would be begging a JR. And that they wouldn't want. e-prediction: either a DNC (odds on favourite) or a simple decision which only addresses the non-compliant PCN (and probably doesn't enumerate all its flaws) and no comment made on the duty args. should still roll out the heavy guns though IMO - i.e. leave in the duty and trust args. This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 00:30 -------------------- 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, 25 Jul 2012 - 07:33
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I suggest you post details, there aren't many. Leave out personal/editorial, it's not relevant.
AIUI: 1. You were served with a NTO - but we've not seen it; 2. According to you, you responded by "on the 6th March i sent an email stating that we never received a ticket and have no recollection of parking on that street on that day and asked for any evidence to back up their claim, heard nothing till June and filed a stat dec after they sent me a charge cert for £195 as they claimed no representation was made." 3. You were (presumably) served with an OfR and according to you completed a Stat Dec. I like concise summaries, it enables me to avoid unnecessary issues. On the basis of the above you have a cast-iron appeal on the grounds that you made formal reps to the enforcement authority within the 28-day limit (again I have to guess this) and they failed to discharge their duty by responding with a notice of refusal or acceptance within 56 days. How else could "I never received a ticket" be construed other than a PCN was not served on my vehicle, which is, of course, grounds of appeal? You are missing all the important detail - please fill in the blanks and post the docs which you have otherwise transposed. HCA |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 09:57
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
in the copy of the original rejection they claim to have sent they state that the vehicle was observed stationary at 16.24 and the issuing officer observed the vehicle from 16.17 and they believe it is a reasonable time and therefore the pcn was issued, they also state that i had requested further information and they were not able to supply this as tfl is unable to reissue a pcn as it is a legal doc, they also say when a ticket has been issued photographic evidence is not required as proof the contravention took place and they can confirm the ticket was issued by a ceo who affixed it to the vehicle at the time of the contravention. TFL is satisfied the ticket was issued correctly and are unable to provide photographic evidence for the pcn. after filing the stat dec they have come up with a handwritten ticket which has a date received of 14/02/12 strange that this was not submitted when i said the contravention did not occur on the 6th March or when TFL sent through the rejection notice dated 3rd April, they also now have the road tax number on the ticket and refer to it in their case summary to the parking and traffic appeals. As HCA, docs and full info please. As bama, PCN is laughable; The missing amounts are classic. BUT - Look at my quote of you. How can you possibly know the second underlined statement? -- when your first underlined statement indicates you have since received a copy of the original rejection response. If you've received that copy along with a copy of the PCN at the same time then perhaps they were always sent out together? You can't go assuming something dodgy when you have plenty of ammo re the PCN anyway; You'll just unnecessarily wind up an Adjudicator if it got that far. Either that - or it could be construed as reading that you know because you had the original rejection? -- Additionally, not that you need it; On the PCN not being served initially - Fag packet notes an HHC fault ("pda fault"). If his PCN machine failed then by the time he wrote out that garbage it is indeed highly likely your wife had left. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 13:54
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
on the 8th May i recieved a charge cert, i called tfl and they told me to file a stat dec if i claim not have received the original rejection notice, i tried to file and the court rejected it stating that the pcn has not been registered.
I emailed TFL on the 22nd requesting an answer as to what was going on and they replied in writing dated 11th June advising that they had not sent an order for recovery therefore i was unable to file stat dec, they also at that point tsent me copies of the rejection notice which had no evidence. after being able to file the stat dec on the 3rd July they sent through all their evidence on the 13th July which suddenly included ticket copy and tax disc number which has been forwarded to the patas. i will get the docs scanned and displayed shortly. thanks for your help to all. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 17:19
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 17:38
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
original rejection has no ticket or tax disc number, i requested evidence on my email originally and they failed to state that he had this in his pad, me thinks the whole scenario stinks. there is also the pictures of the location dated six months before the contravention took place submitted by tfl as uploaded previously and the handwritten ticket which accompanied this pack of lies. there is loads more waffle about the actual red route traffic orders which i haven't bothered scanning in. i want to answer tomorrow so any final comments would be great. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 - 18:19
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
PCN - 12 Dec 2011 - not received.
NTO - 5 March 2012 - received Reps - 6 March - made NOR - 3 April - did you receive this? CC - 8 May - received OfR - 6 July - received Witness Statement - made Tfl Notification that matter referred to PATAS - 13 July Yes? NOR v photos: Their NOR states no waiting 7 -7, except 10 - 4 loading max 20 mins and disabled 3 hours. Whereas their photos show: no waiting 7-7, except loading and disabled for the period 7-7. Where the hell does 10-4 come from? There are probably other, shall we say, inconsistencies in TfL's evidence -there's so much to view it'll take some time. I suggest you look at their NOR, photos and Evidence Summary and pluck out the inconsistencies. HCA |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 12:22
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
crazy the amount of paperwork these guys can generate, i should charge them for all our time, unbelievable what they get away with.
|
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 - 20:54
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
on the 8th May i recieved a charge cert, i called tfl and they told me to file a stat dec if i claim not have received the original rejection notice, i tried to file and the court rejected it stating that the pcn has not been registered. I emailed TFL on the 22nd requesting an answer as to what was going on and they replied in writing dated 11th June advising that they had not sent an order for recovery therefore i was unable to file stat dec, they also at that point tsent me copies of the rejection notice which had no evidence. after being able to file the stat dec on the 3rd July they sent through all their evidence on the 13th July which suddenly included ticket copy and tax disc number which has been forwarded to the patas. thanks for that; It explains perfectly. i take it you can understand how it came across rather oddly without that series of events explained? -- So have you been contacted by patas yet? -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2012 - 12:29
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
HI Neil
I just have the letter tfl sent them nothing else? Do i just send in my side or do i need to wait to hear from them? |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2012 - 08:11
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
Have now been contacted by PATAS and have the adjudicator forms to fill, gonna get cracking on them today.
|
|
|
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 - 15:37
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
can the ticket read "dark blue or black"?
|
|
|
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 - 17:07
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
you mean for colour of vehicle ?
Not a statutory requirement and so not an appeal ground in and of itself. -------------------- 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, 1 Aug 2012 - 11:05
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 23 Jul 2012 Member No.: 56,185 |
ok got until 20th August to get it into the adjudicator, which one do you suggest:
1. The contravention did not occur? 2.there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority? there is the strange issue of the original rejection notice pages 7 8 9 not having the copy of the so called pcn attached also no tax disc number which is what i requested in my original email dated 6th march doc number 2 which clearly requested evidence. I honestly believe that this whole pcn was cooked up later and as my car is always in that area they either took the disc number down at a later date or got it from the dvla computer, why could they not produce any evidence that i so clearly asked them for on the 6th March only to suddenly pull this out now? The actual so called pcn is marked as date received 14th Feb 2012? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:46 |