PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Manchester Oxford Road Bus Lane PCN
Foobah
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:41
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



I was a bit shocked to receive this from work today (company car). I have a PCN for driving in a bus lane on Oxford Road in Manchester. Looking at others on here I have a feeling this may be void but I wanted to check here first, can anyone confirm?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:41
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Yes, 2 days late. Service is deemed 8th December and the 6th was the deadline for it to be in your hands.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 19:55
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,914
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:54) *
Yes, 2 days late. Service is deemed 8th December and the 6th was the deadline for it to be in your hands.

Mick

Yes, join the club, OP, but don't expect them to roll over straight away as the money is the key thing for them, not bus traffic management.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:54) *
Yes, 2 days late. Service is deemed 8th December and the 6th was the deadline for it to be in your hands.

Mick

Yes, join the club, OP, but don't expect them to roll over straight away as the money is the key thing for them, not bus traffic management. Anyway, whilst Oxford Road is busy the buses seemed to manage perfectly well before these recent measures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:03
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



Thanks, so having done some more reading on this I'm going to appeal against the PCN. How does the following sound?

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to appeal against the bus lane penalty charge notice (PCN) numbered ### as I believe it to have been unlawfully issued.

Firstly the PCN must be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. The date of service as defined is the 8th of December being therefore 2 days out of time. The PCN must hence either be cancelled or specific reasons, supported by appropriate evidence, must be provided to show why the 28 day limit does not apply.

Furthermore, signage and road markings at the date and time of the alleged contravention were inadequate to warn a reasonably observant motorist that they were about to enter a bus lane. The photograph provided as evidence shows the road looking like it has done for years with no obvious signage or markings to indicate to someone who does not live in Manchester that the road is now a bus lane only. Had it been clear then I would have taken an alternative route.

In addition to the fact that the bus lane was not clearly marked or signposted, it is clear from the evidence provided that I was not causing an obstruction, blocking anyone, or slowing anyone down.

Yours faithfully,


Any feedback would be really appreciated. Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:20
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Foobah @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:03) *
Thanks, so having done some more reading on this I'm going to appeal against the PCN. How does the following sound?

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to appeal against the bus lane penalty charge notice (PCN) numbered ### as I believe it to have been unlawfully issued.

Firstly the PCN must be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. This would be the 6Th of December, The same date as date of posting, however The date of service as defined is the 8th of December being therefore 2 days out of time. The PCN must hence either be cancelled or specific reasons, supported by appropriate evidence, must be provided to show why the 28 day limit does not apply.

Furthermore, signage and road markings at the date and time of the alleged contravention were inadequate to warn a reasonably observant motorist that they were about to enter a bus lane. The photograph provided as evidence shows the road looking like it has done for years with no obvious signage or markings to indicate to someone who does not live in Manchester that the road is now a bus lane only. Had it been clear then I would have taken an alternative route.

In addition to the fact that the bus lane was not clearly marked or signposted, it is clear from the evidence provided that I was not causing an obstruction, blocking anyone, or slowing anyone down.



Yours faithfully,


Any feedback would be really appreciated. Thanks!


Add the bit in red


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



So they got back to me on the 18th January. I've been travelling for work but also keeping a close eye on delprimero's case over at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117139 as he's a little further into the process and his case refers to the same spot.

The letter they sent is as follows (spelling mistakes etc included):

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam

Your case comes under the Transport Act 2000 and The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005.

Penalty Charge Notice number: XXXX
Vehicle registration: XXXX
Detection Date of Alleged Contravention: 09/11/2017 at 17:19
Location of Contravention: Oxford Street (Whitworth Street West To Chepstow Street)
Date of Penalty Charge Notice: 06/12/2017

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS

Thank you for your letter making representations in connection with the above Penalty Charge Notice.

I have carefully considered your case but on this occasion I have decided not to cancel this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

The vehicle was recorded by CCTV in a bus gate on Oxford Street between Whitworth Street West and Chepstow Street. This bus gate is in operation from 6am to 9pm, 7 days a week; the only vehicles permitted to be in the restricted area are buses, taxis, bicycles and permit holders. The vehicle in respect of which this PCN was issued is not within the permitted classes. As you enter the bus gate there are signs and road markings to indicate the start of the bus gate and an alternative route should have been taken.

Your comments have been noted and I must advise that the contravention date was 9 November 2017 with a service date (postal date) of 6 December 2017, which is 28 days and therefore within service.

Furthermore, all signage and road markings are correct prior to entering the bus gate.

You may view the footage at www.viewmypcn.co.uk/manchester. The CCTV images recorded are intended for evidential purposes only and you may be liable for prosecution if the material is reproduced or used for any other purpose.

You have these choices:

1 You can pay the reduced charge of £30.00. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.
2 You can pay £60.00 if you miss the reduced-charge period. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.
3 You can appeal to the Parking Adjudicator. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.

If you do nothing

If, after 28 days, you have taken no action, we may send you a Charge Certificate increasing the charge from £60.00 to £90.00. You will then have 14 days to pay the increased charge.

If, after the 14 days, you have not paid the increased charge, we may apply to the County Court to recover the money - plus court costs - from you.

HOW TO PAY

Online at www.manchester.gov.uk/payticket and follow the links to Penalty Charge Notice.
By telephone credit/debt card payment only. Use our automated payment line 0161 234 5006 (24 hours, seven days a week). Please have your vehicle details and PCN number ready.

Appeals
If you disagree with the councils decision you can appeal to an independent adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The adjudicators are independent of the council and their decision is final.

The grounds for appeal are as follows:
* The alleged contravention did not occur
* Regulation 6(1), (other proceedings pursued) applies i.e. I have received a fixed penalty notice from the Police or criminal proceedings are being pursued for the same contravention
* I was not the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention i.e. a) I was never the owner of the vehicle in question
b) I had ceased to be its owner before the detection date
c) I became its owner after the detection date You must supply the name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was disposed of/from whom the vehicle was acquired)

* I was the hirer of the vehicle concerned on the detection date but I am not liable to pay the penalty charge under regulation 5(2) (i.e. I did not sign a statement that I would be liable for penalty charges incurred during the currency of the hiring agreement)
* I was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the detection date but on that date: i) regulation 5(2) applies ( vehicle subject to a hire agreement) ii) regulation 5(3) applies (the vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader), and the recipient was either not a vehicle trader or was a vehicle trader but not the vehicle trader keeping the vehicle, or
* The Penalty Charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

You can appeal now by visiting the tribunals website: www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/appeal

The website explains what the adjudicator can consider and how to appeal. There is no charge for appealing and costs are not normally awarded. The website gives full details. You will need the information in the box below to hand when you begin your appeal.

Notice of Rejection date: 18 January 2018
PCN number(s): XXXX
Vehicle Registration Mark: XXXX
Online Code: XXXX

You should appeal within 28 days of delivery of this of this Notice of Rejection (usually 2 working days after the "Notice of Rejection" date above - our website explains this) If you are unable to appeal online you may request a paper form from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal by calling 01625 44 55 99 and leaving your name, address, telephone number, vehicle registration mark and penalty charge notice number.

Costs

The Adjudicator will not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses to either an appellant or to an enforcement authority but may do so where the Adjudicator is of the opinion that one of those parties to the appeal has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that the conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable.

No order for costs would be made without giving the affected party an opportunity of making representations against the making of the order.

Yours Faithfully

Paul Lomas
Business Support Officer
Parking Services
Highways


I am going to appeal based on PASTMYBEST's response here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1345311, and I suspect I will soon receive a hefty evidence pack with no mention of the service date!

QUOTE
Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE

Your name and address.

My appeal against the imposition of this PCN Is made under the following

1:- the contravention did not occur

2:- collateral challenge

3:- collateral challenge

Collateral challenges are made under the statutory ground of The penalty exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Where the document(s) are invalid, no penalty can be demanded. Thus the amount applicable would be nil.


1:- The alleged contravention did not occur;

I made representations that the signage was inadequate to convey the restriction, contrary to LATOR1996 regulation 18.

The authority have provided no evidence of signage in place, nor do they give explanation in the Notice of Rejection as to why they have not done so. My own research leads me to submit thus. On approach to Oxford St along Whitworth St I did not see any signs warning of a bus lane restriction. Later checks show a map type directional sign with the motor vehicles prohibited sign. I contend that whilst navigating during rush hour in a busy city centre only peripheral attention would be given to this sign, main attention being on the approaching traffic lights, other traffic, and pedestrians in the vicinity. The prohibited vehicle sign I now know from research to be sign (619) does not signify a bus lane restriction, although I am now aware that with the addition of a plate listing exemptions that it may be used. Even if I had seen it on its own it could not make me aware of a bus lane restriction.

The first sign that correctly signs the restriction is at the junction of Oxford St and Whitworth St West and hidden by the traffic lights until committed to making the turn. It is placed and orientated in such a manner as to warn vehicles travelling straight on along Oxford St not for vehicles turning left out of Whitworth St West.

The placement of this sign failing at regulation 18 of LATOR 1996.


2:- collateral challenge

As per the PCN the alleged contravention occurred on Thursday the 9th of November. Regulation 8(2) requires that (subject to paragraph (3)), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. None of the provisos in regulation 3 would appear to apply, nor are they claimed in the Notice of Rejection.

The PCN at section 4 defines service (This notice has been sent by first class post. The date of service of this notice is presumed to be the second working day after the date of posting (see section 1 of this notice for date of posting). The term 'working day' excludes Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays).

The date of posting as per the PCN being Wednesday the 6th of December. The 28th day after the contravention. Allowing for the specified date of service (Saturday and Sunday not counting), service would be effected on Friday the 8th of December. Day 30, two days beyond that allowed by regulation, the PCN for this reason being invalid and no penalty being due.


3:- collateral challenge

The Notice of Rejection on page one has a section headed "You have these choices".

It then goes on to list the payment and appeal options. Other than the discretionary re-offering of 14 days in which the discounted payment will be accepted it lists all of these options as being 28 days FROM the date of this letter being served (delivered). This is wrong in two ways.

The appeal period, the time by which payment or an appeal should be made are set out at 14(4) of the regulations. They are 28 days BEGINNING with the date of service.

The authority err in using the term FROM. By legal convention counting using this term would start the day after the day of service. This at first glance would seem to be of benefit to the appellant, but not so. Payment may be made a day late because of this and a higher penalty demanded as a consequence or an appeal could be ruled out of time.

The exact date should be certain, but the error is further exacerbated by the use of the word delivered in brackets. Service and delivery are not the same thing. The post not being a universally reliable delivery may be affected 3, 4, 5 or even more days after posting. Again an appellant reading this may be induced into late payment or appeal.

Where a document fails to convey accurately the requirements of the regulations, it cannot be used to enforce a penalty and I respectfully submit that for these reasons the appeal be allowed.

Yours faithfully


Does this seem like a good way forwards? Any further/alternative recommendations based on delprimero's position? I suspect my appeal will go the same way and I'm not optimistic in terms of the signage element but I'll see what they actually come back with in terms of evidence first.

Cheers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Where has the PCN image gone?

They've tried a little harder on the out of time issue and buried themselves further I think.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



A company car would see the OP taken out of the loop unless he has permission from the company or the hire firm to proceed.

I have twigged their line of thought. They are working under the terms of the Interpretation Act 1978:-

Reg 7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Which, of course, is in direct conflict with the terms of the bus lane legislation because one relates to issue and the other to delivery (service).

However the key phrase is "unless a contrary intention appears" which is what the bus lanes legislation stipulates--the intention to deem service as two working days after the date of posting.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Do the company own or lease the car? in Whose name is the v5c?


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:30
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



Apologies, not sure what happened to the original PCN image. I've re-uploaded it:



With regards to it being a company car - it's a leased car (Lex Autolease). They sent the PCN to my employer and I received it on the 8th December. Judging by the date stamp which I assume was stamped by Lex, they received it on the 7th December. On top of the PCN charge I also have Lex charging a fee for a "driving offence", but apparently their stance is guilty until proven innocent as they have invoiced my employer and offered to refund the fine if/when I prove the PCN has been withdrawn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 21:54
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



We need to know. The name on the PCN is it yours or is it the lease co? It is important as to how it is dealt with.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 22:12
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



The PCN was addressed to the lease company. The notice of rejection of representations was addressed to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:19
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Foobah @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 22:12) *
The PCN was addressed to the lease company. The notice of rejection of representations was addressed to me.


That should be a win on its own can you post your reps and the rejection letter


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 00:17
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



The appeal I sent in response to the original PCN was as follows:

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to appeal against the bus lane penalty charge notice (PCN) numbered ### as I believe it to have been unlawfully issued.

Firstly the PCN must be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. This would be the 6th of December, the same date as date of posting, however the date of service as defined is the 8th of December being therefore 2 days out of time. The PCN must hence either be cancelled or specific reasons, supported by appropriate evidence, must be provided to show why the 28 day limit does not apply.

Furthermore, signage and road markings at the date and time of the alleged contravention were inadequate to warn a reasonably observant motorist that they were about to enter a bus lane. The photograph provided as evidence shows the road looking like it has done for years with no obvious signage or markings to indicate to someone who does not live in Manchester that the road is now a bus lane only. Had it been clear then I would have taken an alternative route.

In addition to the fact that the bus lane was not clearly marked or signposted, it is clear from the evidence provided that I was not causing an obstruction, blocking anyone, or slowing anyone down.

Yours faithfully,


The rejection of representations is included below:





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 00:32
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Foobah @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 22:12) *
The PCN was addressed to the lease company. The notice of rejection of representations was addressed to me.


Pardon ?

Not sure about a win on its own but lucky the council did not ignore them.
You as a person have no entitlement to respond to a postal PCN, that is limited to the owner (taken to be the registered keeper)

When formulating your appeal, you state "On behalf of the Owner"
But probably best that you check with the lease company first.
They may get a tad nadgy over you risking them having to pay out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foobah
post Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 00:33
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,466



Apologies, I'm a little confused here. To clarify, this is the sequence of events so far:
  • 9th Nov 2017 - Alleged bus lane contravention occurred
  • 6th Dec 2017 - Date of posting of Penalty Charge Notice from Manchester City Council to Lex Autolease (as I understand it this is the 28th day and, being the date of posting, means the date of service was the 8th Dec 2017, 2 days late)
  • 7th Dec 2017 - Judging from the date stamp on the PCN, this is when Lex Autolease received the PCN
  • 8th Dec 2017 - This is when my employer's HR department sent the PCN to me asking me to arrange payment both for the fine from MCC and for a corresponding fee from Lex Autolease for a "motoring offence"
  • 12th Dec 2017 - This is when I appealed against the fine using the quoted text at the start of post #14
  • 18th Jan 2018 - Manchester City Council wrote to me (not Lex Autolease) in response to my appeal with a Notice of Rejection of Representations as found in post #14

So, the PCN was posted 2 days out of time (as I understand it), and it sounds like I shouldn't have appealed to a PCN addressed to Lex Autolease, but the council appear to have considered my appeal and have issued a Notice of Rejection of Representations to myself (not to, or via, Lex Autolease). I'm confused as to where I stand at the minute. I was originally going to respond with something along the lines of the second quote in post #6 but I'm not so sure now. Lex Autolease are aware that I am appealing against the fine and have simply said to notify them if my appeal is successful and they will refund their motoring offence fee.

Any advice would be great. If any further details are required from me let me know and I'll pass them on.

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 00:45
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Foobah @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 00:33) *
I'm confused as to where I stand at the minute.

I am a little too.
I'm sure you'll get further opinions.

On balance, they've accepted you as the liable party by formally responding and, to you, without condition.

We'll simply find out when TPT accept or reject your registration of appeal.

--
Point of note:
The rejecting officer issued, two days later, the only Council 'acceptance' we've seen so far.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 08:16
Post #18


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Unless a PCN has been issued to the OP's company we appear to be dealing with Lex Autolease's PCN who should have informed the Council that the vehicle was on hire.

Let's have a look at what the legislation says about liability and payment:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made

Liability 10(2) "the person hiring the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner for the purposes of these Regulations".

Person by whom penalty charge is to be paid

5.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a penalty charge shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention.

(2) Where the vehicle involved in the contravention—

(a)was at the material time the subject of a hiring agreement; and

(b)the person hiring it, or an individual authorised to sign on his behalf, has signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge incurred during the currency of the hiring agreement,

the penalty charge shall be paid by the person who has hired the vehicle under the agreement.
--------------------------------------------------

Did the OP use the company's address for correspondence or his own?

Now the OP can contend that he was not the hirer but the user but I see little mileage in that action because he still has the trump card which is the original OOT PCN and he does not want to be in a position where they might issue a new, valid, PCN to his company.

The worry is that they serve a charge certificate on Lex Autolease because they don't keep track of PCN numbers.

My advice to the OP is to submit an appeal to TPT, with his own name and address, quoting the grounds given in this thread.

I doubt the Council can issue a new PCN if the adjudicator rules the PCN invalid.

Mick


This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 08:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 08:40
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Foobah has taken a liberty in replying to a PCN not addressed to him but.....
TMA2004 S91 defines Owner
QUOTE
“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

Foobah certainly would be the person by whom the vehicle is kept.
So realistically, has appealed in their own capacity as the Owner without the folderol of intermediate steps.
And can argue that as LEx passed the PCN to him (or at least the company) they inherently allow him to challenge.
Council have de facto accepted that though to be honest, probably didn't realise.

My thoughts are carry on and appeal but this time include that you are the owner by virtue of being the person who normally uses and keeps the vehicle.
I cannot see that TPT can object.
It would also be patently unfair should anyone insist on a new PCN in Foobah's name that would have the effect of unwinding a major error and resetting the clock.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 12:22
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Think i would say nowt about this. foobar made reap in good faith being passed the PCN by lex/his co. The council replied rejecting Make the appeal on the same basis use the web code.

telephone hearing, so if the ownership issue is brought up it can be rebutted as foobar is the de facto owner.

The reason for the transfer of liability is to ensure the PCN is served on the liable party, if one accepts liability then the council must accept that as proof positive


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:44
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