Ticket Cancelled, but with veiled threat ? |
Ticket Cancelled, but with veiled threat ? |
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:02
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 3 Dec 2007 Member No.: 15,788 |
One of those occasions where, unintentionally (as who would do it intentionally after buying a parking ticket) the ticket was left upside down in the car - hence PCN issued for not clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock. (a side note this is also a RingGo car park and I had previously come unstuck due to mistakenly entering a Zero in the registration instead of the letter "O"... that too was cancelled but had been recorded as failure to display, when clearly with RingGo there is nothing to display!)
Appeal lodged, using standard template stating ticket purchased and valid at time PCN issued, result (received the next day !) PCN CANCELLED ! However, two thing stands out :- Firstly the response makes a veiled threat in the letter that any future PCN may not be rescinded, this is perhaps a catch-all as it is true. But equally such a statement implies that where an appeal has been granted no such "benefit of doubt" will be granted again. Surely this is inappropriate wording as each appeal must be on its own merits not premised on outcome of previous appeals. Furthermore, it negates the possibility of multiple drivers of a vehicle making the same error, perhaps even a new owner ? Secondly, the letter alludes to a serial number on the ticket matching the number of the ticket displayed - presumably this is the number 852XXXX, which is printed on the ticket as this is the only thing visible on the reverse (the number having been recorded but interestingly not noted on the PCN). It makes me wonder if the system logs the serial number to an issued ticket ? - in which case the serial number being visible would have been sufficient for the Officer to confirm the ticket was valid ? (I guess this number is primarily there to prevent tickets being shared with another driver). It sort of makes me annoyed that they gain money from advertising on the reverse of tickets (an FOI might be made to find out how much) yet then this opens up the possibility of a ticket being accidentally left upside down. Oddly the only advert on this ticket, is for the advertiser ! Surely, the best option is print on both sides and it is never an issue again; but then again how many people just pay up without contesting the PCN, netting at least £25 a go ? In the end it was another successful appeal thanks to this forum :-) |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:02
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:38
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It's common for councils to state that cancellation policies operate on a first occasion and you are right that this is not how it should be. In practice they might well cancel for a similar PCN with a reasonable challenge made say a year later but they do not want to commit to always cancelling for people who repeatedly make mistakes. But not cancelling for a second reasonable case leaves them open to fettering discretion of their own policy.
The number on the back of P&D tickets is a useful check for a valid ticket. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
They can't have you turning up at adjudication and saying, ahh well the cancelled the last one can we. It matters not that the tell you that they may not use their discretion again. It matters if they do not consider it again if another PCN is forthcoming
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 17:17
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Keep the cancellation letter, it could help you argue a failure to consider in a future case.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 20:44
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,156 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO. You failed to display a valid ticket - fact; You were required to - fact; They cancelled using discretionary power - there is no obligation upon them to do so; They may not use their discretion in the future - which is their right provided they consider the circumstances. The alternative is an absurd implication i.e. you could continue to place tickets face down and they would be required to cancel any PCN for failure to display! If this were true then just don't bother complying and leave your ticket anywhere with any orientation. But if the alleged contravention was failure to pay, then that would be different because you could prove payment. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:41
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO. The reply says future PCNs might not be reconsidered. The council must always consider cancelling a PCN, it might reconsider a PCN and as a result of that decide to uphold it, but it can't refuse to consider it in the first place. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 22:51
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,016 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO. The reply says future PCNs might not be reconsidered. The council must always consider cancelling a PCN, it might reconsider a PCN and as a result of that decide to uphold it, but it can't refuse to consider it in the first place. Agree, but the text seems broadly the same as we have seen so often when a council gives way. They must be all using the same software ! |
|
|
Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 07:03
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,156 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
We must stop this forensic examination of individual words when the sense of the letter is what matters! And yet again the issue is use of English, not the law. 'Future ...might not be reconsidered' is incoherent. But that's the fault of today's education system, not councils! |
|
|
Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 13:00
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,263 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You failed to display a valid ticket - fact; No, not at all, it was displayed but the wrong way up, whether that was a failure to display or not is open to challenge. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 17:28
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,244 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
We must stop this forensic examination of individual words when the sense of the letter is what matters! You failed to display a valid ticket - fact; We should also refrain from making statements as fact, which are not completely correct. 'Future ...might not be reconsidered' is incoherent. But that's the fault of today's education system, not councils! The council are responsible for the This post has been edited by mickR: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 18:27 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 12:45 |