Double bus lane tickets Options

[Shasha]

Hi all. First I'd like to say thanks to all those giving their time to help out strangers online, it's really amazing.

My situation, I've received double bus lane tickets while entering and exiting a car park(photos attached), first time I've ever been ticketed. I'm not a car owner and hadn't driven for close to ten years (on this particular day I had a rental car) so was completely out of the loop on new traffic developments, I didn't even know bus lanes could be in operation at the late times I was driving. I was visiting a new town for the first time as well (I live in London and drove to Cambridge) so had even less of an idea about dos and don'ts. I have no idea about the correctness of or lack of signage at the venue, and am not able to go back there to check, but what I can say is that I was confused and lost trying to find my way in and out of the car park as it was somewhat tucked away. I was recently made redundant and will find it difficult to pay both tickets. Additionally I can add that my name is misspelt on the ticket I've received.

I don't suppose any of that is enough to get me off or get me clemency, but perhaps someone here can offer some insight?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[Shasha]

https://imgur.com/a/v500wee - 5a
https://imgur.com/a/quhkvPf - 5b
https://imgur.com/a/FMsOdHN - 5c

https://imgur.com/a/jGyRb3Z - 6a
https://imgur.com/a/SGNftOe - 6b
https://imgur.com/a/E2GXoNR - 6c
https://imgur.com/a/v3UsUiP - 6d
https://imgur.com/a/zpUA695 - 6e
https://imgur.com/a/ecJ9o1K - 6f
https://imgur.com/a/7yfRacV - 6g
https://imgur.com/a/3wXBsmH - 6h


I've checked all the links they should all work and be in order

And my initial attempt at a representation (I'm actually happy to do all the writing work if you give me some pointers):

Ground 1 for appeal:
My initial appeal stated that the PCN was served on the weekend, and thus shortened my legal right to 28 days to respond. The council's rejection letter states that as my representations were correctly received, I cannot 'be said to have been disadvantaged by the date of service'

This is an invalid grounds for rejection as real prejudice does not need to occur in this sort of instance, the authority are obliged to state the correct time periods and cannot remove or reduce statutory periods, regardless of the date of my response. The mere act of POTENTIALLY prejudicing my response by removing 2 days damns the PCN. Plenty of cases uphold this including high court ones which are binding.

I already quoted such a case in my appeal which the council chose the ignore:

"R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill:"Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances"

The rejection further provides an out of context quote from the tribunal without giving any case name or reference number to enable the checking of its validity. The rejection also seems to confuse the issue of PCN service within 28 days of contravention, with the provision of 28 days for a response to the PCN, as the tribunal quote given reads:

"The PCN must be served within 28 days of the alleged contravention"

And further:

"The PCN was printed posted and received well within the 28 days and so this cannot give valid grounds for a challenge"

The council's rejection has confused 2 distinct issues and provided an entirely irrelevant precedent.

Ground 2 for appeal:
My initial appeal stated that the PCN imposed on illegal surcharge for telephone payment. The rejection quotes one decision on the 0845 number, but it is known there IS a service charge for Cambridgeshire, and that the Council make almost £1,500 a year out of it.

Once again I quoted relevant and binding case law on this matter, and once again the council chose to ignore it in their rejection letter:

London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 where the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law."

In light of the above grounds I submit my appeal must be upheld.

This post has been edited by Shasha: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 01:48

[Shasha]

bump

[PASTMYBEST]

I will start this now but it will not be finished until tomorrow

[Shasha]

Ok thank you so much. As I said I really don't expect anyone to do hours of writing for me, if you want you can just pass me your notes and links and I'll type up something myself.

[PASTMYBEST]

Ok thank you so much. As I said I really don't expect anyone to do hours of writing for me, if you want you can just pass me your notes and links and I'll type up something myself.

Its easier for me to draft an appeal rather than think it through and give you a load of references with no idea what to really do with them, I will be finished today

[PASTMYBEST]

Here you go. You will have to complete the personal details at the top then its ready to go attach to the TPT portal the appendices I to 6 also


https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrnEqglHZs3kaF1B4

[Shasha]

Wow thank you so much you really went above and beyond! <3

What d'you think of this issue I raised in my own attempt, am I right that the council got 2 things confused, or am I the one confused?:

 The rejection also seems to confuse the issue of PCN service within 28 days of contravention, with the provision of 28 days for a response to the PCN, as the tribunal quote given reads:

"The PCN must be served within 28 days of the alleged contravention"

And further:

"The PCN was printed posted and received well within the 28 days and so this cannot give valid grounds for a challenge"

The council's rejection has confused 2 distinct issues and provided an entirely irrelevant precedent.

[PASTMYBEST]

Wow thank you so much you really went above and beyond! <3

What d'you think of this issue I raised in my own attempt, am I right that the council got 2 things confused, or am I the one confused?:

 The rejection also seems to confuse the issue of PCN service within 28 days of contravention, with the provision of 28 days for a response to the PCN, as the tribunal quote given reads:

"The PCN must be served within 28 days of the alleged contravention"

And further:

"The PCN was printed posted and received well within the 28 days and so this cannot give valid grounds for a challenge"

The council's rejection has confused 2 distinct issues and provided an entirely irrelevant precedent.

The council made a fair attempt to respond to your appeal, they got things a bit wrong, but then so did you. The TPT tend to overlook the minor transgressions so I thought best to leave them out in favour of strong arguments

You don't have to use my draft but I think your chances will be enhanced if you do. ( but I would wouldn't I ) I think that to include any other points that have dubious merit would impinge on your credibility

[Shasha]

Ok fair enough and thank you again. Final question, there's no "Appendix 3" among your files, should I rename the FOI screenshot or the 0845 charge as Appendix 3 or did an extra file fail to upload?

Scrap that the problem was my computer not downloading it. Thanks for everything, I'll PM you later to show my appreciation properly.

This post has been edited by Shasha: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 16:47

[PASTMYBEST]

Ok fair enough and thank you again. Final question, there's no "Appendix 3" among your files, should I rename the FOI screenshot or the 0845 charge as Appendix 3 or did an extra file fail to upload?

Scrap that the problem was my computer not downloading it. Thanks for everything, I'll PM you later to show my appreciation properly.

When I open the file it is there but here it is


https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrnhccrz-zg9iKsAf

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 17:51