PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

274 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Today, 06:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


+1

Appeal on the basis that you never received the PCN given that it was taken off the vehicle by persons unknown. Since that is a criminal act you are a victim of crime since the first you knew of the charge was when the NTO was served for a higher penalty.
This is unfair since you never had the opportunity to settle the charge at the discount amount. In the circumstances ask that the Council exercise its discretion and re-offer the discount.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443855 · Replies: 13 · Views: 118

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Today, 06:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP-----have you blanked out the contravention on the PCN? All it says is "stopped where prohibited (On a"

If that's all it states then IMO it does not justify the use of cameras, it is insufficient for enforcement and the code is not enough.

In other words the PCN is a nullity if it does not specify red route.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443854 · Replies: 12 · Views: 183

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Today, 06:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP -----you have it ---keep it simple.

Your challenge must state that you were legally parked in this location before any warning signs or suspension sign were erected. The Council should refer to their suspension log and it will be seen that the VRM of your vehicle was evident and the vehicle was in situ prior to any signage being put up. Therefore the PCN should be cancelled since it is not enforceable.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443853 · Replies: 1 · Views: 21

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Today, 06:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


I appreciate what others have said about the Order but the simple fact remains, regardless of weight or number of passengers, that the Council have made provision for longer vehicles. It would therefore be perverse to single out the OP's vehicle for a different application of this exemption. Indeed I would argue that the Council would be unfair and prejudicial if it continued enforcement in the circumstances.

That said, I would still like to see some photos of how the vehicle was parked vis a vis the bay markings.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443852 · Replies: 29 · Views: 283

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


https://tro.appealparkingorbuslanefine.gov....2015-signed.PDF

Have a look at 18(2) I haven't read it all.

Mick.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443574 · Replies: 29 · Views: 283

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


I'll have a look for the Order.

Sometimes Councils allow long vehicles to park provided they buy a ticket for two bays. Doesn't apply in this case if the CP was free that day but they might be held to account if that sort of clause is in the Order.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443555 · Replies: 29 · Views: 283

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Don't see much chance with this one.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Goldsto...33;4d-0.1716312

The wrong date on the photos means they have no evidence of a contravention from them but the CEO's observations will be enough IMO.

There is no boarding/alighting exemption with these but it might be worthwhile to ask the Council to exercise their discretion and cancel given the circumstances.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443478 · Replies: 13 · Views: 119

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


There is a will/may glitch in the letter which might be exploitable but some Scottish adjudicators have been known to ignore this ground.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443422 · Replies: 10 · Views: 153

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 07:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This is where the High Street restrictions start:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.1089929,-...6384!8i8192

The fact that they have placed a big yellow temporary sign can only suggest that people don't fully read/appreciate/understand the traffic sign to the entrance to this zone.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443056 · Replies: 35 · Views: 471

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 07:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Bang to rights--forget about the landowner.

Only hope is that there is a flaw on the PCN so post it up please.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1443055 · Replies: 7 · Views: 118

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


It's not just the timing.

That slip road is still blocked off --- as seen in the video. So the Council expects you to go down that road because that is what the signage says even though it is impossible to do so. The contravention is "Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign (Must pass to the left). This is Wednesbury Unreasonableness in full and farcical flow if they say you must proceed down that road but they have blocked it off.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442985 · Replies: 21 · Views: 594

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 12:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP--- have a look at this appeal + the additional points in the other posts:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1439103

That's why we say the documentation is duff.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442940 · Replies: 13 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Footway parking, the definition of road and what comprises public land

2170551476

Dr. Osment appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the prohibition on parking a vehicle “in or on any urban road in Greater London … so that one or more of its wheels is resting on—

(a) any footway;

(b) any land (not being a footway) which is situated between two carriageways in any such road; or

© any grass verge, garden or space not falling within the foregoing paragraph (a) or (b)”, to quote from the relevant legislation, namely s.15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

The definition of a road is to be found in s.192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is defined as a “highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Accordingly, whether a vehicle’s wheel or wheels are resting on any of the spaces in paragraphs (a) to © of s.15(1) only falls to be considered if the vehicle is parked “in or on” a road as defined in s.192 of the 1988 Act. Whether a given place is a road is a matter of fact, in accordance with the principles in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647.

Dr. Osment helpfully produced a skeleton argument. Although I rejected summarily most of the grounds, an argument raised at point 2 had real merit and warranted consideration. At point 2 he argued: “The photos clearly show that I was on a void space further on and well clear of the footway.” This was foreshadowed in his representations to the Enforcement Authority (EA), which included the following: “I was not on a footpath. I was on an area of hardstanding forming no other purpose, other than suitable for parking.” I am afraid I disagree with the second point raised there; the area on which, the photographs show, the vehicle was parked was plainly not designed, or suitable, for parking. Whether it forms part of a road, however, is a different matter. Dr. Osment argues he was not parked in or on a road at all. Rather, he says, his vehicle was parked wholly on an area of land that does not comprise part of the road. It is the EA’s case that the vehicle was parked (at least partially) on the footway of North Street and was thus in or on a road with one or more wheels on the footway.

I have not been provided with any map showing the parameters of North Street, or the road which is parallel to it. I have, however, studied the photographs in some detail. There is a footway, which I accept is part of North Street. There is a parallel road, which has parking spaces next to it. In between those two roads is a space which, to my mind, is a pleasant open space for people to enjoy, paved differently from the footway, containing trees and benches. Bearing in mind the reasoning in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647 I find that it is a place to which the public have access, but not a road. In particular, it is not an area of the road that is between two carriageways; the other road is separate and is not merely a carriageway of North Street.

I turn then to whether Dr. Osment’s vehicle was parked on the road, namely North Street, or the area that is not a road. I have looked at the photographic evidence provided. It is clear to me that no wheels of Dr. Osment’s vehicle were resting on the footway, which is paved distinctly. Rather, his vehicle was wholly within that area that I have deemed on the evidence to be public land but not a road.

It follows from that that I am not satisfied that the vehicle was parked on a road. Section 15(1) is not engaged and the contravention did not occur.

Dr. Osment was aggrieved that the EA’s rejection of his representations contained an allegation that he had caused an obstruction; perhaps it might have been better not to mention this given it is not a necessary element of the contravention (or offence, as it used to be). However, the allegation was not wholly unreasonable given that, as I find, Dr. Osment should not have parked on that area of public land. Although Dr. Osment applied, partly for that reason, for his costs, I am not satisfied that the EA has conducted this appeal is such a way as to warrant an order for costs.
----------------------------------------------------------

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442916 · Replies: 11 · Views: 226

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 17:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Check that the PCN number/date is the same as the one paid---there might have been two PCNs about that time.

Second, what proof is there that payment was made--acknowledgement, bank statement etc?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442773 · Replies: 8 · Views: 115

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 17:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP---pay it at the discount-- there is not a hope in hell of you getting this overturned at adjudication.

We are well aware of this "honey trap" and the only defence is that you passed the give way markings before any oncoming vehicle turned the corner up ahead. You however are level with that people carrier and have not given way to it.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442769 · Replies: 13 · Views: 223

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 16:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This case is interesting from the point of view of members comments regarding the 10 minute rule. Where differing interpretations have been offered and there is still no consensus the usual direction is that the appeal on that ground goes forward. Let the Council or the adjudicator rule on it.

We should not deny an appellant a chance to put forward a ground which might or might not fly; that is not our raison d'être.

Mick

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442761 · Replies: 26 · Views: 551

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 14:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP----thank you. Rest assured that this one will be easy to contest once the OFR phase is over.

The documentation is appalling and there is so much wrong that an adjudicator will laugh his socks off.

Can we see the other pages of the PCN please?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442735 · Replies: 13 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 14:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


I would write to the Council and ask why you got these 2 PCNs perhaps the CEOs notes may shed some light.

I cannot see anything wrong with your parking.

The only things that occurred to me have been covered by DD--badge upside down, BB holders now have to pay, need at ticket from the m/c regardless if a VRM needs inputting.

Weird!

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442732 · Replies: 9 · Views: 143

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 14:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


At the risk of a rocket from hca, there is nothing in the Gazette which amends the original notice for Cranmer Street or that parking zone.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442726 · Replies: 26 · Views: 377

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 12:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


What I would be looking for is the extent of the "Parking place".

What that means is that the Council's off street order should have a map which delineates the parking place. If you were not in that area then the contravention cannot apply.

Most off street orders specify that the vehicle must be wholly within a bay. So even if you were miles away from a bay or had no intention of parking in a bay they can use this "default" to nab you.

I would write a cheeky letter to that wind tunnel of a civic centre and say that you never received the PCN since someone unknown removed it. Therefore as a victim of a criminal act you had no chance to settle at the discount before the NTO arrived. Ergo this is unfair and prejudicial so you request that the Council use their discretion and re-offer the discount.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442709 · Replies: 11 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 11:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Neil,

Yes, but we are after the amendment which may or may not be covered by Reg 20. Notwithstanding that, the Council seems to have carte blanche with Notices of Variation (Reg 25) where publication in the Gazette does not apply.

OP----which road are we dealing with?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442698 · Replies: 26 · Views: 377

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 09:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP-----any chance of seeing some documentation? Which Council?

Might as well work up an appeal before the OFR. We've seen lots of cases on two bus lane charges within minutes so we have to line them up to support your case---probably grounds of "continuous contravention".

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442663 · Replies: 13 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 09:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This is the 2nd one recently for the Silksworth complex :-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1438252

As with the 1st one it would be necessary to get hold of the Order although I think this one is more clear cut and the OP is on the back foot.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442661 · Replies: 11 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 08:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP---I think you should pay this one at the discount since I doubt whether those sort of bays allow a loading exemption.

Indeed looking at the bays and general area it's awash with no loading signs and kerb blips.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Church+...33;4d-0.0159668

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442657 · Replies: 14 · Views: 213

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 08:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---nice work with the Gazette find.

I would say the bays on the left are shared use, the bay on the right for permit holders only.

That however does not square with the Notice which specifies a 20 minute restriction for shared use bays.

As it stands the OP is bang to rights unless (and it would be difficult to argue) a legitimate expectation of parking there can be established.

As to the OP's questions I would not concentrate on the Notice but ask the Council for the parking places order plus any amendments.

However if there has been a change, the Council is obliged to publish details in the local press prior to any amendment.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1442655 · Replies: 26 · Views: 377

274 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 19th December 2018 - 10:29
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.