Islington PCN Tabernacle Street (Zone C) - Informal appeal ignored - NTO received, 01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours |
Islington PCN Tabernacle Street (Zone C) - Informal appeal ignored - NTO received, 01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours |
Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:39
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
Hi All,
I wonder if you can help! Alleged contravention date: 21 June 2018 at 19:47 I allegedly parked in Tabernacle street, which may be on a border between Hackney. After checking the signs, it seemed as though I could park on the single yellow, it was a little confusing, and I got a ticket on my windscreen anyway. I do not have the original PCN to hand so it is not uploaded. I wanted to review the evidence online but the Islington website indicated that PCN image viewer was down, so at this time there was no evidence of the alleged contravention to occur. I therefore made an informal representation via email to the Islington email address, islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk on 5th July 2018 and received an acknowledgement email the same day. Informal appeal email 5th July 2018: QUOTE Islington Parking Services PO Box 2019, Pershore, WR10 9BN. PCN: ********* Vehicle Registration: ********** Contravention Code: 01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. Alleged at: 19:47 On: 21/09/2018 Dear Islington Correspondence and Appeals Team, I write this email to for two reasons: 1. To request for copies of photo images or video footage of the alleged offence relating to PCN above (IZ*********). This is because the Islington website states that the PCN viewer is unavailable. I would like to request that the discounted price remains on hold until evidence is provided. 2. Dependent on the evidence provided that confirms the location on Tabernacle Street that the alleged contravention occurred, I would like to appeal the PCN on the grounds I do not believe the contravention occurred. While this happens, I would request that the discounted price of the charge remains on hold until this is completed. In addition to the above, a review of the issued ticket states the location of the alleged offence is somewhere on Tabernacle Street. I further review of the CPZ map attached indicates that part of the street is in the “B-Variation” zone. The B-variation zone on Thursdays is active between 08:30-18:30hrs, the ticket appears to be issued on Thursday at 19:47 therefore I do not think the contravention occurred. It would be great if your discretion was used to cancel this PCN. Kind Regards, Islington Auto response email: QUOTE Thank you for your email which has been received by Islington Parking Services. Our target deadline for a response is 1 Month. On occasions we do get more enquiries than usual and it takes longer for us to reply. In the unlikely event you have not heard from us within 1 month, please telephone 020 7527 2000, quoting the Penalty Charge Notice (Parking Ticket) number. We will ensure you are not disadvantaged by the wait. If you have not provided a Parking Ticket number OR a VRN (we need both of these if possible), please resend your email with this information as we will be unable to process your enquiry without this. Thank you Islington Parking Services PO Box 2019 Pershore WR10 9BN Since then I have not received any response from Islington since the informal appeal made on the 5th July. This was until I received a Notice to Owner letter was received on the 24th August 2018. PCN viewer unavailable Islington NTO I think from what has occured above I want to appeal on the grounds: - Contravention did not occur - no evidence has been provided contravention occuring, just pictures of the car, no indication of correct signage was in place at the time. - There has been procedural impropriety - Evidence was not accessible on the website because PCN viewer was unavailable so insufficient information was available in order for a decision to be made on PCN next step. Islington council did not respond to the informal appeal made, nor within the 1 month target stipulated. Council did not put PCN on hold as requested via email. Keen to have your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:42
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
Ok, so I have taken some photos and it does not look promising. It appears the signs although turned show that there was no stopping on the single yellow on weekdays on this side parked.
I guess what I have to try do is pay the discounted price. I also want to question the signage for a road on a border? as from what I have seen on the hackney map, parking on the opposite of the road would have been OK. Singer Street entrance Half way down Tabernacle Street |
|
|
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 18:56
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As it's a one way street you would have passed the first sign, so it's clear cut on the contravention. I would challenge the NtO on the basis that they had committed themselves to not disadvantage you while you waited for the photographic evidence to be provided, and they cannot resile from that commitment, therefore the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:50
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
As it's a one way street you would have passed the first sign, so it's clear cut on the contravention. I would challenge the NtO on the basis that they had committed themselves to not disadvantage you while you waited for the photographic evidence to be provided, and they cannot resile from that commitment, therefore the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. Yes looks like the best course of action. I may have missed it but where did they commit themselves to not disadvantage me while waiting for photographic evidence? |
|
|
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 21:03
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As it's a one way street you would have passed the first sign, so it's clear cut on the contravention. I would challenge the NtO on the basis that they had committed themselves to not disadvantage you while you waited for the photographic evidence to be provided, and they cannot resile from that commitment, therefore the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. Yes looks like the best course of action. I may have missed it but where did they commit themselves to not disadvantage me while waiting for photographic evidence? The Islington Auto response email in your first post says "We will ensure you are not disadvantaged by the wait." -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:19
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
As it's a one way street you would have passed the first sign, so it's clear cut on the contravention. I would challenge the NtO on the basis that they had committed themselves to not disadvantage you while you waited for the photographic evidence to be provided, and they cannot resile from that commitment, therefore the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. Yes looks like the best course of action. I may have missed it but where did they commit themselves to not disadvantage me while waiting for photographic evidence? The Islington Auto response email in your first post says "We will ensure you are not disadvantaged by the wait." Haha that's great thanks! |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 14:37
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
Hello All,
I received a response from Islington council. In summary this is what I have interpreted by their below email: 1. I did not receive a response from my email representation due to Islington's administrative error. 2. The believe the contravention still occured 3. Offered to place on hold until 2nd November 2018 and pay PCN at £65 It's not very clear, but the time stamp in the photo appear to indicate they were taken at 19:40 (7 minutes prior to issue of PCN). Is there any new information from the below email that would enable me to not have to pay this fine? Thanks! QUOTE Location of Contravention Tabernacle Street [Zone C] Thank you for your e-mail regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office. You have stated in your e-mail of 18 September 2018 that you received the Notice to Owner without having received a response to your previous e-mail of 5 July 2018. Having reviewed the case, I can confirm that we responded to your e-mail of 5 July on 2 August 2018. However, my colleague made an administrative error when details of your address were added to our system. This error would have prevented you from receiving the response which was sent. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience which may have been caused by this. Although unfortunate, this error would not present grounds for the cancellation of the PCN. I will, however, make sure that you are not disadvantaged in any way by not having received our previous e-mail. The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line within a controlled parking zone (CPZ) during restricted hours. As requested in your e-mail of 5 July 2018, I have attached copies of the photographs which were taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) when the PCN was issued. You have stated in your e-mail of 5 July 2018 that you believe that the contravention did not occur. I acknowledge the comment you have made. However, having reviewed the case, I am satisfied that this contravention did occur and the PCN was correctly issued by the CEO. When it was identified by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) on 21 June 2018, your vehicle was parked in CPZ IS-C. Within this CPZ, parking on a single yellow line is restricted at all times Monday to Saturday and from midnight until 06:00am on Sundays. Signs are placed at all CPZ entry points confirming the hours in which parking is restricted on a single yellow line. It is the responsibility of drivers entering each zone to make themselves aware of the restrictions in force within that area and to make sure that they have parked correctly prior to leaving their vehicle unattended. Rule 238 of the Highway Code advises drivers that they must not wait or park on yellow lines and it is their responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the restrictions in place at all times. It also advises drivers that when in a CPZ, details of any restrictions are shown on zone entry signs. There is no legal requirement to place additional signs on individual streets unless the hours of restriction in that location differ to those on the CPZ signs. If a driver has not checked the CPZ signs advising of the restrictions relating to the area where they park, they should not assume that there are no restrictions in place. The CEO has noted that when your vehicle was identified, it was parked approximately 5 metres from the junction of Tabernacle Street and Cowper Street. In order to reach the point in Tabernacle Street where the vehicle was parked, I am satisfied that you would have passed the CPZ sign which is in place in Tabernacle Street, just after its junction with Leonard Street. I have provided a photograph of this CPZ sign for your information. As confirmed above, having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that the contravention did occur and the PCN was correctly issued. As I have found no grounds for the cancellation of this PCN, I will be upholding the penalty charge. I have decided not to formally reject your representations at this present time. Instead, I will place the case on hold until 2 November 2018 to allow you time to review the information and photographs which I have provided and to settle the penalty charge at the discounted amount of £65.00. However, if payment has not been made by this date, I will formally reject your representations and the full charge of £130.00 will be due. You can make a credit or debit card payment on our automated payment line on 020 7527 8000 at any time or speak to an advisor on 020 7527 2000 – between 09:00 to 17:00. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number). |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'm sure others will disagree but personally I would pay the discount.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 10:54
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
|
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 10:55
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I can't see anything I'm afraid. It's certainly your right to pursue it on the border and signage issue as the bottom line is you didn't do this deliberately.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 10:57 |
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
And how did they respond and on what date?
The council policy is to re-offer for 14 days or to not, there is no intermediate option. At present the officers are trying to cover their backs, my bet is that they would cave-in if you pressed on. And what happens if they sent the email to a non-existent address? It would get pinged back. It should not have taken you to tell them, they should have known. Perhaps they did..more covering up. |
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 16:45
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
If they re-offered the discount the OP was not disadvantaged.
I looked up Tabernacle Street and there is no CPZ sign in its south entrance nor coming from Old Street from the north, turning left into Worship Street then left into Tabernacle Street. However there is a sign further up and it seems the OP has passed that sign and parked beyond it therefore should pay the discount (21 June was a Thursday so is covered all day). |
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 10:40
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 4 Sep 2012 Member No.: 56,964 |
And how did they respond and on what date? The council policy is to re-offer for 14 days or to not, there is no intermediate option. At present the officers are trying to cover their backs, my bet is that they would cave-in if you pressed on. And what happens if they sent the email to a non-existent address? It would get pinged back. It should not have taken you to tell them, they should have known. Perhaps they did..more covering up. The responded Monday 15/10/2018 at 13:15. It's not clear if they were responding to my email representations of the Notice to Owner, or if they discovered the error themselves. Being cynical maybe they were going to escalate it beyond the NTO they sent, went through their emails and found out the problem. What do you think I could press them on? If they re-offered the discount the OP was not disadvantaged. I looked up Tabernacle Street and there is no CPZ sign in its south entrance nor coming from Old Street from the north, turning left into Worship Street then left into Tabernacle Street. However there is a sign further up and it seems the OP has passed that sign and parked beyond it therefore should pay the discount (21 June was a Thursday so is covered all day). I think it was a bit complicated because it is on a border and Tarbernacle St. is one way only at points. Because of the one way nature of the road, they have put the sign in one place going into the zone. Even then, iit appears the road has differing restrictions depending on the side of the road. Would like to pursue it, but may be just pay the fine and get on with my life. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 11:08
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
When I was last there it is one way northbound along the whole road, and there are roads that cross it. Cyclists may be allowed in part to go in the contraflow direction.
If you had been parked in the southern section I would have appealed because I could not see any signs at the entrance of Worship Street, or heading south along City Road and even then I'd have expected to see one a bit closer. But you parked just past a clear sign. And they have responded to your point, not just ignored it. They showed you a photo of the sign you would have passed having considered your challenge. That sign applies to single yellow lines. Parking bays can have a different restriction and will have their own markings. It is a conmon misconception though that CPZ means resident parking bays because of the way they have commonly been rolled out by councils over the past 20 years or so in areas where it used to be unrestricted parking. e.g. you will see CPZ with a zone letter and then see parking bays with the same zone letter. It is really about time this was all cleared up. They have given you a chance to pay the discount within the next 2 days and have actually responded in the manner that they are supposed to. So it will be hard to challenge and you'll end up paying the full rate if you continue to pursue. Islington should also replace all the signs that say "Borough of Finsbury" with ones that say "Islington". But unfortinately that won't work on appeal on this occasion. This post has been edited by Earl Purple: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 11:11 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:50 |