Council get back to my challenge 117 days later, parking notice |
Council get back to my challenge 117 days later, parking notice |
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 18:46
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 13 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,015 |
i Challenged Rochdale Council over parking a foot onto a yellow and after 117 days they have come back saying they have rejected my challenge and expect me to pay.
I have noted a 56 day limit they have but is this to review informal challenges? Is there anything i can say to get them off my back? I have attached the letter as told to on moneysavingexpert forum
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 18:46
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 16:32
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I can't follow this and on first reading is not what you posted earlier.
Before putting pen to paper you must be clear on the sequence of events. First you posted: Basically i work for a learning disability provider and was dropping off a chap in the office across the road and whilst it should take 5 minutes, he had an episode and i was stuck there for around 20 minutes calming him down, which to me implies the episode happened in the office. Then in your draft you imply that the episode occurred at the location and possibly caused you to stop. That the episode occurred in the office is IMO a better defence than it happened en route. If you had to stop, then you have to show why this was on DYL (you are still obliged to find a lawful location if necessary and you appear to be saying in one version that you knew you would be stopped for some time) whereas if you were taking them to the office and stopped ONLY to assist them to alight then DYL WERE lawful. I am employed by **** and on *** I was transporting one of our clients (I am prevented from naming them under the terms and conditons of my employment) from *** to ****. I stopped on DYL by the office and immediately assisted *** to their destination which I was permitted to do. However, at the office **** had (an episode or however you might describe this) which as he was still my responsibility necessitated me ***** and staying with ****. I estimate I was away from the vehicle for up to 20 minutes. The CEO was correct in issuing the PCN as these events were unknown to them. However, now that the authority are aware the PCN should be cancelled. I enclose **** (something to support your claim to being a carer and using the car for the stated purpose on the day) For your information, although you stated in your letter dated **** 'I have received your recent challenge to the PCN', this was in fact dated **** which is approximately 4 months prior to your reply. By no stretch of anyone's imagination could this be considered 'recent', neither, I am sure, would an adjudicator find the unacknowledged and unexplained delay compatible with your duty to act fairly. Could be one version. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 19:06
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 13 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,015 |
I can't follow this and on first reading is not what you posted earlier. Before putting pen to paper you must be clear on the sequence of events. First you posted: Basically i work for a learning disability provider and was dropping off a chap in the office across the road and whilst it should take 5 minutes, he had an episode and i was stuck there for around 20 minutes calming him down, which to me implies the episode happened in the office. Then in your draft you imply that the episode occurred at the location and possibly caused you to stop. That the episode occurred in the office is IMO a better defence than it happened en route. If you had to stop, then you have to show why this was on DYL (you are still obliged to find a lawful location if necessary and you appear to be saying in one version that you knew you would be stopped for some time) whereas if you were taking them to the office and stopped ONLY to assist them to alight then DYL WERE lawful. I am employed by **** and on *** I was transporting one of our clients (I am prevented from naming them under the terms and conditons of my employment) from *** to ****. I stopped on DYL by the office and immediately assisted *** to their destination which I was permitted to do. However, at the office **** had (an episode or however you might describe this) which as he was still my responsibility necessitated me ***** and staying with ****. I estimate I was away from the vehicle for up to 20 minutes. The CEO was correct in issuing the PCN as these events were unknown to them. However, now that the authority are aware the PCN should be cancelled. I enclose **** (something to support your claim to being a carer and using the car for the stated purpose on the day) For your information, although you stated in your letter dated **** 'I have received your recent challenge to the PCN', this was in fact dated **** which is approximately 4 months prior to your reply. By no stretch of anyone's imagination could this be considered 'recent', neither, I am sure, would an adjudicator find the unacknowledged and unexplained delay compatible with your duty to act fairly. Could be one version. I dont know what DYL is? I think im getting everyone confused here. This person with Learning Disabilities is always a challenge, he constantly tries to lash out. I had to take him to the office anyway but he wasnt in the best moods that day so yes i was taking him there and whilst he was challenging i parked up to take him in quickly and his episode continued - I hoped once i got him in, he would calm down as hed see familiar faces and id be on my way within a minute however he continued which meant i had to stay. I will use your paragraph as that sounds brilliantly however the only thing i can submit really is my ID badge. That should be enough shouldnt it? |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 19:22
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
DYL= double yellow lines
Yes your ID should be accepted as proof of your employment -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 20:43
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 13 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,015 |
just noticed also they didnt send the email until 13/3 but in the letter it says i have from 9/3 to pay up. its not very fair that is it?
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 22:50
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
IMO,
As regards the contravention, don't overcomplicate this. You say: I had to take him to the office anyway In which case simply use my suggested draft. You were, or would argue that you were, ENTITLED to stop on DYL because that location was closest to where you were required to take your client. That's it, assisted alighting, end of your argument. Now, part 2. Why did you not return for such a long time (don't fudge this, state it) while the CEO was observing the car and issuing the PCN? Because the client had an episode which required you to REMAIN in attendance. In parking parlance this is 'prevented from moving by circumstances beyond your control' a separate and distinct argument from assisted alighting. Yes, you would need to provide as much evidence as necessary, but at least you've got your ducks in a line. The procedural c**k-up on their part is a separate strand of argument. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 07:48 |
|
|
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 14:50
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 13 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,015 |
just an update. i submitted the email using your previous email template and not heard anything back yet. my deadline to pay for 35 is today. i did say that that is unfair as i didnt receive the email the day on the letter.
in the auto response they say the PCN is put on hold. im hoping im doing the right thing rather than ust paying it today. worried they will say you should have paid today and now its going to be 70 pounds |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:37 |