parking in restriced street Options

[Mikesw15]

Hi where do i stand with this ticket can i say the ambulance was restricting the view of the sign ? or what else could i say to get out of it ;-) TIA

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

Well it's a bad bit of parking on the pavement but the contravention is indeed the yellow line and you are supposed to look for signs that control it. I can't see that the sign would have been obscured by the ambulance.


But where is this - just says Kent Road - maybe more than one in Dartford.

What a google street view of the location.

[Mikesw15]

Well it's a bad bit of parking on the pavement but the contravention is indeed the yellow line and you are supposed to look for signs that control it. I can't see that the sign would have been obscured by the ambulance.


But where is this - just says Kent Road - maybe more than one in Dartford.

What a google street view of the location.

there is a kent road in dartford but this was in longfield, the street view dont show that sign as i think there pretty recent

GOOGLE STREET VIEW

WHERE THE CAR WAS PARKED

This post has been edited by Mikesw15: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 12:24

[cp8759]

There's a known will / may flaw on the PCN, it wrongly states that if no payment is made the NtO "will" be sent, the legislation only allows the PCN to say the NtO "may" be sent. This can win on its own especially because Dartford is extremely unlikely to deal with the representations properly.

[PASTMYBEST]

There's a known will / may flaw on the PCN, it wrongly states that if no payment is made the NtO "will" be sent, the legislation only allows the PCN to say the NtO "may" be sent. This can win on its own especially because Dartford is extremely unlikely to deal with the representations properly.

The whole paragraph "The process should you choose to ignore this PCN" is flawed it does not convey 3(2)(b)(ii) Whilst giving the impression through its heading that if you have challenged you don't have to do anything more until a response is made.

OP we do not help you make things up, you know if the ambulance blocked your view of the sign or not. So do we really and so would an adjudicator. That photo was taken 3 minutes after the one of your car parked as it was. But we will help with valid points like the technical ones found. The council will not accept these. An adjudicator may, but there is a doctrine of substantial compliance that allows them to interpret what is said, so no sure thing

[cp8759]

You have to add that the chances of Dartford understanding the representations and dealing with them properly are remote, this will likely add a procedural impropriety which could tip the balance.

Making false representations is a criminal offence punishable with an unlimited fine, I infer from the opening post that the ambulance was not obstructing your view, this is something you thought of afterwards and I suggest we don't go there.

[Mikesw15]

You have to add that the chances of Dartford understanding the representations and dealing with them properly are remote, this will likely add a procedural impropriety which could tip the balance.

Making false representations is a criminal offence punishable with an unlimited fine, I infer from the opening post that the ambulance was not obstructing your view, this is something you thought of afterwards and I suggest we don't go there.

should i go by the times on the pictures which were taken ? as it was only 3 minutes from the time they first saw the car and shouldnt it 5 ?

[cp8759]

Your only ground of challenge is a technical one based on the wording of the PCN, at which point the time on the pictures becomes somewhat irrelevant to be honest. Could you please confirm you understand what I'm saying here?

[Mikesw15]

Your only ground of challenge is a technical one based on the wording of the PCN, at which point the time on the pictures becomes somewhat irrelevant to be honest. Could you please confirm you understand what I'm saying here?

Thank you, How would i word it ?

[cp8759]

Draft representation, keep all italics and bold italics exactly as I've used them below. The council will reply with a stock rejection letter, post it up when you get it.

-------

Dear Dartford Borough Council,

The Penalty Charge Notice served in this instance states (my emphasis):

"Dartford Borough Council will obtain the 'Registered Keeper' (owner) details from the DVLA and serve a 'Notice to Owner' requesting payment of the penalty charge, if the penalty charge is not paid or successfully challenged within twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which this PCN was served"

However regulation 19 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides as follows:

"The notice to owner
19.—(1) Subject to regulation 20, where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a
vehicle under regulation 9 or 9A; and

(b) the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as
the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired
without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (“a notice to
owner”) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the
vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred."

In David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (216022028A, 29 June 2016) adjudicator Belinda Pearce said "I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics."

In David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019) the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruled that:

"The use of the word “will” as opposed to the statutory language “may” is fundamental. The statutory language reflects the Council’s discretion"

In the present case, the council has wrongly used the word "will", which does not correctly convey the discretionary nature of the council's power to issue a Notice to Owner. The wording of the regulations does not need to be used verbatim, but the substantive meaning must be correctly conveyed and in this instance the PCN templated used by Dartford Borough Council falls short.

The incorrect wording on the PCN amounts to a procedural impropriety which means that even if the alleged contravention occurred, nonetheless the PCN must be cancelled.

[Mikesw15]

Draft representation, keep all italics and bold italics exactly as I've used them below. The council will reply with a stock rejection letter, post it up when you get it.

-------

Dear Dartford Borough Council,

The Penalty Charge Notice served in this instance states (my emphasis):

"Dartford Borough Council will obtain the 'Registered Keeper' (owner) details from the DVLA and serve a 'Notice to Owner' requesting payment of the penalty charge, if the penalty charge is not paid or successfully challenged within twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which this PCN was served"

However regulation 19 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides as follows:

"The notice to owner
19.—(1) Subject to regulation 20, where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a
vehicle under regulation 9 or 9A; and

(b) the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as
the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired
without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (“a notice to
owner”) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the
vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred."

In David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (216022028A, 29 June 2016) adjudicator Belinda Pearce said "I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics."

In David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019) the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruled that:

"The use of the word “will” as opposed to the statutory language “may” is fundamental. The statutory language reflects the Council’s discretion"

In the present case, the council has wrongly used the word "will", which does not correctly convey the discretionary nature of the council's power to issue a Notice to Owner. The wording of the regulations does not need to be used verbatim, but the substantive meaning must be correctly conveyed and in this instance the PCN templated used by Dartford Borough Council falls short.

The incorrect wording on the PCN amounts to a procedural impropriety which means that even if the alleged contravention occurred, nonetheless the PCN must be cancelled.

thanks for that ;-)

[Mikesw15]

Draft representation, keep all italics and bold italics exactly as I've used them below. The council will reply with a stock rejection letter, post it up when you get it.

-------

Dear Dartford Borough Council,

The Penalty Charge Notice served in this instance states (my emphasis):

"Dartford Borough Council will obtain the 'Registered Keeper' (owner) details from the DVLA and serve a 'Notice to Owner' requesting payment of the penalty charge, if the penalty charge is not paid or successfully challenged within twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which this PCN was served"

However regulation 19 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides as follows:

"The notice to owner
19.—(1) Subject to regulation 20, where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a
vehicle under regulation 9 or 9A; and

(b) the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as
the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired
without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (“a notice to
owner”) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the
vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred."

In David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (216022028A, 29 June 2016) adjudicator Belinda Pearce said "I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics."

In David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019) the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruled that:

"The use of the word “will” as opposed to the statutory language “may” is fundamental. The statutory language reflects the Council’s discretion"

In the present case, the council has wrongly used the word "will", which does not correctly convey the discretionary nature of the council's power to issue a Notice to Owner. The wording of the regulations does not need to be used verbatim, but the substantive meaning must be correctly conveyed and in this instance the PCN templated used by Dartford Borough Council falls short.

The incorrect wording on the PCN amounts to a procedural impropriety which means that even if the alleged contravention occurred, nonetheless the PCN must be cancelled.

thanks for that ;-)

[hcandersen]

OP, and where is the rest of their letter and why the delay in posting - the letter is dated 5 Dec?

[cp8759]

Show us the rest of the letter.