PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ticket Cancelled, but with veiled threat ?
DrRusty
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 3 Dec 2007
Member No.: 15,788



One of those occasions where, unintentionally (as who would do it intentionally after buying a parking ticket) the ticket was left upside down in the car - hence PCN issued for not clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock. (a side note this is also a RingGo car park and I had previously come unstuck due to mistakenly entering a Zero in the registration instead of the letter "O"... that too was cancelled but had been recorded as failure to display, when clearly with RingGo there is nothing to display!)

Appeal lodged, using standard template stating ticket purchased and valid at time PCN issued, result (received the next day !) PCN CANCELLED !

However, two thing stands out :-

Firstly the response makes a veiled threat in the letter that any future PCN may not be rescinded, this is perhaps a catch-all as it is true. But equally such a statement implies that where an appeal has been granted no such "benefit of doubt" will be granted again. Surely this is inappropriate wording as each appeal must be on its own merits not premised on outcome of previous appeals. Furthermore, it negates the possibility of multiple drivers of a vehicle making the same error, perhaps even a new owner ?

Secondly, the letter alludes to a serial number on the ticket matching the number of the ticket displayed - presumably this is the number 852XXXX, which is printed on the ticket as this is the only thing visible on the reverse (the number having been recorded but interestingly not noted on the PCN). It makes me wonder if the system logs the serial number to an issued ticket ? - in which case the serial number being visible would have been sufficient for the Officer to confirm the ticket was valid ? (I guess this number is primarily there to prevent tickets being shared with another driver).

It sort of makes me annoyed that they gain money from advertising on the reverse of tickets (an FOI might be made to find out how much) yet then this opens up the possibility of a ticket being accidentally left upside down. Oddly the only advert on this ticket, is for the advertiser ! Surely, the best option is print on both sides and it is never an issue again; but then again how many people just pay up without contesting the PCN, netting at least £25 a go ?

In the end it was another successful appeal thanks to this forum :-)


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,213
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



It's common for councils to state that cancellation policies operate on a first occasion and you are right that this is not how it should be. In practice they might well cancel for a similar PCN with a reasonable challenge made say a year later but they do not want to commit to always cancelling for people who repeatedly make mistakes. But not cancelling for a second reasonable case leaves them open to fettering discretion of their own policy.

The number on the back of P&D tickets is a useful check for a valid ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 16:52
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,731
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



They can't have you turning up at adjudication and saying, ahh well the cancelled the last one can we. It matters not that the tell you that they may not use their discretion again. It matters if they do not consider it again if another PCN is forthcoming


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 17:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,732
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Keep the cancellation letter, it could help you argue a failure to consider in a future case.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 20:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,362
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO.

You failed to display a valid ticket - fact;
You were required to - fact;
They cancelled using discretionary power - there is no obligation upon them to do so;
They may not use their discretion in the future - which is their right provided they consider the circumstances.

The alternative is an absurd implication i.e. you could continue to place tickets face down and they would be required to cancel any PCN for failure to display! If this were true then just don't bother complying and leave your ticket anywhere with any orientation.

But if the alleged contravention was failure to pay, then that would be different because you could prove payment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:41
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,732
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:44) *
Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO.

The reply says future PCNs might not be reconsidered. The council must always consider cancelling a PCN, it might reconsider a PCN and as a result of that decide to uphold it, but it can't refuse to consider it in the first place.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 22:51
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,074
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:44) *
Nothing wrong with their reply at all IMO.

The reply says future PCNs might not be reconsidered. The council must always consider cancelling a PCN, it might reconsider a PCN and as a result of that decide to uphold it, but it can't refuse to consider it in the first place.

Agree, but the text seems broadly the same as we have seen so often when a council gives way. They must be all using the same software !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 07:03
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,362
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




We must stop this forensic examination of individual words when the sense of the letter is what matters!

And yet again the issue is use of English, not the law.

'Future ...might not be reconsidered' is incoherent. But that's the fault of today's education system, not councils!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 13:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,777
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:44) *
You failed to display a valid ticket - fact;

No, not at all, it was displayed but the wrong way up, whether that was a failure to display or not is open to challenge.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 17:28
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,112
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 08:03) *
We must stop this forensic examination of individual words when the sense of the letter is what matters!

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 3 Sep 2020 - 21:44) *
You failed to display a valid ticket - fact;

We should also refrain from making statements as fact, which are not completely correct.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 4 Sep 2020 - 08:03) *
'Future ...might not be reconsidered' is incoherent. But that's the fault of today's education system, not councils!


The council are responsible for the incorrect bollox statements its staff make, are they not?

This post has been edited by mickR: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 - 18:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 24th September 2020 - 16:55
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.