PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN & NtO Received in Council Car Park
Interact
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



I inadvertently parked in a disabled bay in a council car park in central Milton Keynes as I could not see the signage indicating it was a disabled bay.

I challenged the PCN on the grounds that the signage was insufficent as the painted word "Disabled" has been eroded and made illegible. This was rejected by the council who pointed to a small sign mounted on a pole nearby. I don't believe this signage is sufficient either as its not behind the bay and its at a height that I did not notice is (either when I parked, or even after I returned to my car and saw the ticket).

Do I have grounds to appeal the Notice to Owner on the basis that the signage is insufficent (because the painted word wasn't easily spotted and the signed placed too high to be noticed)?

Here's links to images of the informal appeal rejection letter and Notice to Owner

https://imgur.com/XLmCQyV
https://imgur.com/xcttoTT
https://imgur.com/8bejo2d

Thanks in advance.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Interact
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 11:50
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:47) *
You paid?

I see PMB in post #2 said 'let's start at the beginning', but without success!

Let us try again.

I parked in what I knew from prior knowledge of the layout of parking along Silbury was a parking place. I left the car and went to the nearest P&D m/c - pl don't tell me this was next to the disabled sign but hopefully in the opposite direction or even opposite. I purchased and displayed a ticket for a x-hour stay.

On my return, I found the PCN indicating that I was parked in a bay reserved for disabled badge holders. Only when my attention was drawn to this did I see the remnants of the word disabled marked outside my bay. I also noticed a traffic sign beyond the adjacent bay which referred to disabled badge holders only.

Enclosed pl find a GSV snapshot of the location dated **** and an earlier snapshot from ****.
I also refer to the CEO's photos.

The older GSV shot shows that the council have tried to indicate the separate bays by the use of white lines but the more recent shows that they have been allowed to deteriorate such as to be hardly visible. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to consider that this degradation is part of a deliberate policy to allow the markings to wear away naturally as clearly no effort has been made to maintain them to a standard which could be considered to be substantially compliant.
In my case, the authority claim that it is not necessary for them to place a traffic sign in my bay because the sign two bays away has effect, however, it is for the authority to prove this point: the default position is that a traffic sign should be placed in the bay to indicate the restriction or alternatively that the word 'Disabled' is clearly marked on each of several bays and that a traffic sign may be placed within or at the end of these adjacent bays.
Neither case applies here.


Should I mention in my response, that the 2nd traffic sign in front of the bay (showing it was for disabled badge holders) was present in June 2015, but subsequently removed from 2017 as per the GSV images (possibly removed indavertently during the construction work shown in the JUne 2017 GSV image)? I'm just thinking that that would prove that originally the council must have deemed that sign necessary, but then it was taken down, potentially by mistake and not replaced?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 12:06
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,377
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Interact @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 11:50) *
Should I mention in my response, that the 2nd traffic sign in front of the bay (showing it was for disabled badge holders) was present in June 2015, but subsequently removed from 2017 as per the GSV images (possibly removed indavertently during the construction work shown in the JUne 2017 GSV image)? I'm just thinking that that would prove that originally the council must have deemed that sign necessary, but then it was taken down, potentially by mistake and not replaced?

Yes you should make that point.


--------------------
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
Interact
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 09:08
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



So I have received a "notice of rejection of representations" letter from the council which is rejecting my appeal.

The odd thing about this is that the letter was received on Tuesday (12th Feb) and dated the 11th. However I didn't even post my appeal letter until the Monday (11th) night so it wouldn't have even been received by them before the 13th at the earliest. So the council rejected my appeal before they even received it! Is that reasonable? (Unfortunately I didn't send by registered post, so I can't prove the date).

Here's a copy of the letter: https://imgur.com/a/rdX32Az

I think this is a clerical error on their side, as I emailed them 3 times to ask for the CEO's photos. They eventually replied on Monday (11th) saying:

"Good Morning

Thank you for your email relating to the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.

We note from the case that a response was sent to you 27/12/2018 and the Notice to Owner was then sent on 15/01/2019. This allows you to further appeal the ticket.

As the case has now reached the formal stage we have responded to you by letter today enclosing a copy of the letter sent in December."


I replied again the same day, saying what I needed was the full resolution photos sent to me. They then replied the same day with:

"Good Morning

Thank you for your further email I can confirm that as previously advised as the case has now reached the formal stage all correspondence should now be written via letter.
We have included copies of all the photos on the response posted to you today, however please see photos below."


So I think rather than just sending me the photos as requested, they sent me the rejection letter.

So right now I'm unclear where I stand. I don't believe they have responded yet to my dispute of the NtO, yet I have received a rejection, telling me my next steps are to pay the fine (50% off) or to go to the independent adjudicator.

Just to be clear about the chronology of the events:

16/12/18 - Date of alleged contravention
17/12/18 - I made informal appeal by email
27/12/18 - Informal appeal rejected
~20/1/19 - NtO received
24/1/19 - I emailed to request CEO photos
30/1/19 - I emailed again to request CEO photos
11/2/19 - I emailed again to request photos. Received above responses


Any advice?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 11:45
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,377
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Show us redacted screenshots of the three emails you sent and their replies. It looks like they might have committed a procedural impropriety which could win on its own.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 11:46


--------------------
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
Interact
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 13:36
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 11:45) *
Show us redacted screenshots of the three emails you sent and their replies. It looks like they might have committed a procedural impropriety which could win on its own.



Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/vjxfMYp

This post has been edited by Interact: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 13:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:18
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,377
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think the procedural impropriety is maybe your strongest point. In principle this is the same as Giles Fisher v London Borough of Hackney (case reference 2160248915):

"It does seem to me how that the appellant has made a good point, a procedural one about the notice of rejection arising from what should have been interpreted simply as a request to view. I have accepted there has been some prejudice from that and I have recorded the appeal as allowed.

This case I hope demonstrates to the Council that there is a distinction between something which is simply and unequivocally solely a request to view and something which is in, or also has the character of representations.
"

Here the council has wrongly treated a mere request for information as a representation. You wanted the photos in order that you could make the strongest and most detailed representations possible, but by issuing a Notice of Rejection the council has effectively deprived you of that opportunity. In issuing a Notice of Rejection without having received a formal representation, the council has committed a procedural impropriety.

Show us the other pages on the Notice to Owner.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:19


--------------------
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
Interact
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 21:15
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:18) *
I think the procedural impropriety is maybe your strongest point. In principle this is the same as Giles Fisher v London Borough of Hackney (case reference 2160248915):

"It does seem to me how that the appellant has made a good point, a procedural one about the notice of rejection arising from what should have been interpreted simply as a request to view. I have accepted there has been some prejudice from that and I have recorded the appeal as allowed.

This case I hope demonstrates to the Council that there is a distinction between something which is simply and unequivocally solely a request to view and something which is in, or also has the character of representations.
"

Here the council has wrongly treated a mere request for information as a representation. You wanted the photos in order that you could make the strongest and most detailed representations possible, but by issuing a Notice of Rejection the council has effectively deprived you of that opportunity. In issuing a Notice of Rejection without having received a formal representation, the council has committed a procedural impropriety.

Show us the other pages on the Notice to Owner.


Unfortunately I no longer have the Notice to Owner as I had to fill it in and send it back as part of my appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 21:30
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,377
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Interact @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 21:15) *
Unfortunately I no longer have the Notice to Owner as I had to fill it in and send it back as part of my appeal.

Where did you sent the Notice to Owner, when, and why?

Your timeframe you gave us all of 12 hours ago was:

16/12/18 - Date of alleged contravention
17/12/18 - I made informal appeal by email
27/12/18 - Informal appeal rejected
~20/1/19 - NtO received
24/1/19 - I emailed to request CEO photos
30/1/19 - I emailed again to request CEO photos
11/2/19 - I emailed again to request photos. Received above responses


How does sending the NtO anywhere fit in?


--------------------
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
Interact
post Yesterday, 08:42
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,065



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 21:30) *
QUOTE (Interact @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 21:15) *
Unfortunately I no longer have the Notice to Owner as I had to fill it in and send it back as part of my appeal.

Where did you sent the Notice to Owner, when, and why?

Your timeframe you gave us all of 12 hours ago was:

16/12/18 - Date of alleged contravention
17/12/18 - I made informal appeal by email
27/12/18 - Informal appeal rejected
~20/1/19 - NtO received
24/1/19 - I emailed to request CEO photos
30/1/19 - I emailed again to request CEO photos
11/2/19 - I emailed again to request photos. Received above responses


How does sending the NtO anywhere fit in?


Apologies - the rest of the timeline was in my earlier post yesterday.

The NtO I received had to be returned to the council as part of my appeal (the form to complete was part of the NtO I received and I had to fill it in and return it.

Here's the updated timeline:

16/12/18 - Date of alleged contravention
17/12/18 - I made informal appeal by email
27/12/18 - Informal appeal rejected
~20/1/19 - NtO received
24/1/19 - I emailed to request CEO photos
30/1/19 - I emailed again to request CEO photos
11/2/19 - I emailed again to request photos. Received above responses
11/2/19 - Letter rejecting my representations sent by council
12/2/19 - (morning) I posted my formal appeal & NtO form to council (based on input from this forum)
12/2/19 - I received letter from council rejecting my representation
13-14/2/19 - Assuming this is when my formal appeal was actually recieved by the council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Yesterday, 09:05
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,250
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



IMO, the NTO is a distraction.

OP, your options are clear: fight or flight(AKA pay the discount).

I would fight.

Contravention did not occur..as per previous posts....from which the council's singular attitude to signage extends to

Sending an unlawful NOR (by virtue of purporting to serve a NOR when no reps had been received) which itself is replete with procedural improprieties regarding the mandatory elements of a such a notice(the repeated use of an incorrect '28-day period' materially and adversely jeopardises the owner with regards to their rights to appeal and liability to a surcharged penalty).

Should be enough to be going on with!

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Yesterday, 09:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 13:03
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,377
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You should definitely appeal, IMO you cannot lose at this point. It would have been better if you hadn't posted the NtO, but we are where we are.

Your grounds of appeal are:

1) The contravention did not occur due to the positioning of the signage (Personally I'm not convinced this is a very strong argument, but it should still be made)
2) Sending a Notice of Rejection when no representations had been made is obviously prejudicial and a serious procedural impropriety, this should win the case no matter what.

Put a draft of your appeal on here.


--------------------
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

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Sunday, 17th February 2019 - 14:49
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.