Caught on single yellow line as parking time expired Options

[chuck990]

Hi,

Mum fell foul of a quite predatory ticket warden over the weekend. She was parked on a yellow line that allowed parking until 4 and came back to the car at about 9 minutes past only to find a ticket that had been issued at 16:06/16:07.

I've attached the street signage and the PCN below; dont think there's an awful lot to be argued - especially having read that grace periods dont have to apply to single yellow lines.

Can anyone give any saving grace perhaps? Or is this one of those time to just suck it up?

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Hi all,

I'm just starting the appeal through the tribunal.

Do I enter my details or those of my mother? There is a question at the end of the 'personal details' section asking "Do you have a legal representative who will conduct the appeal on your behalf?", I'm presuming i enter her details, and then mine as the representative?

Without reading back and assuming the NtO is in her name, yes you are correct, the appeal has to be in her name but she can appoint you as a representative.

[chuck990]

Please see my first draft.
Is it potentially a little long?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal PCN XX on behalf of my mother XX who is the registered keeper, and driver of the VRM XX.
I have attached a written affidavit confirming my authority to handle this matter.

The PCN was served when the 10 minute grace period applied and therefore must be cancelled.

I have already discussed this matter in some depth with the “Parking Services” department of the London Borough of Merton. I have highlighted where they are incorrectly interpreting guidelines, and not following legislation, I have even pointed them to relevant previous appeals through your service.

I believe I now have two grounds of appeal:
1. The contravention did not occur/the interpretation of the legislation used to imply and impose the contravention was incorrect
2. Procedural impropriety on behalf of the Parking Services department, London Borough of Merton [Referred to in short as Merton henceforth]

I will repeat below an overview of the issue and then expand on the two grounds above;

The car was parked in contravention at 16:06 because the restriction came into effect at 1600 hrs. Prior to this, the car was permitted to be parked in the parking place. Indeed in a message from Merton, it was conceded early in the process that the car was parked in a designated place:
"The parking place in which the vehicle was parked in this case is designated for use between 10am and 4pm, Monday to Saturday." (emphasis mine).

This contravention falls within the group of contraventions specified in para. 3 of Part 1 to Schedule 7 of the TMA (Traffic Management Act) which falls within the scope of the 10-minute prohibition in reg. 4(2) by virtue of being a contravention specified in reg. 4(1)(b).

In previous emails Merton have pointed to vaguely worded guidelines which talk about yellow lines, but the laws which take precedent make no such mention. Yellow lines on their own are indeed not a parking place, they are a ‘No Waiting restriction’. A marked parking bay however is a designated parking place, they have already referred to it as such. The legislation makes no mention of 10 minute rule, or lack thereof on any sort of waiting restriction but it does relate directly to designated parking bays as in this case.
Ergo, if initially parked lawfully in a parking bay (which it has been agreed to be true), that there are yellow lines is irrelevant as far as the 10 minute rule is concerned.


Points of appeal:
1. The contravention did not occur/the interpretation of the legislation used to imply and impose the contravention was incorrect

I have pointed Merton to case 2160156249, a tribunal judgement of a similar case. The part of this decision I wished to highlight is as follows:

“The general idea of this is that if a vehicle is parked legally in a designated parking bay when it is initially parked, then a 10 minute grace period should be given before a parking ticket is issued after it becomes illegally parked.

The Council has already started a 'common sense' approach to kerbside management through its innovative Traffic Marshals scheme.

The 10 minute grace period applies in parking bays in the following instances;

-at the start of controlled hours when the bay reverts from being uncontrolled to controlled
-upon expiry of a paid for session during controlled hours
-upon expiry of a permitted ‘free’ parking period during controlled hours (eg a maximum stay)"The Enforcement Authority has failed to follow its own guidance and the PCN should not have been issued.
I therefore conclude that the review (and appeal) must be allowed.” (emphasis mine)

Merton have brushed this aside and claimed it “not relevant” but I beg to differ. The adjudicator clearly points to the 10 minute rule applying at the end of a permitted parking period as in this case and this being a reason to cancel a PCN.

I could have appealed this decision using the wording below taken directly from Merton’s rejection:

“The amended regulation 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 states, “no penalty charge is payable where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes”.
In this case, ‘Permitted parking period’ means “a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”
The Traffic management Order for the designated parking place (copy enclosed) specifies that the permitted hours for these bays are 10.00am – 4.00pm, Monday to Saturday. The ‘permitted parking period’ for the purposes of Regulation 4 therefore ends at 4pm as parking after 4pm is not authorised by the order relating to the designated parking place.”

2. Procedural impropriety on behalf of the Parking Services department, London Borough of Merton

a) I do not believe that Merton have properly considered this case at any point.
I am appealing on behalf of my mother, for a car that she owns, something that has been made clear throughout. Every response has contained phrases like “You were parked…” or “your vehicle was parked…”. Either they have not read the messages in enough detail to see that I am appealing on behalf of someone else, or they have used stock template rejection letters. I can here point to cases: 2140086060, PATAS Case Number SQ 05085G and in particular PATAS Case Number WG 05182D which states
“These words look rather like they are “standard” or formulaic words“
“It is required that each case is considered on its individual merits, and a “standard” approach, without reference to the particular circumstances, is not sufficient.”

b) I believe Merton’s actions have been vexatious/unreasonable.
The issue began when a predatory enforcement officer began ticketing as soon as a permitted parking period ended. Subsequently, their replies seem to have been poorly considered and it appears they are intent on demanding payment even in the face of the legislation. Either they do not understand the rules, or they hope members of the public do not, neither of which is acceptable.

For the reasons of procedural impropriety listed, I would ask that you consider awarding costs on my behalf. My mother would have been intimidated into paying at a much earlier stage. Instead, I have had to research and point to legislation that it is the “Parking Services” department’s job to know, and appeal now at three different stages. This has taken several hours of my time, along with needless stress. My request would be that the costs at least match what was demanded in payment for this non-offence; £110.
This whole situation should have been solved with the acceptance of the original message; The PCN was served when the 10 minute grace period applied and therefore must be cancelled.

I thank you for your consideration

[PASTMYBEST]

Drop (b) of point two. Adjudicators do not like this sort of comment

[chuck990]

Drop (b) of point two. Adjudicators do not like this sort of comment

Is there a more tactful way to say the same thing? Or is it simply better not to say it at all?
It seems a shame to avoid mentioning it because an adjudicator wouldn't like it when in reality it's the main frustration here, and with many of such complaints.... With private parking tickets before, I've at least semi known that it's a shakedown by a load of cowboys. This is supposed to be a public body, funded by and in aid of the local community. (/rant)

[Neil B]

Drop (b) of point two. Adjudicators do not like this sort of comment

Is there a more tactful way to say the same thing? Or is it simply better not to say it at all?
It seems a shame to avoid mentioning it because an adjudicator wouldn't like it when in reality it's the main frustration here, and with many of such complaints.... With private parking tickets before, I've at least semi known that it's a shakedown by a load of cowboys. This is supposed to be a public body, funded by and in aid of the local community. (/rant)

Well which is it -
The CEO was predatory? or
The CEO is ignorant.

1. Is nothing more than opinion and it's their job to issue PCNs
2. You've already covered more sensibly.

As said, drop it or you'll sway the adjudicator the wrong way.

[DancingDad]

If you really want that bit in, take out the word predatory.
Apart from that, it is simply a statement that shows the frustration and the seeming insistence that they are right, despite the legislation.

[chuck990]

Hi all,

Appeal decision has come back as refused. I am however highly suspicious that the appeal (the one created in this thread) was not read in full...

I appealed with two grounds, one of which was that the original appeal had been improperly considered - all replies from the council spoke of "your" car or said that "you" parked when I had been quite clear I was appealing on someone else's behalf. The Tribunal decision now also follows the same trend, repeatedly saying "she" argues etc. where 'she' has played no part in proceedings. Indeed you'll notice the message is addressed to a Mr (me).
The council uploaded their evidence first, and said in it that "the appellant has not uploaded any evidence"; this was true at the time but shortly after, the appeal as discussed here, was uploaded. I am concerned therefore that the adjudicator read this, took it to be true and based their decision only on information provided by the enforcing authority. This I think explains why only one of the two grounds of appeal was considered, and why they might think the appeal was carried out by my mother.

The tribunals website stated that a review, while not the norm, is a possibility:

"
The grounds for review are:

The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
There is new evidence, the existence of which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision; or
The interests of justice require a review. You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
"

I believe the first applies, possibly also the last - the decision talks about paying for parking, but I was unaware that it was relevant if payment had been made for parking where parking is offered for free?

[EDIT]
I am increaingly confident that the final point above applies - the finding is plainly incompatible with the law:
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provide, under regulation 4, that:

"Imposition of penalty charges
4. (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle where there has been committed in relation to that vehicle—
(a)a parking contravention within paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London);
(b)a parking contravention within paragraph 3 of that Schedule (other parking contraventions in Greater London) in a civil enforcement area in Greater London; or
©a parking contravention within paragraph 4 of that Schedule (parking contraventions outside Greater London) in a civil enforcement area outside Greater London.

(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—

(a)“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(3);
(b)“permitted parking period” means—
(i)a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place. "
[/EDIT]

I intend to ask for a review, but if anything this probably needs to be the best thought out stage, so help would be much appreciated




This post has been edited by chuck990: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 08:37

[PASTMYBEST]

Hi all,

Appeal decision has come back as refused. I am however highly suspicious that the appeal (the one created in this thread) was not read in full...

I appealed with two grounds, one of which was that the original appeal had been improperly considered - all replies from the council spoke of "your" car or said that "you" parked when I had been quite clear I was appealing on someone else's behalf. The Tribunal decision now also follows the same trend, repeatedly saying "she" argues etc. where 'she' has played no part in proceedings. Indeed you'll notice the message is addressed to a Mr (me).
The council uploaded their evidence first, and said in it that "the appellant has not uploaded any evidence"; this was true at the time but shortly after, the appeal as discussed here, was uploaded. I am concerned therefore that the adjudicator read this, took it to be true and based their decision only on information provided by the enforcing authority. This I think explains why only one of the two grounds of appeal was considered, and why they might think the appeal was carried out by my mother.

The tribunals website stated that a review, while not the norm, is a possibility:

"
The grounds for review are:

The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
There is new evidence, the existence of which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision; or
The interests of justice require a review. You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
"

I believe the first applies, possibly also the last - the decision talks about paying for parking, but I was unaware that it was relevant if payment had been made for parking where parking is offered for free?

[EDIT]
I am increaingly confident that the final point above applies - the finding is plainly incompatible with the law:
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provide, under regulation 4, that:

"Imposition of penalty charges
4. (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle where there has been committed in relation to that vehicle—
(a)a parking contravention within paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London);
(b)a parking contravention within paragraph 3 of that Schedule (other parking contraventions in Greater London) in a civil enforcement area in Greater London; or
©a parking contravention within paragraph 4 of that Schedule (parking contraventions outside Greater London) in a civil enforcement area outside Greater London.

(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—

(a)“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(3);
(b)“permitted parking period” means—
(i)a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place. "
[/EDIT]

I intend to ask for a review, but if anything this probably needs to be the best thought out stage, so help would be much appreciated

The adjudicator erred in law, and a review should be applied for. Its not the deregulation act that applies, its The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015
You are here:
2007 No. 3483SCHEDULE and the grace period is available even for a free to park bay

Amendment
2.—(1) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007(1) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (imposition of penalty charges)—
(a)
re-number the existing provision as (1);
(b)
at the end insert—
“(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.
(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—
(a)
“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(2);
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

[chuck990]

Rough first draft:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am fully aware that reviews of judgements are not flippant matters, and not to be entered into because of a difference in opinion. The grounds for review are listed as:
• The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
• You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
• There is new evidence, the existence of which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision; or
• The interests of justice require a review.

I strongly believe that both the first and last of these points apply.

1. The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff

I appealed to the tribunal on two grounds, one of which was that the original appeal had been improperly considered. This grounds for appeal has not been mentioned or dealt with by the tribunal’s judgement.

All replies from the council spoke of "your" car or said that "you" parked when I had been quite clear I was appealing on someone else's behalf. The Tribunal decision now also follows the same trend, repeatedly saying "she" argues etc. where 'she' has played no part in proceedings. Indeed you'll notice the message is addressed to a Mr (me). The judgement makes no mention of this second ground of appeal.

The council uploaded their evidence first and said within that "the appellant has not uploaded any evidence"; this was true at the time but at a later date, the appeal was uploaded. I am concerned therefore that the adjudicator read the council’s submission, took it to be true and based their decision only on information provided by the enforcing authority. This I think explains why only one of the two grounds of appeal was considered, and why they might think the appeal was carried out by my mother.

2. The interests of justice require a review

The adjudicator has erred in law. A 10 minute grace period should apply to the parking space in question, and as such the PCN should never have been issued in the first place.

The relevant law is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Amendment
2.—(1) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007(1) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (imposition of penalty charges)—
(a)
re-number the existing provision as (1);
(b)
at the end insert—
“(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.
(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—
(a)
“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(2);
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

The law quite clearly stipulates that the permitted parking period can include “a period of parking for which no charge is payable” as in this case. The adjudicator states that their decision is affected by the fact that the parking was not paid for, but this is not relevant.
The vehicle had therefore “been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes” when the PCN was incorrectly issued.

Respectfully, this is not a difference of opinion, the adjudicator is incorrect in their assertions and their decision to refuse the appeal is incorrect. I ask that you please open the case for review and reconsider the decision made.

This post has been edited by chuck990: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 13:05

[PASTMYBEST]

Forget point one, It can be easily dismissed as of no consequence to the outcome and just re hashing your appeal. Stick to point two the adjudicator applied the wrong law, an subsequently the wrong test to arrive at their decision

[chuck990]

Have edited as below.

Does anyone know how to request a review?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am fully aware that reviews of judgements are not flippant matters, and not to be entered into because of a difference in opinion. I believe however that "The interests of justice require a review".

The adjudicator has erred in law. A 10 minute grace period should apply to the parking space in question, and as such the PCN should never have been issued in the first place.

The relevant law is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Amendment
2.—(1) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007(1) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (imposition of penalty charges)—
(a)
re-number the existing provision as (1);
(b)
at the end insert—
“(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.
(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—
(a)
“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(2);
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

The law quite clearly stipulates that the permitted parking period can include “a period of parking for which no charge is payable” as in this case. The adjudicator states that their decision is affected by the fact that the parking was not paid for, but this is not relevant.
The vehicle had therefore “been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes” when the PCN was incorrectly issued.

Respectfully, this is not a difference of opinion, the adjudicator is incorrect in their assertions and their decision to refuse the appeal is incorrect. I ask that you please open the case for review and reconsider the decision made.

[Mad Mick V]

OP---Strengthen your case-- "the adjudicator has made an error in both fact and law in arriving at his decision since there is no pre-requirement that the 10 minute exemption relates only to paid parking places".

We are not talking about opinion here we are talking about the precise wording of the legislation.

Mick

[chuck990]

Updated:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am fully aware that reviews of judgements are not flippant matters and not to be entered into because of a difference in opinion; In this case the adjudicator has made an error in fact and law in arriving at their decision. I believe that "The interests of justice require a review".

A 10 minute grace period applies to the parking space in question, and as such the PCN should never have been issued in the first place.

The adjudicator has erred in law in. The relevant legislation is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Amendment
2.—(1) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007(1) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (imposition of penalty charges)—
(a)
re-number the existing provision as (1);
(b)
at the end insert—
“(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.
(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

(4) In this regulation—
(a)
“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(2);
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

The law quite clearly stipulates that the permitted parking period can include “a period of parking for which no charge is payable” as in this case. The adjudicator states that their decision is affected by the fact that the parking was not paid for, but this is demonstrably not relevant.
The vehicle had therefore “been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes” when the PCN was incorrectly issued. This is exactly the situation to which the legislation refers.

Respectfully, this is not a difference of opinion, the adjudicator is incorrect in their assertions and their decision to refuse the appeal is incorrect. I ask that you please open the case for review and overturn the decision made.

[hcandersen]

Sorry Chuck, but IMO it’s too lengthy and does not hit the spot.

The adj erred in law.

This arose because they misinterpreted the extent of the Amendment regs which, in summary, provide that if a vehicle is within a designated parking place and any parking contravention relating to parking places OR ‘other parking contraventions on Greater London’ is alleged, then a 10-minute prohibition after the end of the permitted parking period applies to the demand for any penalty.

The facts in this case are that:
The vehicle was within a designated parking place in Greater London, and
A contravention specified in para. 3(2)(b)(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the TMA was alleged i.e. ‘a prohibition or restriction on the waiting of vehicles’.

Respectfully, the adjudicator erred and the appeal should be allowed.

[chuck990]

Sorry Chuck, but IMO it’s too lengthy and does not hit the spot.

Please don't apologise, all help greatly appreciated! I have shortened as below, removing some less relevant/repeated statements.
Hopefully the following is more succinct but still conveys what is required?

Dear Sir/Madam,

In this case the adjudicator has made an error in fact and law in arriving at their decision. A 10 minute grace period applies to the parking space in question, and as such the PCN should never have been issued in the first place.

The adjudicator has erred in law in. The relevant legislation is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. In particular I would like to highlight paragraph 4(b)(ii)

(4) In this regulation—
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

The law quite clearly stipulates that the permitted parking period can include “a period of parking for which no charge is payable” as in this case. The adjudicator states that their decision is affected by the fact that the parking was not paid for, but this is demonstrably not relevant.

Respectfully, this is not a difference of opinion, the adjudicator is incorrect in their assertions and their decision to refuse the appeal is incorrect. I ask that you please open the case for review and overturn the decision made.

[PASTMYBEST]

Amend HCA's last sentence to read

Respectfully, the adjudicator erred and the review and appeal should be allowed.

then replace yours with it, It is a bit more respectful and in this case saying it is not a difference of opinion could just lead the reviewing adjudicator in that direction

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 14:04

[chuck990]

Amended as suggested. Again, does anyone know how to request a review?

Dear Sir/Madam,

In this case the adjudicator has made an error in fact and law in arriving at their decision. A 10 minute grace period applies to the parking space in question, and as such the PCN should never have been issued in the first place.

The adjudicator has erred in law in. The relevant legislation is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 amended by The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. In particular I would like to highlight paragraph 4(b)(ii)

(4) In this regulation—
(b)
“permitted parking period” means—
(i)
a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii)
a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

The law quite clearly stipulates that the permitted parking period can include “a period of parking for which no charge is payable” as in this case. The adjudicator states that their decision is affected by the fact that the parking was not paid for, but this is demonstrably not relevant.

Respectfully, the adjudicator erred and the review and appeal should be allowed.

[PASTMYBEST]

Write to the tribunal manager at the address on the decision letter. This must be within 14 days. If you phone to check you can most likely e mail

[chuck990]

I have formatted the above as a letter and sent in the post - should arrive tomorrow.

Will let you know when I hear back. Many thanks all!

[chuck990]

Having not heard anything since the request for the appeal I have logged into the online portal to check.

The listing says:

Appeal stage Review
Appeal status Case is now sealed

Can anyone please clarify what this means? I will email the tribunals service to ask, but bearing in ind they didn't reply to the request for a review asking here may be quicker..

This post has been edited by chuck990: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:47