PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Perrmit Zone...no entry warning signs?, Threads merged x3
aspar
post Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



Parked up on a street....no yellow lines.

Didn't notice 'Permit Only' sign on a post nearby.

Was new to area and had no idea permits were in operation.

Question is....I seem to recollect that any 'parking permit zones' had to have signs up as you enter the zone [since there are no road markings to indicate]....is this right/binding?? [This is how it is where I live...but this was a different council area]

I ask as I can drive into the streets concerned without seeing any warning signs ...other than the small ones on a post in the street.

I have a feeling that the 'small post signs' trump the need for 'entry warning signs'....would welcome your opinions.

This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 54)
Advertisement
post Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:37
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,575
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 16:19) *
UPDATE:
FIL sent email saying daughter was owner, daughter sent another confirming she was owner.

Council has replied saying it won't accept these two emails and say he and she must comply with

S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S
2000 No. 2546
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000

This refers to fixed penalties etc.....

Is it not the case that local council enforced parking has been de-criminalised....???

Would love to tell the council they are wrong....!!!


They are, but will never get it. The liability for the penalty lies with the owner. For practicalities sake this is presumed to be the RK. For obvious reasons the council cannot be expected to accept the word of every one who says their not the owner it was some one else. But the burden of proof is on the balance of probability. If a person states that someone is the owner, then that person say's Hey I'm the owner. The probability is high. Some one will point you to the relevant regs I haven't got time ATM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 10:38
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



thanks foir the reply...

Yeah I think the 'proper' legislation is mentioned above... TMA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 11:00
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,876
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 13:08
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 12:00) *
I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.


I am more minded to take this all the way to the Appeals Service [not sure of exact name] as I'm keen to get a ruling on the Code 12 versus Code 16.....there are thousands of tickets affected if they are found to be using the wrong code...oops!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 01:06
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,876
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (aspar @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 12:00) *
I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.


I am more minded to take this all the way to the Appeals Service [not sure of exact name] as I'm keen to get a ruling on the Code 12 versus Code 16.....there are thousands of tickets affected if they are found to be using the wrong code...oops!

Oh don't worry, procedural improprieties are almost always rejected as the council don't want to admit they've done anything wrong. Unfortunately even if this goes to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, a decision in your case doesn't affect the validity of any other PCNs.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 07:04
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,529
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Still no PCN, NTO, reps of any sort or correspondence.

We don't know whether the authority's reply was a Notice of Rejection or request for further info. If the former, then the appeals registration clock is ticking. If the latter, what do they want?

IMO, the only knows here is the nose by which the OP continues to lead us in the absence of following established forum procedure regarding posting documents and I am concerned that advice is being given when we know so little.

Early morning paranoia again.

As regards the regs, as we don't know the details of the context then we cannot know their relevance. I can see a purpose as regards the authority because the Schedules to the regs contain prescribed formats for making declarations regarding ownership with, of course, the accompanying warning regarding the criminal liability for lying.

Poor old FIL, possibly soon to become even poorer.

And as regards who is liable, it is the RK unless the contrary can be proved.

Contrary to what?

Contrary to the presumption that the RK is the person by whom the vehicle is kept which in principle has nothing to do with who has title to (i.e. actually owns) the vehicle.

owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

Nowt to do with title.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 07:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:38
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 08:04) *
Still no PCN, NTO, reps of any sort or correspondence.


It's asking for a url....so won't load pics from my PC...I assume I need to use some sort of photosharing site???

Whats the preferred choice on here...??

Or do I cut and paste into the thread?? [haven't tried that yet'''']

This post has been edited by aspar: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:41
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,876
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (aspar @ Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 10:38) *
It's asking for a url....so won't load pics from my PC...I assume I need to use some sort of photosharing site???

imgur and tinypic both seem to be popular 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 12:14
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



thanks...I;'m away for four weeks and I'll upload when I return....unless I get the chncne before I go

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:34
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



UPDATE:

Council recently sent a letter saying 'Cancelled due to 'procedural impropriety'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:52
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,575
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (aspar @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 13:34) *
UPDATE:

Council recently sent a letter saying 'Cancelled due to 'procedural impropriety'


can you post it please. that is very unusual
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 09:31
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



Apologies.....the letter actually says...Although your Penalty Notice Charge was correctly given, we have cancelled it on this occasion due to a technical fault within the system.

Should I write and ask for an explanation of this said 'technical fault??' [wonder if the same fault could result in hundreds of other people getting a refund??? I'm sure the council wopuld welcome that.....

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:51
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,876
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would write back asking exactly what the technical fault is. You made representations and received a decision, you are therefore entitled to an explanation of the reasons for that decision. The fact that the decision happened to be in your favour doesn't change that.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aspar
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:53
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,310



Done and got an answer...

The technical fault to which we refer was due the system generating a duplicate Notice to Owner.



I've subsequently asked if they have cancelled ALL PCNs that this happened to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:07
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,876
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Did you ever receive the duplicate NtO?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Monday, 18th June 2018 - 17:36
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.