PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 48 Stopped in a Restricted Area, Stopped in restricted area outside a school
materaz
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



Seasons Greetings Everyone!

Got PCN 48 Stopped in a Restricted Area but not sure, whether I have grounds to appeal.
Please see attached images and share your opinion please:

My observations are:
Stopped on single yellow lane outside controlled time for 8 seconds (picked up a person)
Stopped just before (or in line) with post “No Stopping on entrance markings” signed.
Did not stop on zigzag markings visible after “No Stopping on entrance” signed post.
In a safe manner made a 3 point turn reversing into “Keep Clear” drive way (the entrance itself)

I re-visted that place to make photos and discovered newly painted zigzag markings before “No Stopping on entrance” signed post. Also, I saw barely visible older zigzag markings which were not noticed on the day of contravention.

Was it illegal 3point turn? (see video in the link below)

VIDEO:
https://youtu.be/RNSoooFoRUw

Thanks for your time!


New markings:

This post has been edited by materaz: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 21:19
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:52
Post #21





Guests






It is also worth pointing out that Bexley cannot serve a notice on you that claims to be both a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and a Notice to Owner. A Notice to Owner (NtO) can only be served if a civil enforcement officer has served a PCN and it is not paid within 28 days of being served. In your case no CEO served a PCN and so Bexley cannot serve a NtO on you and the law does not allow for the hybrid notice Bexley has seved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:56
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
Ask yourself, is the ZZ line in front of the car placed at 90 degrees to the kerb or 45? If it's 90 then it denotes the beginning/end of the ZZ.

It's 45. The beginning of the ZZ was not visible due to old faded marking on the day of contravention (also, as seen on council's photos and images). Now, it's been repainted.
Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:05
Post #23





Guests






QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:56) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
Ask yourself, is the ZZ line in front of the car placed at 90 degrees to the kerb or 45? If it's 90 then it denotes the beginning/end of the ZZ.

It's 45. The beginning of the ZZ was not visible due to old faded marking on the day of contravention (also, as seen on council's photos and images). Now, it's been repainted.
Thanks!


Then it fooled me. Picture 3 that you posted clearly shows 45 degree lines and the line in front of your stopped car in picture 4 that you posted clearly looks like a 90 degree line to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:14
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:48) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:39) *
............ I'm afraid not. I stopped at the end of the hump - exactly in line with post signed "No waiting Mon-Fri" on my left (when stopped) On video that post isn't quite visible, but it is there - where my sun jumps into car.
Correct Street view link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580948,0...3312!8i6656

Thanks!


So looking at it from the camera viewpoint
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0...3312!8i6656
And you stopped by that post ?


I stopped facing this direction:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0...3312!8i6656

but exactly in line with the post on my left. I decided to stop in line with the post since only after it I could clearly see ZZ line. And assumed ZZ begins from the post smile.gif
Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:19
Post #25





Guests






Is the ZZ longer than 43. 6 metres in length on that side of road?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:43
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,087
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:34) *
But I am still not clear exactly where the ZZs stopped on the day and how to prove that they did.

If it helps, Google images are 2017 and the sat view resolved it for me.

Front wheels stop ON the hump; no zigs.

QUOTE (materaz @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37) *
I re-visted that place to make photos and discovered newly painted zigzag markings before “No Stopping on entrance” signed post. Also, I saw barely visible older zigzag markings which were not noticed on the day of contravention.

New markings:

I think you confused people with those two comments.
There doesn't seem to be any relevance to them repainting markings that you were never on.

As DD says, the PCN is a mess too.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 09:28
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,896
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, you came to us for help.

You must accept that there are strands to our analysis which you will not understand.

We need to test their evidence - video regarding contravention and PCN regarding procedure - against the regs.

If we tell OPs in advance why certain info is required then they might be tempted to 'prune' the info to show only what they think plays to their interests, only for matters to unravel later. We need to see full info.

So, pl post all pages of the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:22
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 09:28) *
OP, you came to us for help.

You must accept that there are strands to our analysis which you will not understand.

We need to test their evidence - video regarding contravention and PCN regarding procedure - against the regs.

If we tell OPs in advance why certain info is required then they might be tempted to 'prune' the info to show only what they think plays to their interests, only for matters to unravel later. We need to see full info.

So, pl post all pages of the PCN.


Apology for the inconvenience caused. Sure, please find all pages of the PCN attached. Thanks smile.gif

This post has been edited by materaz: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:25
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:24
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,458
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Whilst lines and signs are important the "will/may" issue in the PCN will win this case on its own.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 13:44
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:24) *
Whilst lines and signs are important the "will/may" issue in the PCN will win this case on its own.

Mick


I found the photos ambiguous at best and gave took what was said at face value. The last GSV shows the lines had been re painted in July and are clear. I doubt a win of signs and lines.

But the PCN is so error ridden i cannot see a loss based on it.

As per MMV, what we call the will/may issue is prevalent These excerpts from LT cases explain it and why adjudicators find PCNs containing it invalid


216022028A

Belinda pearce

. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
2160211959

John Lane


Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection shall:
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an Adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
2160210490

Sean stanton-Dunn

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.
The notice of rejection served on Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.
2160211926

Christopher Rayner


Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis
2160422149

Michael Lawrence

The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
2150379790

Joanne Oxlade


The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not
2150479729

Neeti haria

In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,166
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:26
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Wow! Impressed with your professionalism, really smile.gif
Thank you gentlemen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:29
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:26) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Wow! Impressed with your professionalism, really smile.gif
Thank you gentlemen.


as a great part of your representations will be on technical aspects i would advise posting here for review before you send
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 20:12
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Finally, after 60-hour working week found time to draft the appeal:


Appeal

Dear Sir or Madam,

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN):
VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK:
DATE OF THE SERVICE: 16/12/2017
DATE OF THE NOTICE: 14/12/2017
DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION: 08/12/2017


I appeal on the following grounds:


1. The contravention did not occur.

Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped in a restricted area outside a school. On the day, I pulled up for a matter of 8 seconds to what seemed like the start of restricted area, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present. I note that historical shots from Google Street View show lines present, but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day. This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the contravention.


2. The PCN/NtO is defective.

2007 No. 3482
ROAD TRAFFIC, ENGLAND
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

The PCN has failed to have regard to Secretary of States statutory guidance in that Enforcement Authority refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This PCN states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly, there is a substantial difference between 'may' and 'will'. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.

Moreover, the law does not allow serving a hybrid notice that claims to be both a Penalty Charge Notice and a Notice to Owner. A NtO can only be served if a civil enforcement officer has served a PCN and it is not paid within 28 days of being served. In my case no CEO served a PCN.

Therefore, in view of the above, I require you to cancel the PCN/NtO with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully
----------------------------

Hope, won't be beaten much (might miss something since my English is second language) smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 23:37
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,977
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Yes, looks OK but what are you going to do when they inevitably reject your appeal ? Councils are supposed to judge the appeal and decide one way or the other, but funnily enough they judge 99.99% - reject, why ? Because then most people just cough-up, and the money is kept by the council. Not a good process for producing unbiased decisions, is it ?

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 23:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,166
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



post 31 ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 14:39
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,166
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (materaz @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?



Date of delivery and viewing the video not mentioned.

Add em all in

Merry Christmas
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
materaz
post Tue, 26 Dec 2017 - 12:28
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,884



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 14:39) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?



Date of delivery and viewing the video not mentioned.

Add em all in

Merry Christmas


Understood. Thanks DancingDad!

Thanks very much gentlemen! Wishing you all the best in coming New Year 2018 smile.gif
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: Friday, 17th August 2018 - 19:34
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.