Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 9 Sep 2016 - 21:48
Post #1210672

Hi All,
I hope you are well.
Some time ago I have received a PCN. I have done online representation to it. They have sent a letter asking to provide an invoice of car repair as a proof or accept the fine and pay £65 within 14 days.
After that I have scanned, uploaded and submitted a scanned document via their online system. Used exactly the same PCN number and car reg number to login to online appeal facility.
After 2 weeks I have received a Notice To Owner instead asking to pay £130, so no Notice of Rejection or Acceptance, so far.
What should I do now. I can only do a formal representation at the moment. I assume that the previous online representation was kind of informal.

I have these options on the list:
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur
B I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention
- I have sold the vehicle before that date
- I had brought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
C - The vehicle was taken without my consent
D - We are a hire firm and have supplied details
E - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid
H - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid
I - Other

I was going to go for Other, but not sure how they treat Other in comparison to variant F - procedural impropriety.
Please advise.
Thank you

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 9 Sep 2016 - 21:58
Post #1210675

Post up the PCN your informal challenge any reply from the council and a copy of the document you sent as evidence.

The regulations require that not withstanding that you did not receive a reply to your informal challenge you must respond to the NTO as stipulated

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 14:34
Post #1210796

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 9 Sep 2016 - 22:58)

Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 15:28
Post #1210806

Many councils have very poor admin in their parking departments, so getting this NtO is about par for the course. As PMB says, you now have to appeal the NtO on the same lines, except this time you can include a copy of your repairs invoice,. Make sure also submit the copy of their letter requesting the repairs invoice, point out this was submitted as an on-line copy on nn/nn/nnnn as they requested.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 15:35
Post #1210807

I hope the first letter is shown in full. stating that if you make reps against the NTO and the are refused, without telling you you have the right to appeal to the adjudicator is out of order
Can you get the council photos and post them, lets have a look at the contravention

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 20:55
Post #1210853

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 16:35)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 21:35
Post #1210862

Hi John

Are we going to go back and fro again re the law. the contravention only occurs if the kerb is lowered for specific reasons, and moving the bins is not one of them
there have been adjudications on this very point. Also if your car was broken down this is a statutory exemption so you have a good case.

Unless you intend to pay at the discounted rate, give us the info and we can give you a good shot at winning

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 11 Sep 2016 - 01:22
Post #1210893

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 10 Sep 2016 - 22:35)

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 11 Sep 2016 - 22:03
Post #1211094

I think that's all I've got. I had to increase brightness of this picture a little bit.
Everything else I have obscured are their logos, post address and phone numbers.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/96624c504018264

Actually I cannot see the reg number on these pictures.

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 11 Sep 2016 - 22:50
Post #1211103

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 11 Sep 2016 - 23:03)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 08:37
Post #1211138

John we do not ask for info, to stalk you, nor does it matter if the council see the thread, we will never tell you to lie, so what they could read might help them understand they are wrong

Your argument re broken down should be strong enough, give them a copy of the proof. If not come back with all the details and we will try to help

Posted by: Jo Carn Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 11:50
Post #1211182

Was the car technically "parked"? It was delivered and dropped off. Could you give a fridge/freeze a ticket? Same difference.

Also, if you didn't park it then can you argue that it is the delivery company who should pay as it would be there responsibility to deliver it somewhere that did not impede or contravene?

Just a thought

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 11:54
Post #1211184

QUOTE (Jo Carn @ Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 12:50)

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 13:15
Post #1211203

QUOTE (Jo Carn @ Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 12:50)

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 13:39
Post #1211211

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 22:37
Post #1211395

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Sep 2016 - 14:39)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 08:28
Post #1211442

Hi John

This is the relevant regulation from TMA2004

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

You can see the specific reasons that apply to create a contravention at 1(a) (i, ii, iii)

The footpath cannot have been lowered to aid pedestrians in crossing, there is no corresponding DK opposite. Obviously it is not for vehicles to gain access nor is it for cycles.
Your local knowledge that it is to aid the binmen has credence. as per this case

2150447278

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when the appellant’s car was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb outside Mr Schafer’s home in Chatsworth Way. The local authority states that the dropped kerb is outside a house in multi-occupation and that the purpose of the dropped kerb is to allow access to

bins.

Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines the contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped footway.

It states that in a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway, and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway

The restriction does not need to be signed or marked. The restriction is enforceable at all times.

Mr Schafer states that he has parked at this location outside his home for several years. His neighbours have also parked at the location. Mr Schafer had his left foot amputated when he was a very young child. He states that at the time that he parked his car he was in considerable pain and could not park further from his home.

The contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked adjacent to a kerb that has been lowered to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway. The local authority does not state that the dropped herb was for any of these purposes. It states that it was to allow access to bins.

I allow this appeal as I find that the appellant’s car was not parked adjacent to a dropped kerb as defined in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.




Further at 8(a) the fact that the vehicle could not be moved for reasons beyond the control of the driver give an exemption. If the car had broken down you could not move it. It doesn't matter how it got there, had you been driving and the engine failed and you pulled over, you are in the same position

Posted by: John Bravo Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 19:58
Post #1211669

Hi Pastmybest,
Thank you for your insightfulness.
What should I do in this case?
I was about to appeal again and explain that I have submitted this invoice at my second online appeal, but for some reason not taken into account or missed. Of course I was going to attach this document once again, but I don't want to overdo if you know what I mean.
Best regards,

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 20:10
Post #1211675

Hold up a bit, lets get things together. You must now make formal representations against the NTO so we want to put everything in even if only briefly, adjudicators like consistency

Two questions .

What is the date of the Notice to owner (second letter)?

Do you hold a permit for the parking bays outside the building?

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 16:40
Post #1211966

SWMBO has allowed me time off.

OP, I do not see that you have any defence against the contravention.

Your vehicle broke down and you chose to have it moved to an apparently restricted location. The breakdown is not relevant IMO because that is not the reason for the contravention which is that you chose to have it left there - unless you can show that the driver of the tow truck left it there against your instructions.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 17:07
Post #1211972

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 17:40)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 19:59
Post #1212015

John

HCA is correct, any argument re the breakdown is weakened by you instructing the recovery truck to leave the car there. If you intend to make representations I would go along these lines

On dd/mm/yy at xx am/pm my car suffered a breakdown and required recovery. When this was effected the recovery driver could find no other place within a half mile of my address.
I am aware of this DK, the only reason it is used is to facilitate the emptying of the bins. Knowing that the day the bins are emptied is xxxxxxxx and that I had arranged for repair this would not be an issue. Repair was effected at the roadside later that day (copy invoice enclosed)

The DK cannot be used as mentioned in your rejection of my informal challenge "to allow easy and safe access for pedestrians in particular people with prams or wheelchairs.
You will note. that opposite this DK there is no corresponding DK, indeed the opposite kerb is dominated by marked parking bays. Anyone with a pram or wheelchair would have no way of gaining access to the opposite kerb,
and would likely be stuck on the carriageway because of parked cars

With this in mind I contend that none of the conditions for a DK subject to the requirements of TMA 2004 are met and the PCN should be cancelled


As always it's unlikely the council will agree and you would need to put your case to an adjudicator,

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:17
Post #1212024

I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:49
Post #1212031

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17)

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:59
Post #1212035

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:49)

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17)

I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?

Know what you mean, but that is not one of the reasons given in section 86

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:02
Post #1212037

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:59)

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:49)

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17)

I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?

Know what you mean, but that is not one of the reasons given in section 86

Wheelchair users are classed as pedestrians.
And actually need the DK.
The use is only to enter/leave the carriageway, not to cross it

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 23:15
Post #1212060

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 21:10)

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 09:19
Post #1212132

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 09:23
Post #1212135

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 10:19)

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02)

.......Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)

Apologies, should have checked and not worked on memory.

So, let them dig the hole on pedestrian use while highlighting the bin access use.
As you are local, photos of bin collection would be good.

Somewhere in here we have a guy with multiple PCNs for a bin collection DK and at least one that has been won at adjudication on that.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 16:57
Post #1212275

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 10:19)

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02)

.......Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)

Apologies, should have checked and not worked on memory.

So, let them dig the hole on pedestrian use while highlighting the bin access use.
As you are local, photos of bin collection would be good.

Somewhere in here we have a guy with multiple PCNs for a bin collection DK and at least one that has been won at adjudication on that.

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 14:19
Post #1212792

Latest response re my online appeal. I have received NTO a week before this response.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e514f1504936688

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 14:55
Post #1212796

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 15:19)

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 21:21
Post #1213055

The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.

Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 21:30
Post #1213057

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21)

Posted by: Rob232 Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 23:01
Post #1213071

possibly because there is no time marked on the invoice?

I might be well wrong on this one, but there is no dogbone sign in front of the dropped kerb, it is a single yellow from the GSV link.
The council photos are at night, so I assume the yellow line waiting restrictions were not in operation.
So it could be assumed it was OK to park there.
Why have a timed sign in front of a dropped kerb? Should it be double yellows?
Sorry if wrong.

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 01:04
Post #1213079

OP, you are not you, you are two separate entities: the driver and the registered keeper.

With your driver's hat on you could submit a challenge before a NTO was served as to why the penalty should not be paid. But once the NTO was served you as registered keeper would need to make separate representations irrespective of the situation regarding your earlier challenge.

As I understand it, you challenged, they responded, you wrote back with further info, you received the NTO and they responded to your 'further info' letter. You as registered keeper have not made reps against the NTO.

When and how did you send your further info?

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 01:13
Post #1213080

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21)

The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.

It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 07:30
Post #1213094

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13)

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21)

The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.

It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 20:43
Post #1213337

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 08:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13)

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21)

The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.

It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.

Ask the garage for a letter stating the location the repair took place, by asking for the proof the council are as good as accepting the ground as valid

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 22:54
Post #1213375

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 21:43)

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 08:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13)

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21)

The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.

It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.

Ask the garage for a letter stating the location the repair took place, by asking for the proof the council are as good as accepting the ground as valid

Apart from producing invoices or MOTs garages are quite reluctant to produce any custom documents, they hardly use their computers.
They asked for a valid invoice, then they refuse to accept it.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 00:33
Post #1213390

OP, you have a NTO.
You cannot continue your pre-NTO challenge now but must make reps.
These would centre on the grounds of your initial challenge provided you knew what it was about your pre-NTO submissions which did not satisfy their prerequisites.
But you don't, yet.

I cannot find the date of issue of the NTO and so we don't know the latest date by which you need to make reps. Therefore we don't know how much time you have to establish the 'prerequisites'.

Posted by: Incandescent Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 09:04
Post #1213428

+1

OP, you must respond (i.e. appeal), that NtO. The enforcement process follows a tramline-like path, and you deviate from it at your peril.

There's no point now in paying-up until you've gone to adjudication at TPT, as the penalty remains the same and cannot increase provided you follow the process.

Posted by: John Bravo Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 17:21
Post #1213602

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 01:33)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 19:35
Post #1213638

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 18:21)

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 01:33)

OP, you have a NTO.
You cannot continue your pre-NTO challenge now but must make reps.
These would centre on the grounds of your initial challenge provided you knew what it was about your pre-NTO submissions which did not satisfy their prerequisites.
But you don't, yet.

I cannot find the date of issue of the NTO and so we don't know the latest date by which you need to make reps. Therefore we don't know how much time you have to establish the 'prerequisites'.

The date of NTO is 8/09/2016

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 04:03
Post #1213728

OP, the end of the 28-day period is 9 Oct.

You still have time to find out their prerequistes, so I suggest you write to them.

Dear Sir,
PCN No.******

I refer to your letter dated *** rejecting my challenge and additional evidence.

I have until 9 Oct. to make representations and therefore I should be grateful if you would elaborate on your 'prerequisites' so that I can ensure that I address these in my reps.

*******

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 17:13
Post #1213953

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 05:03)

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 5 Oct 2016 - 09:33
Post #1217584

I have posted the letter in the morning on 26th (I have a receipt).
It is now more than a week and still no reply from them.
My 28-day period ends by the end of this week on 9th of October.
Please advise.
Thank you

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 5 Oct 2016 - 09:38
Post #1217587

Patience is a virtue

Nothing to do except be patient until a reply appears.

Max time limit is 56 days from when they received your challenge, deemed 28th Sept.

4 weeks plus is normal.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 6 Oct 2016 - 21:13
Post #1218230

But I think I should make a representation by the end of this week regardless if they reply to me or not otherwise they increase the penalty by 50% making it worth £195.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 6 Oct 2016 - 21:24
Post #1218233

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 6 Oct 2016 - 22:13)

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 6 Oct 2016 - 22:21
Post #1218259

Yes.

OP, you must make reps despite the fact that the authority have failed to reply to your letter requesting clarification.

IMO,
Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety

The alleged contravention is parking adjacent to dropped footway, contrary to s86 of the Traffic Management Act.

I accept that the location lies within a special enforcement area but the burden still lies with the authority to establish that the dropped footway meets the remaining criteria specified in the Act. I challenged the purpose of the dropped footway in my pre-NTO challenge but the authority ignored this and gave no reason in its response dated *** as regards the purpose of the dropped footway. I maintain that it is there for the sole purpose of facilitating the emptying of refuse bins (paladin or similar wheeled containers) from the adjacent premises. Given that there is no corresponding dropped footway on the other side of the road, its purpose cannot be to assist pedestrians to cross the road; and given that there isn't a vehicle crossover at the location it cannot be for the purpose of allowing vehicles to cross the footway. Thee is no cycle infrastructure present.

The authority must examine the purpose of the dropped kerb by contacting colleagues in the highways department and not just presume, as they have to date, that a lowered footway = 'dropped footway' as defined.

Procedural impropriety arises because the authority failed to respond to my letter dated *** seeking reasonable clarification of the jargon used in their response dated *** regarding the meaning of 'prerequisites'. I submitted evidence of my breakdown, which I also enclose with these representations, and received the response that it did not meet the authority's unilateral but unspecified 'prerequisites'. This response was neither helpful nor considered and if the authority reject these grounds then they are obliged to state clearly their reasons.

Something along these lines with anything else you want to throw in.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 7 Oct 2016 - 14:24
Post #1218473

@PASTMYBEST
Yes, I can do it online and you are right that I have to keep a copy of that text or take a screenshot.
To be honest with you they should improve this online system, they don't send an automated email so you don't have a proof of submitting it. The system displays this reference on the next page after submission, but if you rush and close the page you cannot go back and you practically cannot refer to anything.

@hcandersen
Thank you for your template.

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 8 Oct 2016 - 16:04
Post #1218754

I was just reading their initial letter and was wondering about this access to carriageway for prams or wheelchair users. Is there any exception for these big ambulances picking up elders?
I have seen these on the road of course, but I haven't seen a single one picking up people on this narrow road, but it would definitely involve blocking the whole road in the process.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 8 Oct 2016 - 21:30
Post #1218820

No.

86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


Crossing, not accessing or alighting.

Given that this prohibition does not require signs, it does not lie with an authority to mould the absolutely specific and limiting criteria as they choose otherwise motorists would be all at sea.

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 15 Oct 2016 - 14:21
Post #1220906

Final response:
https://postimg.org/image/poj57fa15/

We can then assume that some of their actions are not lawful and what they say not always correspond to government regulations.
Thank you hcandersen & PASTMYBEST for your input.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 15 Oct 2016 - 18:39
Post #1220950

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 15 Oct 2016 - 15:21)

Final response:
https://postimg.org/image/poj57fa15/

We can then assume that some of their actions are not lawful and what they say not always correspond to government regulations.
Thank you hcandersen & PASTMYBEST for your input.

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 21:35
Post #1312374

Hi All,
I hope you are all well.
I think this is going to be happening on annual basis now.

The "after midnight" runs of traffic officers has ceased not long after I have won this case.
It was quiet until now.
It has started with a ticket on my windscreen Sunday 9:05am then I saw a white BMW parked in there with a ticket behind the wiper twice in a row!

I am talking about exactly the same location where dropped kerb is only on one side of the street.
I have replied that the contravention did not occur and I had to fly away for a long holiday so after my return the only option left is to pay £130 or wait for NTO. This is well after 2 weeks of extended 50% off grace period.

Please advise.
Best regards,

Posted by: John U.K. Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 21:58
Post #1312390

Please can you fill in some dates? The timeline is not very clear.

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 22:49
Post #1312408

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 21:58)

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 14:07
Post #1312704

Anyone please?

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 14:13
Post #1312708

You haven't said what their letter of 11 August said - was it a rejection?

Have you had the NTO?

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 19:52
Post #1312760

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 18:12
Post #1312935

John you know the score by now. Ask a mod to split the threads

We have I one case one thread rule. Facts are different it all cases so we need to concentrate on the current one

Post up ALL the documents, it is far harder to start at a rejection of informal challenge, when we don't know what has been rejected and why

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 3 Sep 2017 - 17:13
Post #1313088

Here you go:

https://ibb.co/h97OEF
https://ibb.co/cQFzoa

Apart from the ticket itself there is nothing more from them

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 12:21
Post #1314485

I have received the following NTO

https://ibb.co/mSDhWv

Please advise

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 12:32
Post #1314489

Subject to seeing your challenge I would se this first part of HCA's draft for the last one

The alleged contravention is parking adjacent to dropped footway, contrary to s86 of the Traffic Management Act.

I accept that the location lies within a special enforcement area but the burden still lies with the authority to establish that the dropped footway meets the remaining criteria specified in the Act. I challenged the purpose of the dropped footway in my pre-NTO challenge but the authority ignored this and gave no reason in its response dated *** as regards the purpose of the dropped footway. I maintain that it is there for the sole purpose of facilitating the emptying of refuse bins (paladin or similar wheeled containers) from the adjacent premises. Given that there is no corresponding dropped footway on the other side of the road, its purpose cannot be to assist pedestrians to cross the road; and given that there isn't a vehicle crossover at the location it cannot be for the purpose of allowing vehicles to cross the footway. Thee is no cycle infrastructure present.

The authority must examine the purpose of the dropped kerb by contacting colleagues in the highways department and not just presume, as they have to date, that a lowered footway = 'dropped footway' as defined.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 12:37
Post #1314491

So nothing has changed since the last time.

Does it look right when the council is making money on the side by twisting the law?
or do you think in some point they will make an update to the Highway Code to include this dropped kerb on one side of the road?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 12:47
Post #1314494

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 13:37)

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 15:55
Post #1334457

This silly council has now sent me a letter to pay £190. I think they have not acknowledged my formal representation? But this was at least a week before their 28-days deadline. I have even taken a screenshot of the confirmation. At least I have something. Online is not always the best if something get lost at their end.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 16:20
Post #1334463

They have sent you a legal document not a letter. Stick to protocol and post it. Date of reps and date of notification of reciept

Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 17:55
Post #1334489

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 15:55)

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 21:47
Post #1334543

Hi again,
This is what they have sent to me and 3rd one is the screenshot of confirmation taken on 1st of October 2017 9:39pm.
https://ibb.co/i3bciR
https://ibb.co/hFWXHm
https://ibb.co/kVyCHm

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 23:09
Post #1334549

Reset procedure as Incandescent described, except you won't get another NtO;
Tower Hamlets must then refer to adjudicator for directions.
We'll explain that further nearer the time.

So wait for OfR. If none in 4 weeks, tell us. (no longer).

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 15:55)

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 16:28
Post #1334813

@Neil B
Ok, so both of you suggest to remain patient and wait.
Ok, I will set the timer for 3 weeks and come back if not received this rejection letter.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 16:39
Post #1334815

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 16:28)

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 18:52
Post #1334851

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 16:28)

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 12:06
Post #1335012

QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 18:52)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 16:28)

Ok, I will set the timer for 3 weeks and come back if not received this rejection letter.

No one has suggested you wait for a rejection letter?

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:01
Post #1338303

Have not received anything from them so far, but you have said 3 weeks so I come back in a week time.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 16:26
Post #1340009

Hi Gentlemen,
I can confirm that it is 3 weeks now and I have not received anything more from Tower Hamlets.
Please advise on the next step.
Thank you
Best regards

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 16:59
Post #1340016

The Order will be issued when or shortly after they register the debt with TEC (the Court).

You can phone TEC Mon Fri, to check if registered. 0300 123 1059 - be patient for pick up.

If not registered, repeat every 10-12 days.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 28 Dec 2017 - 15:43
Post #1342624

Hi again,
I have called the number. They have registered with the Court on 20th of December.
They asked to fill a form and send to them by recorded post by 10th of January.

I understand this is PE9 form from:
https://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForms.do?utm_source=Traffic%20Enforcement%20Centre&utm_medium=Form%20Category&utm_campaign=Member-of-the-public&court_forms_category=Traffic%20Enforcement%20Centre

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 28 Dec 2017 - 17:56
Post #1342667

TE9 not PE9

Download, tick the box that says made representations but received no reply, sign the form..... nothing else.

Send to TEC, you can post or scan and email (more certain)
Must be before 10th Jan.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 28 Dec 2017 - 20:29
Post #1342695

Ok, so I tick "I made representations about the penalty charge to the enforcing authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner, but did not receive a rejection notice"

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 11:26
Post #1342794

I have emailed the scan of the form to them. Thanks for suggesting this way.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 11:35
Post #1342796

Yu should get a postal reply from them in couple of days.
Council should know by this evening.
Will cancel the Charge Certificate (and OFR)
Council then have option of cancelling complete PCN or passing to adjudicators for a advice on proceeding.
Which should mean that adjudicators will schedule for a hearing and write to you.

Anything that appears, let us know.
If nothing from TEC by midweek, phone them and ask on progress.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 15:23
Post #1344288

I have the confirmation from the Court that they advise the council to revoke PCN.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 16:49
Post #1344311

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 15:23)

Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 17:23
Post #1344317

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 15:23)

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 17:48
Post #1344320

As said, PCN will not be revoked by TEC
CC and OfR will be, council can then action PCN as prescribed, ie refer to adjudicator.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 18:47
Post #1344339

Yes, you are right, this is to do with CC and OfR, not PCN, my bad.
Should I contact council or wait for a letter?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 19:38
Post #1344357

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 18:47)

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:38
Post #1345924

I have just received a letter from Tower Hamlets that they have cancelled OfR and CC, but not the PCN and they want to settle for £130.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:41
Post #1345926

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:38)

Posted by: Incandescent Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:25
Post #1345940

You're back to the start, the process has been successfully reverted, so can now pay or appeal as you did before. You won't get the discount offer, so it is pointless paying until an adjudicator tells you to.

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:41
Post #1345947

Does it mean a new appeal process at the council level? Are they going to send me the new webcode to fill the online form?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:43
Post #1345948

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:41)

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:13
Post #1345966

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:43)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 17:41)

Does it mean a new appeal process at the council level? Are they going to send me the new webcode to fill the online form?

it shouldn't it should mean that it is referred to the adjudicator for direction, this is usually an appeal is to be made. But after a standing direction has been misinterpreted by the councils we need to be sure, hence i asked to see the letter

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:07
Post #1346062

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:41)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:38)

I have just received a letter from Tower Hamlets that they have cancelled OfR and CC, but not the PCN and they want to settle for £130.

post the letter please

Posted by: Longtime Lurker Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 01:18
Post #1346067

That's a decidedly odd letter. I'd be sorely tempted to write back accepting their offer of a payment £130 in full and final settlement!

Posted by: Mad Mick V Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:07
Post #1346095

No way---the OP has nothing further to lose in taking this case to adjudication. If they had offered the discount that would be another matter.

Mick

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:19
Post #1346100

Why should I?
I have completed online form - appeal within specified time. I have the reference number. They have simply ignored this fact and claim that I have not done anything.
I can imagine hundreds of people threatened by this council.
Where is the justice, why are they allowed to use these practices without any limit? There are 2 realms one is Highway Code and second is what the council can really do.
And this looks like a new form of taxation because their objective is to make people pay it sooner than later for peace of mind.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:14
Post #1346108

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:19)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:20
Post #1346110

I have another question.
Should I ask the council to provide me their IT log that this appeal has been submitted on this date and time so I can prove to the adjudicator?
I have a screenshot of this confirmation number and date and time of the screenshot, but that is all.

Posted by: Incandescent Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:38
Post #1346117

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:20)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:46
Post #1346119

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:07)

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 15:42
Post #1346781

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:14)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:19)

Why should I?

If you look at the wording of the letter is says "we would like to take this opportunity to offer payment of £130 in full and final settlement of this case"

I believe Longtime Lurker was suggesting you accept the council's offer that they pay you £130 to you in full and final settlement.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:46)

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 09:07)

No way---the OP has nothing further to lose in taking this case to adjudication. If they had offered the discount that would be another matter.

Mick

They really are muppets. If they claim to have not received reps they are supposed to give you an opportunity to make them The

see page 23 stat decs and witness statements here

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20report%202015-16%20final.pdf

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 22:53
Post #1347107

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 15:42)

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 08:47
Post #1347150

IMO, reading the letter as a whole and not just a poorly drafted paragraph taken out of context, it's meaning is absolutely clear: they are offering you the chance to pay them the full penalty rather than them have to refer the matter to the adjudicator. When read as a whole, it's clear. So IMO let's move on.

And OP it is not for you to register an appeal either, the authority undertake to do this after expiry of the 14-day payment period.

And it's only recommended ETA practice for an authority to either supply a copy of the NOR or reconsider reps if originals were mislaid, IMO there's no legal imperative. So let them get on with it.

Meanwhile, OP pl post clear pics of the council's photos, it's very difficult to see photos in letters.

If all is the same, then play a straight bat and appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. You've got the basics of a draft written some time ago (aah, memories of my honeymoon, the California Zephyr, The Rockies - and this isn't a reference to SWMBO's anatomy, but it could be )...

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:18
Post #1357896

Hi again Gents,
Just to update you.
Since the court has cancelled their bit and the thing has come back to Tower Hamlets and I think this was good 3 weeks ago, they have not come back to me as of yet.

Posted by: Incandescent Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:10
Post #1357957

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:18)

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:24
Post #1358020

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:10)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:16
Post #1360604

I have just received from Tower Hamlets a large letter with a bunch of pages. Yes, they have passed the case to the Tribunal. Unbelievable how much paper they are wasting.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:21
Post #1360605

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:16)

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:41
Post #1360640

And
if you've received what sounds like an evidence pack, it would seem a hearing is imminent?
Have you heard anything from LT?

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:48
Post #1360644

Yes, it's their TH evidence pack

Nothing from London Tribunal as of yet.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:51
Post #1360646

And the docs requested?

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post #1360651

It looks like 1st they have not acknowledged my online representation on 1st of October - implied that I have not submitted one , but from the paperwork they have sent I can see page Correspondence: Online Post-NTO Representation
with my input: "There has been a procedural impropriety by Enforcement Authority..." which they have rejected.

There is a bunch of Evidence Forms, scans and past correspondence including scans of County Court forms. I cannot see a definitive statement from them apart from initial contravention.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 14:24
Post #1360657

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 14:14)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:04
Post #1360812

I think I understand now where is this going, among these letters I can see one letter dated 18th of October - a formal Notice of Rejection.
where they ask to pay £130 or appeal to ETA where they also provide verification code 8xxxxx to londontribunals.org.uk

I have never received this letter! This bad admin is on purpose!
So they can screw me up with their missing letters,
Before I have challenged online this bloody PCN twice with no single email response from them or their system, but I can read these rejections just now!
This is ridiculous.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:13
Post #1360815

OP, pl accept that what follows is meant in your best interests:

Stop bleating;
Stop calling them names;
Post docs, don't give us your precis of them.

You would be at adjudication I presume if you had received the NOR so, in the scheme of things, what's changed?

We must see their evidence case summary and your reps and their NOR. There you have it, all the key items at this stage.

No editorial, no narrative, just docs pl.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:15
Post #1360818

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:04)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:46
Post #1360828

Understood

1. evidence list
2. missing letter from 18/10/2017
3. pre-NTO challenge
4. post-NTO challenge
5. their statement to tribunal

https://ibb.co/fqPQTH https://ibb.co/nCqX8H https://ibb.co/dMzg2c https://ibb.co/nE9QTH https://ibb.co/iRX12c https://ibb.co/hKUs8H

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:15)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:04)

I think I understand now where is this going, among these letters I can see one letter dated 18th of October - a formal Notice of Rejection.
where they ask to pay £130 or appeal to ETA where they also provide verification code 8xxxxx to londontribunals.org.uk

I have never received this letter! This bad admin is on purpose!
So they can screw me up with their missing letters,
Before I have challenged online this bloody PCN twice with no single email response from them or their system, but I can read these rejections just now!
This is ridiculous.

John.

Do you remember when you joined the forum, with about 1500 quids worth of dart charge penalties. I do, getting information from you was like pulling hens teeth, but when we finally got it all we were able to reduce this IIRC to about 70 quid.

Give the information asked for, its only so we can help

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:03
Post #1360839

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:46)

Understood

1. evidence list
2. missing letter from 18/10/2017
3. pre-NTO challenge
4. post-NTO challenge
5. their statement to tribunal

https://ibb.co/fqPQTH https://ibb.co/nCqX8H https://ibb.co/dMzg2c https://ibb.co/nE9QTH https://ibb.co/iRX12c https://ibb.co/hKUs8H

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:15)

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:04)

I think I understand now where is this going, among these letters I can see one letter dated 18th of October - a formal Notice of Rejection.
where they ask to pay £130 or appeal to ETA where they also provide verification code 8xxxxx to londontribunals.org.uk

I have never received this letter! This bad admin is on purpose!
So they can screw me up with their missing letters,
Before I have challenged online this bloody PCN twice with no single email response from them or their system, but I can read these rejections just now!
This is ridiculous.

John.

Do you remember when you joined the forum, with about 1500 quids worth of dart charge penalties. I do, getting information from you was like pulling hens teeth, but when we finally got it all we were able to reduce this IIRC to about 70 quid.

Give the information asked for, its only so we can help

PASTMYBEST I think you are talking about some other John :-) It is a quite common name.

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:16
Post #1360872

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:04)

Posted by: lashes1984 Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 01:37
Post #1360882

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:16)

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 13:33
Post #1374402

Good day Gentlemen

I have just got it in my letterbox.

https://ibb.co/daxiz7

https://ibb.co/ejGyXS

What do you think?

Posted by: lashes1984 Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 14:59
Post #1374411

As I said in post #125 I was in a similar situation. Before the Adjudicator wrote to me, as soon as I received the Council’s evidence pack, I submitted my statement and evidence (that I didn’t receive a NOR) to the Adjudicator, and only after this was an appeal hearing scheduled.

Appeal was allowed as the Council couldn’t evidence that a NOR was sent out as alleged. Case Reference: 217052923A.

During my appeal the Adjudicator (at length) explained the guidance issued to Councils about not referring immediately but offering an opportunity to pay, which I can see you received a letter to that effect.

The Adjudicators explanation was that many people claim they haven’t received a NOR and want to then appeal on the basis of procedural impropriety in that the NOR was not served within the prescribed times, and the Adjudicator felt that was an abuse of process.

Wait for others to respond but I would write to London Tribunals provide a copy of my formal reps and explain that you didn’t receive a NOR and that the first time (if true) you became aware of this document was when you received the Council’s evidence pack.

In my own case the Ticket History confirmed that a NOR wasn’t sent out. Similarly you will need to convince the Adjudicator that you didn’t receive the NOR.

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:16
Post #1377174

@lashes1984
and this is what I have said in the letter, I have not received NOR and I have realized while inspecting the evidence pack.

My impression is that the council is doing this on purpose, because at the time NOR letter was the most crucial piece of communication out of 3 other letters they sent and this one gone missing.
When I have received the letter in November I assumed that they have not acknowledged my representation (option 1 - No representation were made), but their claim is (option4 - We issued a Notice of Rejection of Adjudicator's Recommendation)

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 11:16
Post #1377200

Dear ETA,
RE PCN ****, London Borough of Tower Hamlets and your direction letter dated *****

I refer to the above in which you have asked me to supply the adjudicator with a copy of my formal representations in order to 'substantiate my witness statement'. I am somewhat surprised at this given that the authority have submitted in evidence a copy of their NOR in this case which in para. 1 acknowledges receipt of these representations. It therefore follows that their existence is not at issue.

I shall try to locate my original, but as the authority are required to produce my representations in their evidence then you should have a copy to hand.

Yours,


Or have I missed something?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 11:37
Post #1377208

@hca

I wouldn't tempt fate, have a look at any recent day's decisions from ETA--- Direction Made--Statutory Declaration\Witness Statement. They are really going at this issue. The OP needs to submit that evidence or they will rule against him.

Mick

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:07
Post #1377221

We cannot generalise about this.

There is no issue that reps were submitted in time, therefore somehow the adj has been misinformed.

Posted by: lashes1984 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 15:24
Post #1377306

The local authority have produced the OP’s reps and NOR as part of their evidence pack, so there’s no dispute that reps were made and in the time. The issue is that the OP is claiming that they did not receive them.

As I said before, the Adjudicator at my recent appeal explained that there are many who claim to not have received the NOR and then appeal on the basis of PI, ie NOR not served within prescribed time periods. The Adjudicator felt this was an abuse of process, especially when the contravention has clearly occurred.

Whilst the advice on this forum is not to step outside of prescribed procedure, the Adjudicator disagreed and felt that motorists should also make an effort not to delay matters. For example, the OP could have contacted the local authority on receipt of the CC and explained that they had made reps but not received an NOR.

Notwithstanding, in the OP’s case the NOR was asking for the full amount of £130.

If the OP had received the NOR, what would be their next step? Pay or appeal?

If I was the OP I would send a copy of their reps as requested and if they had intended to appeal on receipt of the NOR, explain to the Adjudicator that they did not receive the NOR, but had they received it they would’ve appealed and state the reasons for the appeal.

Others may disagree to this course of action, but in my own experience London Tribunals only scheduled a hearing after I provided a statement and evidence in response to the local authority’s evidence pack.

Otherwise the Adjudicator may issue a direction to pay, especially as there was no discount offered.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 15:33
Post #1377307

The letter is clear: submit your reps.

You have the reps ( in the evidence pack).

Submit them.

Simples.

Nothing to do with other cases or others' experiences: your directions require you to submit a copy of your reps.

Do it ASP and let's start moving this forward.

Posted by: lashes1984 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 15:36
Post #1377308

Deadline was today....OP have you submitted as requested?

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 21:47
Post #1377424

QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 15:36)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 10 May 2018 - 14:15
Post #1381065

Hi Gentlemen
This is today's response from the Tribunal.
https://ibb.co/cEVovd

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 10 May 2018 - 15:12
Post #1381075

So we now have a straightforward appeal (if one sets aside that the thread is 100+ posts long and that review might take longer than normal!)

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 10 May 2018 - 16:50
Post #1381096

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 16:12)

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 10 May 2018 - 21:53
Post #1381194

https://ibb.co/fqPQTH https://ibb.co/nCqX8H https://ibb.co/dMzg2c https://ibb.co/nE9QTH https://ibb.co/iRX12c https://ibb.co/hKUs8H https://ibb.co/kVyCHm

Please let me know if I have missed anything.
Thank you


I think I have hit the limit and I cannot post more images.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 10 May 2018 - 22:48
Post #1381211

You can post further images on an external site like flickr or imgur.com
The appeal seems straightforward enough, the kerb is obviously there for bin collection purposes and the adjudication posted by PMB should do the trick.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 10 May 2018 - 23:17
Post #1381227

This is the representation I have sent to the Tribunal:

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 11 May 2018 - 08:40
Post #1381266

IMO you need to submit a bit more but I cannot be sure without.

All of your representations post MTO

ALL of the notice of rejection

It looks from what can be seen that they have failed in their duty to consider your reps that is a PI and ground for cancellation

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 11 May 2018 - 10:46
Post #1381300

I really think you need to submit that the alleged contravention did not occur, PMB quoted the relevant adjudication in post 17:

2150447278

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when the appellant’s car was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb outside Mr Schafer’s home in Chatsworth Way. The local authority states that the dropped kerb is outside a house in multi-occupation and that the purpose of the dropped kerb is to allow access to bins.

Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines the contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped footway.

It states that in a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway, and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway

The restriction does not need to be signed or marked. The restriction is enforceable at all times.

Mr Schafer states that he has parked at this location outside his home for several years. His neighbours have also parked at the location. Mr Schafer had his left foot amputated when he was a very young child. He states that at the time that he parked his car he was in considerable pain and could not park further from his home.

The contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked adjacent to a kerb that has been lowered to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway. The local authority does not state that the dropped herb was for any of these purposes. It states that it was to allow access to bins.

I allow this appeal as I find that the appellant’s car was not parked adjacent to a dropped kerb as defined in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Posted by: John Bravo Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:21
Post #1381354

Hi again,

@cp8759
I think the choice was between:
1. contravention did not occur
2. there was procedural impropriety

In my 1st appeal I have used the version proposed by hcandersen: post 51 and eventually the council has given up

For the last year's ticket my Pre-NTO rep was: contravention did not occur, but for the Post-NTO I have used the one from post 51 procedural impropriety, you can see their report here:
https://ibb.co/dMzg2c

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 11 May 2018 - 16:22
Post #1381430

It's not a matter of choice, you are entitled to appeal on multiple grounds. The format I usually go for is along the lines of

1) The council has not proven that a contravention occurred because bla bla bla...the contravention did not occur therefore the PCN must be cancelled.

2) Even if ground 1 above has no merit, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council, namely that bla bla bla... Therefore even if the alleged contravention did occur, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.

You don't want to put all your eggs in one basked, as long as you don't use any frivolous grounds it won't be held against you, and you only need the adjudicator to accept one of your grounds and you win.

Posted by: John Bravo Sat, 12 May 2018 - 20:27
Post #1381693

I understand now I have to write another letter covering both arguments. I can see there is no more hearings but procedure is happening by post.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 12 May 2018 - 20:29
Post #1381696

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 21:27)

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 12 May 2018 - 20:44
Post #1381698

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 21:27)

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 13 May 2018 - 19:27
Post #1381868

Ok, so if this is up to me, what do you suggest?

Few years back I was called to a hearing and I don't remember asking for it.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 13 May 2018 - 20:05
Post #1381876

QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 13 May 2018 - 20:27)

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 14 May 2018 - 09:39
Post #1381957

OP, you have two potential grounds:
1. Contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety.

The first is straighforward. The second is made more difficult because we only have a partial NOR, you must post all pages so that we can check for mandatory references.

And as regards the contravention, just set out the facts first:
I parked at the location where there was a lowered kerb.
There is no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway nor in the local area;
The footway at this point has been modified and leads to a pair of exterior doors in the adjacent building.

And then your argument regarding the possible purpose of the lowered kerb, but that it clearly does not meet any of the specified criteria for a 'dropped footway' in the Act. That signs are not required is accepted, but by the same token authorities should take care to enforce only those locations which are there for the prescribed purposes and not act as if every place where the kerb is lowered is for the specified reason when regularly this is not the case, most often where they have been installed only to facilitate the emptying of large waste containers which have to be manoeuvred from the footway to vehicles on the carriageway. This interpretation of the purpose of the lowered footway is given further support by the presence of a single yellow line waiting restriction which would be in effect when bins were emptied but is not 24/7. On this point, if the authority claim that the location is a dropped footway subject to a 24/7 prohibition, then they must explain why they have chosen to mark this with a single yellow line, thereby misleading motorists.

Unless you can establish on the balance of probabilities that their NOR was not issued, then leave it as it's a distraction.

edit: did they actually include a TMO ( evidence B)?

Posted by: John Bravo Wed, 16 May 2018 - 22:06
Post #1382778

These are first six pages from the evidence pack:
https://ibb.co/fJNMAdhttps://ibb.co/mjzOOyhttps://ibb.co/g5RRbJ https://ibb.co/c8nA3y https://ibb.co/dvrEVd https://ibb.co/i4MgAd

NOR:
https://ibb.co/bGAxiy
https://ibb.co/gn0xiy

Please let me know what else do you need.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 17 May 2018 - 10:07
Post #1382833

Is this the complete page 1, less your name and address?

I cannot see any date on the letter which they claim was issued and posted on 18th October.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 17 May 2018 - 11:26
Post #1382863

1st photo is a complete one page Evidence checklist then the next page is Evidence Form.

The date on that letter is 18/10/2017 on the top right, but yes outside the picture.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:28
Post #1382935

OK.

Next question: have they included any photos or a site plan in their evidence, or is the adjudicator faced with just the authority's reliance on the CEO's claim that the location is a 'dropped footway'?

See page 2 of their summary where they state that you made reasoned reps on the grounds that the location was not a 'dropped footway'.

And then they did what? According to their evidence, s*d all, other than to re-state what the CEO noted. There is nothing to suggest that anyone got off their a**e to look, or consulted GSV. They just sat in the office.

If that's consideration........!

So, what is the total of the evidence in front of the adjudicator? Without photos or a plan, nothing except the view of a CEO strongly challenged by you on the basis of evidence which you will provide.

And while we're on the subject, look at the copy of the PCN in their pack. Is it an exact copy?

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:52
Post #1382948

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:28)

Posted by: John U.K. Thu, 17 May 2018 - 17:13
Post #1382956

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:00
Post #1382970

I am afraid I don't have my PCN any more. This piece of paper was misplaced long time ago.

But the one they have attached is from a template.

Posted by: John U.K. Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:19
Post #1382975

Must emphasise that I am NOT an experts - see what the experts here have to say - but

IF they are certifying that this is a true copy ofthe PCN served on your vehicle, it is lacking

Any detail of the issuing authority

Any detail of the legislative authority giving cause to issue

The signature of the issuing CEO

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:53
Post #1382986

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:19)

Posted by: John U.K. Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:24
Post #1382990

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:56
Post #1382997

A certified true copy of the PCN IS a requirement in that without it no adj could satisfy themselves that one was served, after which the whole house of cards falls.

Whether this is a 'legal' requirement is beside the point, in the absence of a true copy substantially correct in all detail the adj would allow an appeal - and as we know even if these grounds had not been raised by the appellant.

As the government made clear in their briefing paper which accompanied the TM Bill, decriminalisation was not to be used to water-down the standard of evidence.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 17 May 2018 - 20:12
Post #1383004

The front page of the PCN apart from PCN number and dates does not state any authority. Only on the reverse I can read in section HOW TO PAY, HOW TO CHALLENGE the address details of the TH council.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 18 May 2018 - 13:58
Post #1383233

Then you can reasonably contend the PCN does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1b of the schedule to the general regs: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made

Posted by: John Bravo Sun, 20 May 2018 - 23:54
Post #1383610

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 13:58)

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 21 May 2018 - 13:32
Post #1383753

Hearings are in person, so you'd have to go to the tribunal. Personally I would chose to attend a hearing but you have to consider whether this would mean taking time off work.

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 21 May 2018 - 14:13
Post #1383761

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 13:32)

Posted by: John U.K. Mon, 21 May 2018 - 14:21
Post #1383763

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 21 May 2018 - 17:14
Post #1383827

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 14:21)

Posted by: John U.K. Mon, 21 May 2018 - 18:43
Post #1383869

Posted by: John Bravo Tue, 22 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #1384109

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 18:43)

QUOTE

Should write all this down and let them decide "offline" or ask for a hearing "online"?
I have 2 days to send a response, evidences.

What is the source of this deadline? The letter in Post #136 which says 27th.May?

Must admit I am a bit confused

I think you need to ring LT in morning and ask whether a personal hearing is possible in your particular circumstances.

Hopefully the experts here will chip in with some advice for you.

Posted by: John Bravo Tue, 22 May 2018 - 15:45
Post #1384144

ok, so I have asked for a hearing which will be on 7th of June at 2:30pm, so I can start preparing my line of defence.

Posted by: John Bravo Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 20:37
Post #1388483

Ok, so I have attended the hearing and the adjudicator has allowed for appeal.

Posted by: disgrunt Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 20:41
Post #1388484

Well done

Do you have further details for us?

Posted by: John Bravo Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:24
Post #1389651

Basically I have said that what council is claiming as dropped kerb for a pedestrian crossing is not true. I have stated that the dropped kerb is only on one side of the street. This was enough to convince the adjudicator.
We have not even get to the stage re inaccurate evidence (PCN without the authority name) supplied by the council in evidence pack.