Bus Lane PCN 28 day calculation |
Bus Lane PCN 28 day calculation |
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,292 |
Could someone please check my calculations for the service date of a PCN I've received from Manchester City Council. (Yes the Oxford Road bus gates again).
The notice gives the contravention date as 24/11/2017 and the date of posting as 22/12/2017. By my calculations this makes the date of service 28/12/2017 as 23rd and 24th were weekend and 25th and 26th were bank holidays. My representation to the council was rejected with the statement "The notice was served in time". - no explanation. I have been the registered keeper of the car for some time so there should not have been a DVLA delay. If the council were claiming that I would have expected them to mention it. Thanks David |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 14:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
That's the latest one so far!
Deadline was 21st. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 14:26
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Could someone please check my calculations for the service date of a PCN I've received from Manchester City Council. (Yes the Oxford Road bus gates again). The notice gives the contravention date as 24/11/2017 and the date of posting as 22/12/2017. By my calculations this makes the date of service 28/12/2017 as 23rd and 24th were weekend and 25th and 26th were bank holidays. My representation to the council was rejected with the statement "The notice was served in time". - no explanation. I have been the registered keeper of the car for some time so there should not have been a DVLA delay. If the council were claiming that I would have expected them to mention it. Thanks David The 22/12/2017 is day 29 so service is well OOT on 28th 6 days late. post up the PCN your reps and their response in full Its probably that the standard appeal will suffice but better to check -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 12:39
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,292 |
Thanks for the replies - I've not lost all my mathematical ability after all.
The representation reply contains the essence of my representation. Interesting that my main point (out of time) is relegated to what looks like an afterthought on their reply. Perhaps I should have stuck to the one point. I'll put in an appeal with OOT only. On MCC's reply the CCTV link is to a movie recording of the incident. There is a car 5 seconds ahead of me and another 3 seconds behind, that's £90 revenue in 8 seconds - no comment. |
|
|
Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 12:55
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---keep going your case is strong.
The stance of the Council in not responding to the OOT is telling and is getting to be a feature of most of the Manchester cases. Having your head in a bucket and whistling Dixie won't make the problem go away! So which one of these is appropriate?--- Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required — willfully or in neglect. Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party. I would say misfeasance in public office but we need someone like hca to advise on the complaint route (Council or individual liability?). Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:20 |
|
|
Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:20
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
On every single one of these OOT PCNs, cost should be sought from adjudicators.
As long as the reps have mentioned the issue and council have, to borrow from Mick, stuck their head in a bucket and denied, that is, to me, wholly unreasonable. It can be nothing else, they have erred in law by sending the PCN late, which can be a simple error (cough) But to deny the error is to condone an action that the law specifically denies to them and to try to take advantage of it. Any council that actively tries to enforce on something that is not within their power is acting wholly unreasonably. They are vexatious in denying the error and using an official notice to try to persuade the unwary motorist that black is white. And they are having a laff, which to me is frivolous. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:30
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,292 |
Received the adjudicator's decision today for my appeal:
Mr XXXX, you have won this appeal. There is nothing to pay and the authority will cancel the penalty charge This is because the authority did not contest your appeal. Right result but it feels a bit of a let down. MCC's new tactic is to not contest rather than admit they were wrong. I won't be applying for costs as family commitments prevent me from spending any more time on this. Thanks to everyone who has helped, especially to Umtwebby and his supporters. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:34
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
Excellent and well done
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:36
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Received the adjudicator's decision today for my appeal: Mr XXXX, you have won this appeal. There is nothing to pay and the authority will cancel the penalty charge This is because the authority did not contest your appeal. Right result but it feels a bit of a let down. MCC's new tactic is to not contest rather than admit they were wrong. I won't be applying for costs as family commitments prevent me from spending any more time on this. Thanks to everyone who has helped, especially to Umtwebby and his supporters. Spend a little more time, please. Quick note to TPT. Request a review on costs. While council may have chosen to DNC, this does not excuse their wholly unreasonable rejection of the initial challenge and cavalier dismissal of their error regarding the late service of the PCN. That they now DNC is little more then an admission of their vexatious approach to continuing enforcement and forcing you to appeal despite knowing that they were in error. It has cost you time, worry and concern. While you accept that the latter is not something that you can claim, three hours time at £19 does not seem unreasonable to cover the research and time to appeal. Don't ask, won't get |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:30
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
+1 to DD.
Can we please have the TPT case ref. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 08:08
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 450 Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,283 |
Received the adjudicator's decision today for my appeal: Mr XXXX, you have won this appeal. There is nothing to pay and the authority will cancel the penalty charge This is because the authority did not contest your appeal. Right result but it feels a bit of a let down. MCC's new tactic is to not contest rather than admit they were wrong. I won't be applying for costs as family commitments prevent me from spending any more time on this. Thanks to everyone who has helped, especially to Umtwebby and his supporters. Spend a little more time, please. Quick note to TPT. Request a review on costs. While council may have chosen to DNC, this does not excuse their wholly unreasonable rejection of the initial challenge and cavalier dismissal of their error regarding the late service of the PCN. That they now DNC is little more then an admission of their vexatious approach to continuing enforcement and forcing you to appeal despite knowing that they were in error. It has cost you time, worry and concern. While you accept that the latter is not something that you can claim, three hours time at £19 does not seem unreasonable to cover the research and time to appeal. Don't ask, won't get Also agree. At my son's TPT, the adjudicator was more inclined to agree costs for the out of time provided it was included in the representations rather than any issues with the signage which we know is deficient here. Only takes 10 mins through the TPT website and gets added to the case evidence. This post has been edited by Umtwebby: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 08:10 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:41 |