PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

833 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 13:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


There either is a TRO or there isn't.

1. If there isn't, then their case collapses.

2. If there is, then ask them for information:
Do they accept that it is not marked to the same standard as the line of which the authority claim the location is an extension?
For how long have the authority been aware (bearing in mind the Secreetary of State's guidance that such matters should be reported as a matter of routine by CEOs)?
What action do the authority intend to take or have planned to take to bring these lines up to the prescribed standard?


Don't just argue the toss about compliance.

For those not steeped in local authority history, Herron wasn't about really about substantial compliance, it was about governments' funding of local authorities, restrictions on their local revenue raising powers and the principle of strict liability.The most telling judgment in recent years was in respect of the maintenance of roads, including salting/gritting, where historically the principle of strict liability under the Highways Act was applied. But this is no longer the case - anyone in doubt should try claiming for a damaged car due to a pothole or a street tree falling on their car or tripping on a pavement.

The principle in all the above is what inspection arrangements had been made and were they adequate in the circumstances, what data were available, had adequate funding been allocated, were works undertaken in a reasonable time etc. Basically a funding, plan and data-led approach within the context of competing legislative requirements.

Hence my questions above.

Just as a motorist cannot rely on legitimate expectation forever and a day, neither IMO can authorities rely on 'substantial compliance' as a means to cock a snook at the legislative requirements.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361538 · Replies: 38 · Views: 898

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:00


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


But now we are guessing.

What's the point?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361422 · Replies: 6 · Views: 178

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Why?

This is not a game.

If a motorist displayed a valid permit and, by implication - and we have not seen the photos - the CEO might have considered that it was not valid then what any normal person would do IMO is to enclose a copy, not rely on unseen photographic evidence.

Remember, the authority haven't seen the permit, all they've got is the photos and CEO's notes. But if they have a copy, then their knowledge and responsibility is greater.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361421 · Replies: 52 · Views: 990

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


And the most important piece of evidence, namely the terms and conditions of use of the car park, is where?

APCOA included a photo of the sign in their letter, but it's unreadable.

And if you want to take issue with their reply, why not go for the more glaring error which is not whether they will or may but that their statement is unlawful as regards the time period for serving a NTO.

It cannot be 'within 28 days of the PCN..', this is just what the PCN must state, but we are PAST this point.

Their letter is dated 20 Dec and extends the discount until 3 Jan. which is more than 28 days after the PCN was served.

Any NTO served before 3 Jan for the full penalty would therefore be grounds for appeal, and stronger grounds, because they have barred themselves from doing so - with or may notwithstanding.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361418 · Replies: 31 · Views: 953

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


And you will enclose a copy of the permit, won't you.

I don't agree with the approach re the tow. All that such an approach is likely to lead to is you saying A and them disagreeing. You have to get them to explain and justify at this stage.

You need to understand that you are making formal reps and that these and their response would be presented in evidence to an adjudicator at any hearing. I would therefore take the time to lead the authority and the adjudicator step by step through the decision process:

Do the authority agree that:
The alleged contravention falls under Priority 4 of ********;
The vehicle was not causing an obstruction;

The authority are therefore required to respond to these points and give a policy and regulation-based reason why in the circumstances the vehicle was removed.

Not just you couldn't do it!
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361403 · Replies: 52 · Views: 990

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


do the communication from their end in terms of getting the paperwork together and to me.

I don't know what this means.

If you intend to play E's game according to their 'procedure', then I cannot help you from the perspective of parking regs.

You have no standing in parking law, I don't know how else this can be written.

Of course the authority may act unlawfully and deal with you, who knows?

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361245 · Replies: 55 · Views: 992

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 22:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Post #1

father, to assist him into the car and take him to an appointment.

And I did not say nor do I suggest that the OP says that when they parked their interpretation was ****, this is not necessary.

But given that the authority have now introduced the issue of BB holders being permitted to park then it clearly lies with the OP to hold the metaphorical mirror up to the authority and assert as I have suggested and that as they were in the process of collecting a BB holder for pre-arranged transportation then on the basis of the council's policy it follows that the contravention did not occur.

No suggestions other than putting what the OP has said - they even provided the BB with their challenge- in the context of the authority's response.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361162 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 22:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Para. 1 applies:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made

Also, 3(2) applies:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/3/made

The website was not right, it was s**t, to put matters in rhyme form.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361160 · Replies: 9 · Views: 177

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 22:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Putting ownership to one side, are you the registered keeper i.e. the V5C registration document is in your name?

The date of the alleged contravention is?

You have until 12 March to submit reps, so let's get all the facts in play first.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361156 · Replies: 16 · Views: 223

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 21:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Oh very smart... should we be surprised . Try “ Oh yeah... Direct Debit... I never thought of that” And guess what the OP has since said

Why the attitude? The question is an obvious one which needed to be asked.

Asked and answered, end of.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361151 · Replies: 27 · Views: 345

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


1. Photo shows PCN served.
2. Even in the normal course of events a BB does not allow you to park in a permit holder only bay.
3. And not at all when suspended.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361092 · Replies: 16 · Views: 223

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Ongoing payment by Direct Debit? The incorrect address on the V5C wouldn't affect that would it?

Can't answer a question with another question, let's wait for the OP to respond. smile.gif
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361091 · Replies: 27 · Views: 345

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


The OP is perfectly entitled to assert that their understanding of the sign is that, as it states clearly on the tin, it is a class of resident's permit, therefore under the council's policy, which their letter set out clearly and which is reproduced below, a BB was valid without time limit in the bay.

On this basis and as the authority do not challenge that a BB is held by the occupier of **** and that the driver was in the process of obtaining this in order to transport the holder when the PCN was issued, then the authority must address the issue of the BB in their response.

Council policy:
'disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361084 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Why, you would make a bad situation even worse.

The TEC court officer is only interested in the reasons why you want to submit a late statutory declaration against an Order for Recovery which was probably issued in 2017. You hardly improve your position by telling them that not only had you not updated your DVLA registered keeper info then, you didn't/didn't bother for another X months and only got round to it because an enforcement agent tracked you down .... otherwise we could get to 2019 and you would still not have changed it!

...which begs the question, how did you tax your vehicle given that more than 12 months have elapsed since you moved?

You cannot be taxing it yourself, so who is? I assume it's taxed.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361081 · Replies: 27 · Views: 345

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you've gone from posting written evidence to...

So.. enterprise said they provided the authority with a NOT , not sure if date. And they said authority sent them a NOR in return. They have since made the payment to the council for the fine as they were worried it would escalate.

And because the correct legal terms are NOT used ( biggrin.gif ) we're stuffed as to a proper understanding.

There is no such thing as a NOT, it's as real as the Cheshire Cat.

Stop writing to the council, you are making life complicated.

You have NO legal standing unless you receive a NTO in your name. Please, please, understand this and IMO do what I suggested and write to E and tell them you will not do anything.

If you continue to think you can correspond with the council who IMO under data protection are prevented from sending you any correspondence between them and E unless authorised by E, which I don't think their letter of 19th does, but it's debatable, then you will make a mess of matters and trying to unravel this later will be made more difficult.

Have you checked your account? Have you been charged - the letter of 19th suggests otherwise, see the last paragraph? If so, having sent my suggested email, give matters 7 days then come back here.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361078 · Replies: 55 · Views: 992

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


And have you asked them why?

Have you tried their website?

Legwork for you, I'm afraid, not guesswork for us!

Which premises are eligible is a published public policy, not a closely guarded secret.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361073 · Replies: 6 · Views: 178

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 16:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


It's not correct and has no basis in law.

The authority cannot consider reps from you as if you were the recipient and could not issue a NOR to anyone other than the recipient.

I would reply again, remember you've got one eye on the contractual aspects of this and YOU MUST be seen to be co-operative and reasonable.

Dear ****

Thnk you for your last email.

While this might be your standard practice, it has no basis in authorised procedure. I am more than willing to make representations in my own name against a NTO of which I am the recipient and if you wish to transfer liability to me then please do so. Until then, I regret I am unwilling to prejudice your and my legal positions by acting as you suggest and therefore I am unable to help you beyond what I have already done. I would add that should representations not be made to the authority and therefore the discount not re-offered, which is common practice, or a charge certificate issued then responsibility for and consequences of this must lie with yourselves.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1361058 · Replies: 55 · Views: 992

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 13:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


@MMV,

These disabled bays are for the sole use of people who are registered disabled..


Is this published by the council, I've no idea, neither importantly would the average motorist, IMO.

The criteria that the council wish to apply for their unique Disabled Resident etc.. are for them.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360999 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


I stick to my interpretation.

The contravention relates to a permit bay, in this case a class of resident permit holder, therefore as it is a resident permit holder bay the BB exemption applies according to their letter.

The fact that their definitions confuse them as well as motorists is a problem they'll have to deal with at adjudication.

So, was the bay a resident permit holder bay'? IMO, yes.

The bay has nothing necessarily to do with the definition of disabled in the Chronically Sick etc. and regs because there is no logo on the sign.

Was the driver entitled as a matter of law to rely on an interpretation of the sign which conveyed the meaning that it was a class of res permit holder bay? IMO, absolutely, and I would argue this at adjudication.

Therefore the BB provisions would apply.

OP, you must get the timings and background clear, no changing half way through the process.

Parked by arrangement, but he wasn't ready. The whole process of getting your car out of contravention was accelerated not hindered by you assisting him.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360962 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Hi NeilB,

Au contraire I'm afraid. My post contains the exact quote from their letter: BB holders are allowed to park without limit (para. 4 lines 5-8 refer).
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360951 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


No. You must deal with correspondence in a timely manner and do not leave matters open-ended.

Dear Ms Mundbi,

Thank you for your email dated ***** in response to my email dated ****.

I can only restate the position regarding national parking regulations as they apply to England which is that only the recipient may make representations against a Notice to Owner. This cannot be unilaterally amended by me, Enterprise or the authority. I ask you to take advice on this if it would help and to accept that I am being as co-operative as I can be bearing in mind that, as regards parking regulations, I have no legal standing: only Enterprise may make representations and the only means by which liability for the PCN may be transferred to me is for you to make representations to this effect, I am afraid that a letter from you stating that it should not be considered as representations but that the authority should accept representations from me is wholly extra-procedural and improper.

I would again respectfully suggest that either you use my previous draft as your representations or simply seek to transfer liability under the applicable grounds.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360949 · Replies: 55 · Views: 992

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 09:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, forget about the adjudicator, you're not there.

Whoever's name is on the NTO must make reps no later than 5 March.

Arguments so far:
10-minute rule.
Their failure to address both substantive points of the challenge.

IMO, there is a fundmental issue here.
10-minute rule:
At the (now stated) time of contravention of 11.09 IMO the CEO was prevented from serving a PCN by virtue of the 10-minute regulation UNLESS they knew that you parked there after 11am. NB, not that you were parked there after, but that you actually parked there after 11am. This is a fundamental point IMO and unless the CEO knew you parked after 11am it makes their PCN no more than a fishing expedition putting the burden on the motorist. We've seen adjudications allowed on this principle. As far as I can see, the CEO came on the scene at 11.04. (forget what you did, at the start of obs it's ONLY what the CEO had a reasonable belief occurred)
So, what would happen in EVERY case in Westminster where a CEO sees a vehicle parked in any parking place less than 10 minutes after controls start? Issue a PCN? And if the motorist didn't know about the 10-minute rule and had parked there before controls and pays? Hey presto, Westminster are UNLAWFULLY £65 better off.

Remember..
Evidence of contravention

6. A penalty charge shall not be imposed except on the basis of—

(a)a record produced by an approved device; or
(b)information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by him
.

Not guessed, but observed.
Disgraceful.

As regards the reps, I'd focus on this point. Don't get hung up on whether you parked just before or after, you weren't paying attention to the exact time, all you know is that it was around 11am and could have been before or after. But of GREATER importance is that the b****y CEO didn't know either. You're not required to focus on every minute in your life to justify your actions and approximation is an everyday practice, however CEOs when exercising the power of an Enforcement Authority and considering penalising a motorist are not allowed this flexibility, they have to be precise and correct.

Rant over.

A question for other experts:
If in your circumstances you had returned and driven away at, say, 11.06, would the authority have been permitted to serve a postal PCN??
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360910 · Replies: 26 · Views: 1,290

hcandersen
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 07:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, can we get back to the events please and focus on the BB side of the argument.

You parked for the purpose of ****** Mr A by prior arrangement (some short explanation would help);
Mr A possesses a BB;
The parking bay is situated outside Mr A's house and therefore as you anticipated that Mr A would be ready when you arrived (why?) you would be parked without displaying Mr A's BB for a minimal period;
In the event Mr A *******;
The PCN was issued at *** after **** minutes' observation;
The authority's letter states that ' disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit'.

I don't see boarding/alighting as being a superior argument to you collecting the holder of a BB in order to transport them. As there's only a single BB in play (unlike res permits where visitor's permits can be obtained) then by virtue of the council's policy to allow these bays to be used by BB holders IMO ALL the associated allowances come into play including that the transporter is allowed time to obtain the BB from the person to be transported.

The question on this point is, how long?

So, some specifics pl.

And of course if the authority reject this line of argument in principle, irrespective of the time periods, then IMO they are misleading themselves as regards the correct legal framework for consideration of reps and this would be a PI in itself.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360891 · Replies: 40 · Views: 642

hcandersen
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


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.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360815 · Replies: 124 · Views: 7,862

hcandersen
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,871
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you know the parameters of your argument and so you could proceed with it.

Adjudications are not determined by the Clapometer or whether there's a consensus of opinion on Pepipoo.

I am not prepared to risk you money, only you could do this.

So when you challenge etc. you must keep your eye on the end game. So don't just state it's not permissible, require them, should they reject your argument, to give a rationale for having this combination given that it has the potential to confuse.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360683 · Replies: 25 · Views: 633

833 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 15:35
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.