PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Please bear with me, Early days of a potential problem , so many ifs and buts
methchild
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



Please bear with me, the details are sketchy and so far my employer and my trade union have not helped with any advice other than 'Appeal it' and as any fine payable is borne by me they don't seem particularly interested in guidance or suggestions as to the basis of an appeal.
Much of the information here is only what I have been told so far which makes it frustrating as I am unable to form any defence and or explanation based on heresay.
Despite the above I will try to furnish as much as I can in the hope that even at this early stage some holes can be poked and a basis for appeal can perhaps be formed.

Mon 6 November : return to work after 2 and a half weeks holiday
Tue 7 November : manager tells me I have failed to pay a fine and the employer has received a Notice to Owner. the NtO claims a Code 99 on Mon 2 October some 5 weeks previously. No PCN was (or ever has been) attached to my company vehicle nor was it handed to me or posted to me, I am not the registered keeper so they would not have had those details to post it to me anyway if I understand correctly.
Questioning the manager I find that the NtO was issued on Fri 3 Nov , relayed to our office on Mon 6th November, he says that it is the first he has heard of anything to do with this incident. I am seeking a copy of the NtO for further details, I have not succeeded yet.
Wed 8 Nov : I have a meeting with the manager to explain the situation. I now know a code 99 is Stopping on a pedestrian crossing and or crossing area marked by zig zags. I can say categorically that I did not stop on a pedestrian crossing. The location I am told is High Rd , Beeston , Nottingham. This is consistent with where I go on a daily basis.The Likely location
The only place I stop (and the only place where stopping is permitted) is the loading bay, I would have been there.

The only possibility I can think of is that if the front of my vehicle was forward of the loading bay in the cross hatching and accordingly within the zig zags, would that be enough to trigger a PCN ? it wouldn't be 'on' the zig zags but I guess that would be splitting hairs, I don't really know.
There is likely not much to be said as it stands until I get some clarification from the employer but this is a laborious process, our depot is a sub depot and the vehicles are registered elsewhere so correspondence takes days and I haven't succeeded in getting the right person on the phone yet.

What might be of help is advice on the absence of the PCN and whether encroaching into the cross hatched area beyond the Loading Bay is the likely problem.

regards
MD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,671
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (methchild @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:09) *
as any fine payable is borne by me

Says who and how so?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
methchild
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



Good question. All our drivers have always paid their own fines I am told. I hadn't thought to question it but had assumed that the responsibility lies with the person in charge of the vehicle. Is this not so ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,510
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:38) *
QUOTE (methchild @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:09) *
as any fine payable is borne by me

Says who and how so?


Presumably within employment contract terms....

As far as the PCN is concerned the owner is liable, which would be your company (or lease company if vehicles leased)
And you have no right to challenge unless someone in authority within your company (or lease company if applicable) agrees in writing.


Get the PCN number and onto Nottingham County Council
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/transpor...ge-parking-fine
See if you can get photos of the contravention.
If you are right in your suspicion that you encroached on the hatched area, this is not a ZZ contravention as you are outside the controlled area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:54
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,671
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Legally, the 'Owner' is liable; taken to be RK.

We appreciate that drivers sometimes have a duty to pay written into their contracts but that's between you
and them. Also appreciate you might be wary of rocking the boat.

If they want you to take responsibility -
a) they still have to sign any representations made; you can't.
b) are being unreasonable in not giving you details as that gives access to evidence.

i.e. you need PCN number to see online pics.

You also need to know exactly what document they've received.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,732
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The registered keeper as recorded on the V5 is the person who has sole responsibility for payment or appealing of decriminalised Penalty Charge Notices. Most firms have employment contracts with their drivers that have clauses that essentially make the drivers pay by taking it out of their wages to pay the penalty charge. This makes the admin simple, but also means the councils get rich on companies never appealing !

The bottom line is that as the driver for somebody's vehicle you are not responsible in law for PCN penalty payments, but clearly have a relationship with an employer that you would not want to risk upsetting. Even if your employer agrees to you appealing, if the appeal is lost, it is still their responsibility to pay, not you,but appealing all the way means the full penalty becomes payable not the discounted amount. There are no CCJs in this process, BTW.

Many companies now just accept PCN penalties as a cost of doing business, especially in London, and just merge the PCN penalties into their costs so they eventually are paid by their customers. However this doesn't stop them from taking the money off the poor driver ! The fact is the firms ask their drivers to drive and park in one of the most motoring-hostile locations on the planet, London, so really should accept that it is their own instructions that cause the penalties to come in, not the Poor Bloody Infantry of their drivers.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
methchild
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



QUOTE
Get the PCN number and onto Nottingham County Council
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/transpor...ge-parking-fine
See if you can get photos of the contravention.
If you are right in your suspicion that you encroached on the hatched area, this is not a ZZ contravention as you are outside the controlled area.


I expect the PCN will be provided tomorrow at the next meeting so I may be able to pin things down some.

For clarification, the hatched area forward of the Loading Bay is not liable to a code 99 infringement ?
is this because the vehicle would need to be on / over / astride the zig zags ?

regards
MD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,671
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (methchild @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:10) *
For clarification, the hatched area forward of the Loading Bay is not liable to a code 99 infringement ?
is this because the vehicle would need to be on / over / astride the zig zags ?

Don't go second guessing it's pointless.
Get whatever doc it is and any Council picks and put all up here.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 07:27
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,092
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



As per Neil, we need to see the NTO and the PCN if available (not camera enforced?).

Need to consider signs and lines carefully as per:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

The cycle lane is intriguing.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
m7891
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 09:36
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 335
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,508



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 07:27) *
As per Neil, we need to see the NTO and the PCN if available (not camera enforced?).

Need to consider signs and lines carefully as per:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

The cycle lane is intriguing.

Mick


Looks like a fairly common contraflow cycle lane to me? Unless I'm missing something obvious.

But I don't think it's relevant to the OP's case anyway. Unless they're being accused of stopping on the zig-zags in the cycle lane, then there might be questions over the combination of road markings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
methchild
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 10:13
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



The cycle lane is curiously a one way east to west because the High Rd is one way west to east between Regent Street and Humber Road.
Cycles heading East should use the road, those headed west should use the cycle lane, in practise they all seem to use the pavement but that is another matter.
Will be at work for the rest of the day and seeking clarification and sight of NtO and or PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,510
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Where in the world has the definition of ZZ controlled area gone in TSRGD 2016 ?

To me if you are outside the ZZ lines you are outside of the controlled area but can't find the reference ??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, your main problem is procedural in that unless your employer, whom we presume is the addressee in the NTO (pl confirm), agrees that you may respond on their behalf and provides this to you in writing (you cannot just reply in your name and claim that your employer has authorised you) then you have no standing in this matter: your employer will deal with the matter procedurally and contractually.

Assuming we get over this hurdle, then we have the contravention itself for which we must, must, must have photos and the PCN before we drown in a sea of speculation.

IMO, the contravention only occurs on the carriageway in the controlled area which is defined as being bounded by the zig-zags. So if there weren't zzs either side of you, then the contravention did not occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:40
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,510
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Found it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
Parallel Controlled Area
QUOTE
a length of carriageway—
(a)which—
(i)is adjacent to a Parallel crossing; and
(ii)in the manner shown in the diagram at item 53 of the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 14, has a zig-zag line, of the type provided for at that item, marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre) and give way markings, of the type provided for at item 54 of that table, marked parallel to the crossing; and

My bold.

Now we need to see if it applies so photos needed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:40) *
Found it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
Parallel Controlled Area
QUOTE
a length of carriageway—
(a)which—
(i)is adjacent to a Parallel crossing; and
(ii)in the manner shown in the diagram at item 53 of the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 14, has a zig-zag line, of the type provided for at that item, marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre) and give way markings, of the type provided for at item 54 of that table, marked parallel to the crossing; and

My bold.

Now we need to see if it applies so photos needed


just spent ages looking for that go to post and too late, c'est la vie rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
methchild
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 08:49
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



update :-
I have now seen the NtO but do not have a copy, I have been provided with the PCN number which is NQ02621818
The employer via phone call tells me that they have made representations to Nottinghamshire County council on the basis that
1) the PCN has not been issued in the correct manner
2) it has not been demonstrated that an offence occurred.

for 1. that is that no physical PCN has been seen by either myself or the Registered Owner , the only indication that one even exists is the reference number
for 2. they have not shown any evidence

I have taken a look around the NCC parking enforcement web pages, put the PCN number in on various pages but have yet to find anything other than the option to pay
I am looking on This Site
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:03
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You are the OP and the importance of procedure has been stressed in previous posts and yet you continue to post as if it is not an issue.

From your last post, it can be deduced that:
The company is the addressee on the NTO;
They have made formal representations;
There is nothing for you to do.

The authority will either accept or reject and if the latter then the company are likely to be re-offered the discount which in all probability they would accept and, according to your account, pass on to you. So in reality I don't think there's anything more that can be done.

Scenario 1
Reps accepted. Very unlikely.

Scenario 2
Reps rejected and discount re-offered. Likely.

Scenario Z
Reps rejected, company decide to take to adjudication (unlikely because although according to you they can pass on the cost to you they are also bound to mitigate their loss which means they must accept the discount unless the outcome of an appeal is a certain win). You might have a role here.

As you can see, in the likely scenarios there's nothing for you to do because formal reps have already been made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
methchild
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:27
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,098



@hcandersenIf it comes across as me not considering it to be an issue then that is not my intent at all.



The company on the NTO is the addressee
They have made representations
There is nothing for me to do , I have been told to wait for their representations to be considered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:37
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Exactly.

So don't beat yourself up about this or spend hours hunting high and low for clues, I'm certain you have other things to do: all will be revealed when their response is received which could be over a month away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:54
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,510
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (methchild @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:27) *
@hcandersenIf it comes across as me not considering it to be an issue then that is not my intent at all.



The company on the NTO is the addressee
They have made representations
There is nothing for me to do , I have been told to wait for their representations to be considered.


Fair enough.

So you are aware of next stage and your options.
Notts is likely to reject.
The company can either accept that and pay or appeal to an independent adjudicator.
This costs nothing and there is no risk of any cost except the original penalty (70 quid ?)
The company can authorise you to act for them at the appeal.
As you seem to have a vested interest in winning (the penalty being removed from your wages) you may want to discuss this with bosses.
The appeal can decided be on papers, by personal hearing at a location suitable to you or by telephone.... the latter would reduce time off work and may be palatable to bosses.

What we don't know is whether there is a chance of winning.... for that we need the CEO photos and all correspondence
At the very basic, if parked on or within the ZZs bang to rights, if outboard on the hatching as you think, 99.9% win
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 24th May 2018 - 07:51
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.