PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

290 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Post the full NTO please.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1479226 · Replies: 6 · Views: 91

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Brilliant it reinforces the Hothi case, here:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1448120

This is an appeal against four penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued in respect of alleged contraventions of a prohibition on certain types of vehicles, namely motor vehicles, on Phoenix Way, Hounslow. The prohibition is created by The London Borough of Hounslow (Prescribed Routes) (No.1) Order 2015, as amended by The London Borough of Hounslow (Prescribed Routes) (2015, No.1) (Amendment No.1) Order 2018.

The precise nature of the contravention created by the 2018 amendment to the 2015 Order, which I shall hereafter refer to simply as “the Order”, is in dispute. Suffice to say at this stage, there is no dispute between the parties that Mrs Patel’s vehicle, which is a motor car, drove on both Phoenix Way and Norwood Road. The undisputed evidence is, and I find, that it drove northbound on Phoenix Way, followed the natural left-hand turn in Phoenix Way and then, at the point where Phoenix Way becomes Norwood Road, continued to travel westbound on Norwood Road.

I would to pay tribute at the outset to Mrs Patel’s diligent researches and very thorough and persuasive submissions; they were most impressive. Although I would not have upheld all the grounds of appeal, all were arguable.

I shall deal first of all with what I consider to be the strongest ground of appeal and, indeed, the ground upon which I have allowed this appeal. Because the other grounds of appeal fall away I can deal with them far more briefly.

The first ground of appeal (although Mrs Patel’s Ground 3) relates to the nature of the contravention created by the Order. I have already set out the terms of the Order. It is Mrs Patel’s case that she did not contravene the terms of the Order or, in the alternative, that, if she did, there was no sign in the appropriate location conveying to road users the terms of the restriction beyond it. In either event, if Mrs Patel is right, the contravention could not be proved.

According to the schedule to the 2018 amendment, which adds an item (12) to schedule 9 to the Order, the road subject to the restriction is said to be ‘Phoenix Way, Honslow [sic], at its junction with Norwood Road’. The explanatory note to the schedule to the 2018 amendment, to which I attach some weight in respect of the proper interpretation of the amended Order, states:

“This Order amends the Order of 2015 by introducing prohibitions in Phoenix Way at its junction with Norwood Road.”

The PCNs themselves read that the location of the alleged contraventions is ‘Phoenix Way (Services)’.

As I hope is apparent from all the foregoing, it is clear, and I find, that the Order creates a restriction on Phoenix Way.

I have had regard to all the evidence submitted by both parties and, in particular, to the map extracts from the Highways Register provided by the enforcement authority (EA). I have dealt with a number of appeals concerning this particular restriction but I have not previously seen these map extracts. Upon these map extracts the EA has helpfully marked the point it considers the restriction created by the Order to take effect. I have also had regard to the photographic evidence of the signage that purports to indicate to users of the road the beginning of the restriction, as understood by the EA. Its placement is consistent with the point on the map where the EA considers the restriction to take effect. The signage is visible from the perspective of a motorist travelling, as Mrs Patel was, in a sweeping left turn from Phoenix Way northbound to Norwood Road westbound. There are two signs, either side of the carriageway. The signage complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and, in particular, with Diagram 619, which is item 12 in the Part 2 sign table within Schedule 3 to those Regulations. That is to say, the signs indicate that motor vehicles (cars and motorbikes) may not pass that point ‘except permit holders’. It is not suggested that Mrs Patel is a permit holder.

Paragraph 1 of Part 5 of the Schedule 3 General Directions states:

“1(1) The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.

(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.”

It is the EA’s case that the signage to which I have referred complies with both limbs of the above paragraph because it is sited at the point where the restriction created by the Order begins, and was placed to indicate the effect of the Order. In its case summary it says:

“… As the contravention occurs at the point of the junction where Phoenix Way and Norwood Road are located, evidenced by the enclosed maps in Folder H [the map extracts to which I have referred], the Council has sought to provide the most accurate description of the location [in the Order] in line with where the signs are located.”

It is the EA’s own evidence, however, taken from the marked map extracts and corroborated by the location of the signage itself, that the restriction begins at the very point where Phoenix Way becomes Norwood Road. I find, based on the EA’s own evidence, that the sign is placed precisely at the end of Phoenix Way and, by the same measure, at the very beginning of Norwood Road. The signs reasonably indicate to motorists travelling, as Mrs Patel did, towards them, that motor vehicles are not permitted to travel on Norwood Road, which is the road immediately beyond the signs. It would not be a reasonable interpretation of the signs that they related to the stretch of road upon which the motorist was already driving, and had already driven, i.e. Phoenix Way.

The effect of the Order is to create a restriction not on Norwood Road, but on Phoenix Way. Accordingly, I find that there has been a breach of the mandatory requirement of paragraph 1(1) because the sign does not indicate the effect of the Order to which the EA says it relates. Rather, it purports to indicate that motor vehicles are prohibited on Norwood Road whereas there is no such prohibition created by a traffic management order. I am fortified in this conclusion by the finding to the same effect of Adjudicator Teresa Brennan in Hothi v. LB Hounslow, decided on 5 January 2019 (2180474156), in which the appeal was allowed for the same reason contended for by Mrs Patel in her Ground 3. Although I am not strictly bound by the decisions of other adjudicators, the decision in Hothi is thorough and well-reasoned and was clearly decided on similar evidence. Indeed, the evidence that the road beyond the two signs is Norwood Road and not Phoenix Way is stronger in this case than in Hothi. I find the reasoning in Hothi persuasive.

Conversely, given that the Order creates a restriction on Phoenix Way, there is no evidence of any mandatory signage in accordance with Diagram 619 in the 2016 Regulations that Mrs Patel would have passed upon entering Phoenix Way from Cranford Lane. The advance warning signs at that point are ineffective for that purpose. It follows that the restriction that is in fact created by the Order is inadequately signed for a motorist entering Phoenix Way from Cranford Lane. There is one respect in which the restriction created by the Order is properly signed. That is, for a motorist travelling east-bound on Norwood Road towards Phoenix Way, the signs on the reverse of the signs that Mrs Patel past are apt to indicate to such a motorist that motor vehicles are prohibited on Phoenix Way, at its junction with Norwood Road. That is, in fact, the restriction created by the Order.

I do not find that there has been a contravention of the Order. I allow the appeal on that basis.

I hope that the EA will amend the wording of the Order so that it creates, as it intended, a prohibition on motor vehicles on Norwood Road.

In respect of Mrs Patel’s other grounds of appeal, I would have been minded to find that Norwood Road is a road to which the public have access, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in reliance on the principles contained in DPP v. Vivier [1991] R.T.R. 205, supported by Andrew Barsby, Private Roads: The Legal Framework (5th ed.), 2013, para 1-21 and Halsbury's Laws of England - Highways, Streets and Bridges, Volume 55, 2012, para 1. With respect, the case of Dawood, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator & Anor [2009J EWCA Civ 1411, which was a renewed application for permission to appeal at which the respondent was not represented, is not a ‘leading authority’ and, in any event, did not support the ultimate proposition put forward by Mrs Patel. The very nature of Norwood Road leading, as it does, to a service station open to the public, indicates that it is a road to which the public have access. Even on the EA’s interpretation of the Order, pedestrians and cyclists would have been able to use the road for their own purposes and as members of the public, not as bare licensees of the occupiers of the land at the other end of the road. That the road may or may not be privately owned is not inconsistent with it being a road to which the public have access. The fact that Mrs Patel herself used the road four times (and did not assert that she did so as a bare licensee of the occupiers of the land) rather suggests that she did so as a member of the public.

The PCN adequately described the nature of the alleged contravention; Mrs Patel was, to her knowledge, driving a motor car and so it was a clear inference that it was alleged that the prohibition in question related to such vehicles.

As to the decision to enforce all four penalties I would observe that the alleged contraventions did not occur on consecutive days (by contrast to the case relied upon) and it was a matter of discretion for the EA as to whether to enforce them.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1479184 · Replies: 15 · Views: 344

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 14:17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Just musing over this one again.

The Council's letter re. the Charge Certificate stated:-

"At the time of the contravention a PCN was sent out to your address on 26/04/2016, this was not responded to so a Charge Certificate was sent out on 31/05/2016. At this time we did not have the relevant legislation to progress the fine further to enforcement. This legislation has now been granted so all unpaid fines are being progressed in line with this."

The DPA Guidelines:-

Article 5(1)(e) says (my bold):-

“1. Personal data shall be:

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) subject to implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by this Regulation in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject (‘storage limitation’)”

IMO there was no purpose for the data to be retained because, as the Council has helpfully admitted,they could not process the data. It just so happened that something else came along which allowed them to process data from that point in time NOT in retrospect.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478946 · Replies: 198 · Views: 6,894

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 21:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This should be the sign with conditions:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/72+Herb...33;4d-3.8493924

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478802 · Replies: 20 · Views: 375

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 21:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


The Bus lane Order specifies "May":-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...ngton/WI135.pdf

Not too sure about owner, keeper, driver Articles.

They certainly have it wrong with Sect 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 regarding the PCN.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478798 · Replies: 5 · Views: 98

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 14:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


The Council's response is nonsense.

Where you have a heritage site (many cathedral cities) the Council can ask the DfT for exemptions to marking streets with double yellow lines etc. This Council seems to have taken it on itself to extrapolate that action into an off street car park.

Regardless of the wishes of EH etc the Council has a duty to clearly mark disabled bays adequately . From the OP's photos it has singularly failed in that duty and thereby enforcement is compromised.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478635 · Replies: 7 · Views: 125

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 14:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This is the Order quoted by hca:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...Dorset/DS48.pdf

Perhaps, given his background in LG, he can make some sense out of the changes in the Councils (from 01/04/2019) and whether the Enforcement Authority has changed. It certainly suggests that Dorset Council is different from Dorset County Council here:-

https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/your-counc...et-council.aspx

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478623 · Replies: 23 · Views: 236

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 22:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP------you need to ask for the TMO which amends this parking bay from P&D. If there has been no amendment then I suspect the original Order is extant and thereby your ground is that you had cash and it was supposed to be P&D.

Payment by card or PBP cannot be a default situation if the Order states P&D.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478482 · Replies: 12 · Views: 289

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 21:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP-----which car park and which Council? (A sight of the PCN would be good).

Last time we had one of these cases it was in Sheffield.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478475 · Replies: 7 · Views: 204

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 20:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP---you are ahead of me. The Cliffs Pavilion Area Amendments appear to incorporate Cambridge Road into the Cliffs Pavilion Zone. Why they haven't uploaded these to the TPT website escapes me.

Ignore my last post but include the Milton bit.

If your case gets to adjudication I would like to know which Order they submit in their evidence pack.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478128 · Replies: 27 · Views: 555

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 11:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Post up the PCN because your case is stronger if hand served rather than camera derived and then posted to you.

If the VRM is incorrect on the PCN this usually invalidates it.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478030 · Replies: 7 · Views: 70

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 11:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP----forget about "extortionate" and inability to pay. Just keep it simple-----get your father to sign it:-

PCN Number ????

Contravention-----Parking in a disabled bay without displaying a Disabled Badge

I would be grateful if the Council could exercise its discretion and cancel the PCN noted above.

As can be seen by the photos I parked the car, placed the Blue Badge folder on the dashboard, as can be seen in the picture attached but got distracted as I assisted my elderly wife alight the vehicle and into the house. I subsequently forgot to open the bi-fold Blue Badge folder.

I attach a copy (front and back) of the Blue Badge which demonstrates my entitlement to park in this bay which is directly outside my house.

The disabled bay is for the sole use of people who are registered disabled and there was no mischief on this occasion It was never the intention to fine eligible Blue Badge holders for forgetfulness or mishap and therefore the enforcement of this charge would serve no useful purpose.

I would be grateful therefore if the Council could cancel the PCN.


Kind regards,


Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478028 · Replies: 9 · Views: 139

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 09:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Yes, write to them with a copy of the BB, indicate the mistake and ask them to use their discretion and cancel the PCN.

When you say outside the house is this a dedicated bay with an individual code or VRM marked on a sign or painted on the road?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478010 · Replies: 9 · Views: 139

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 09:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


The zone is wrong on the PCN (Milton) and on the CP sign--it should be Zone CL (Cambridge Road) as per Schedule 12 (page 51) here:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...-ORDER-2016.pdf

The NOR is subsequently incorrect if it identifies the Zone as Cliffs Pavilion it's not, it's Clifftown.

Neither is it strictly a permit zone since residents get season tickets not permits (see the definition of "residents" on page 9). Elsewhere residents get permits but not in Cambridge Road
.

Schedule 10 indicates Clifftown is a "payment parking zone" reserved to residents so there should be no other pay and display bays.

If there are signs with permit holders beyond this point I would argue that they are nullities because the Council clearly differentiates between permits and season tickets in its Order and the zone identifier would be wrong..

No doubt the contravention code still stands with a season ticket but the signs are duff, the NOR is incorrect and the Order is a dogs's breakfast.

Mick

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1478006 · Replies: 27 · Views: 555

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 23:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


+1

The 3rd PCN is timed at 0747 and IMO the daily restriction starts at 0800 according to the sign.

Keep that in mind.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477983 · Replies: 20 · Views: 245

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 15:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


This appears to be a valid parking spot from 7am so check the 10 minute rule if you overstayed--i.e. what is the end time given on the PCN?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477859 · Replies: 8 · Views: 108

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 12:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP---- you look to be well in the PZ from those photos. Did you back in?

I would ask the authority to cancel the PCN on the basis of the boarding and alighting exemption given your work.

IMO the sign is incorrect ---it's not a cycle zone so the flying motorbike sign is not correct see here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made

Hold fire on that bit for now (i.e. don't ruffle their feathers) just ask them to cancel as above--the video should show the disabled lady.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477826 · Replies: 4 · Views: 77

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


No----the junction statement or the hotel stay won't wash.

If you are determined to try an appeal this is the case I alluded to:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1448120

I think overtaken by subsequent cases but they may c*ck -up their response which would give us extra leverage.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477796 · Replies: 11 · Views: 136

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 09:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Here?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Petty+W...33;4d-0.0789754

Can you get hold of the video from CoL. Might be a de minimis infraction.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477785 · Replies: 4 · Views: 77

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 09:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I was wrong to suggest, in another thread, that the speed bump was the optimum give way point.

The distance from our give way sign to the speed bump is about 145 feet. The speed limit for approaching vehicles is 20 mph. At that speed a vehicle does 29.33 feet per second. So it should take an approaching vehicle about 5 seconds from the speed bump to clearing the bridge.

The video in this case shows the oncoming vehicle mounting the speed bump whilst the OP's vehicle has exited the restriction. I would say at that point the OP's vehicle was at least 100 feet from the white SUV. That leads me back to the definition of giving way--at what point does this contravention occur?

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477778 · Replies: 12 · Views: 232

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 18:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


There is a successful case in the sticky thread but I believe that may have been discounted nowadays; with several subsequent decisions going the Councils way.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477724 · Replies: 11 · Views: 136

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 15:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


OP-----If a PCN comes your way make sure you have a copy of the "hire" agreement you signed.

You do understand that the garage, via the Council, can only pass liability to yourself on the basis of this document.

Forgive me in that I "speculate" that you will get a PCN.

Mick

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477688 · Replies: 16 · Views: 247

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Deadlines are critical----have you registered an appeal with TPT indicating "details to follow" ?

Your appeal should be based on four grounds:-

1) The fact that you were unable to change your permit on-line because the Council's system was duff (potentially an abuse of process);

2) The Council has not responded to this issue and thereby has fettered its discretion;

3) The procedural impropriety identified by CP;

4) The PCN being invalid because the proper enforcement agency is not quoted.

Get your appeal registered asap and let us see your original reps to the Council and any other correspondence.

Mick

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477663 · Replies: 26 · Views: 449

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


If the Council were asking for your licence details that might mean a number of things:-

1) the "hire agreement" was deficient in terms of passing liability to you;

2) The Council need extra information to ask the DVLA for your details in order to serve a PCN on you.

To transfer liability the garage must produce an agreement which conforms to this:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1349860

Once the Council has cancelled the garage's PCN it cannot be reissued to them--so if you believe the agreement does not comply then that's the argument to make.

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477653 · Replies: 16 · Views: 247

Mad Mick V
Posted on: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,310
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355


Subject to seeing the docs I would say that your only course is to pay at the discount or argue that the delay in responding to your appeal is unfair and prejudicial. However such a claim may be marginal:-

"The guidelines set out regarding delay are in the case of Davis - v - Kensington & Chelsea. In that case the Adjudicator stated (at p. 48) "...for my own part I consider that in the usual case representations in respect of an NTO should be considered by an authority within 2 - 3 months from receipt." The Adjudicator went on to say, "However, again, thereafter, it would still be open to the authority to show that the delay in considering the representations was not unreasonable in all of the circumstances. That may be a difficult task, as the consideration of representations is likely to be entirely within their own hands: but, for example...a particular case may require further investigation (into the facts and/or legal issues) and such investigation may mean that a period of over 2 - 3 months would be quite reasonable."

The key to a delay case is whether there was an explanation for the delay--if the Council's letter apologises but doesn't account for the delay I might risk the full amount (remember, not my money!)

Mick
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1477651 · Replies: 11 · Views: 136

290 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: Friday, 19th April 2019 - 05:22
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.