PCN for Not parked correctly within the marking of the bay |
PCN for Not parked correctly within the marking of the bay |
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:06
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 8 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,270 |
Good afternoon,
I've been fighting a PCN from Greenwich council for a while now. I wonder if anyone has any advice they can add to my current arguments. I'm about to go to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator and my fine is currently at £120, so it would be really helpful to know if I don't stand a chance with this one. I've (hopefully) attached all correspondece in date order from the original PCN to my and their responses. Many thanks in advance.
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:06
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:20
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 Joined: 6 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,558 |
Wrong forum, click report and ask to be moved to council.
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:27
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed, and Im pretty sure nothing you have pt there is gorunds for challenge, not formally
See what the main fora thinks on this, when you get there. A google street view of th e locaiton owul dbe good. |
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 14:08
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 8 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,270 |
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 14:31
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
From what can be seen, just a quick look you have a case. Also they cannot in a NoR just say we have nothing more to say. they have a statutory duty to consider anew
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 14:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed, procedural matters are all thats left
But get this thread moved to the experts |
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 14:54
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Indeed, procedural matters are all thats left But get this thread moved to the experts Have asked the mods to move -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 17:23
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Why do you say £120 - thought at first you have a charge certificate. The most you can pay is £80 as long as you make the appeal to the adjudicator in time.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 17:40 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 18:46
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
Minimum width should be 1.8m as per diagram 1028.4 (70.86 inches). Can't the Muppets understand the TSRGDs? Second, they have failed to consider and respond to your formal appeal which they have a duty to do. The legislation imposes a duty on enforcement authorities to consider the representations made to it and any supporting evidence. In your case there is no evidence that the Council has considered the matters specifically and clearly raised in your appeal. Having repeated on a continual basis that the bay is undersized and cannot accommodate your vehicle that they have continued enforcement is wholly unreasonable and is a basis for a costs submission. The Council should have had a CEO check the bay measurement if it wished to reject your ground. Case 2140285792 is appropriate:- I am satisfied that the issue of the Notice of Rejection on 28th May 2014 was a wholly unreasonable action by the local authority and that Mr Hussain is entitled to his wasted expenses of having photographed , printed and posted his evidence as part of his appeal. I have come to this conclusion in light of two factors: that Mr Hussain gave very comprehensive representations on 8th May 2014 which ought to have been better investigated; and that the local authority was attempting to enforce a parking penalty by distant cameras rather than by a Civil Enforcement Officer on the "beat". This sort of enforcement action always carries with it the risk that the camera operator cannot see the required signage. Therefore when Mr Hussan told the local authority that the sign was not there , the local authority should have diverted a suitable CEO to check this before issuing the Notice of Rejection . To not do so was, in my judgement , wholly unreasonable. Adjudicators, as a matter of long standing practice, take the view that the appropriate comparator with this jurisdiction is the Small Claims Track of the County Court. In the relevant Rules appertaining thereto an unrepresented party may claim for time spent at an hourly rate of £9.25. I adopt this view of quantum - particularly taking account of the principles of proportionality and the limited subject matter represented by this fixed penalty claim. I will allow Mr Hussain £18.50 for his time ( i.e. an assessment of 2 hours) together with postage expenses of £20 and printing of £15. Therefore I make a Order that the local authority do pay forthwith to the Appellant the sum of £53.50. -------------------- Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 19:12 |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 20:26
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Don't forget the costs rate is now £19 per hour.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 00:09
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
Second, they have failed to consider and respond to your formal appeal which they have a duty to do. The legislation imposes a duty on enforcement authorities to consider the representations made to it and any supporting evidence. In your case there is no evidence that the Council has considered the matters specifically and clearly raised in your appeal. Mick +1 Although it is commendable that the Council has agreed set criteria and policies in respect of representations of mitigating circumstances made following the issue of Penalty Charge Notices, the Council must accept that such set criteria and policies provide only a starting point for consideration of their discretion for the reason that all cases must be considered on their own facts, and the facts of this case might not be covered by the set criteria and policies, which the Council seem to have overlooked by failing to even mention the crucial issue of the bay size submitted — QUOTE The Council has agreed set criteria and policies in respect of representations of mitigating circumstances made following the issue of Penalty Charge Notices. The information, which you have provided and all the points that you have raised have been examined in detail against these criteria [my bold]. In addition, the notes, recorded by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time of the contravention, have been checked. Having considered the facts, the Council regrets to inform you that it is satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice has been correctly issued and payment of the charge is due .-------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:00
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 8 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,270 |
Thank you all for your responses - really appeciated. I'll keep going with my argument - I was starting to lose my nerve.
As suggested, I've taken a google map screenshot which shows that only 3 cars in the line of 7 were able to park within the bay (the car parked in the space I was in, is over the line). Thank you also for geting this moved to the correct forum - I'm new to this and although I asked, not sure I did it correctly. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 15:25
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,068 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
As regards your argument as set out in your challenge and reps, please don't go with this. In the main it's frivolous and meritless and those elements mask the substantive points. This is not surprising because you wrote them emotionally, but we need to leave emotion outside the door and look at substantive matters.
First, you need to look at the mechanics from now onward: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appe...ocess-explained You need to register your appeal no later than 1 November (contrary to what's stated in the NOR, but we'll come back to this), to do which you need to decide upon your grounds and whether you want a personal or postal hearing. As you have points to make on a first-hand basis regarding the conditions at the location and as you intend to rely on these in your appeal and as the adjudicator would want to ask you questions ( contrary to what you might think, your photos are unclear and confusing) then I suggest a personal hearing. Grounds Procedural Impropriety Contravention did not occur I would register your appeal ASP so we and the authority know it's in the system. For your substantive case: 1. Procedural impropriety NOR fails to advise you correctly of your appeal rights and the powers of the adjudicator.(not bad when you think the bozos have been doing this for over 10 years!). The appeals periods are wrong. NOR failed to consider your reps de novo or to provide any reasoning as to why your reps were rejected. 2 Contravention etc.... The location did not meet the minimum dimensions prescribed in the TSRGD 2016 (which requirement has been imported into the applcable traffic order whose requirement to park wholly within a bay is predicated on the council marking bays to the dimensions prescribed in the order and regulations). |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:23 |