PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

560 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (SiRyan21 @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 14:48) *
And im struggling to upload a picture of the back of the ticket keeps telling me the file is too large


use an external hosting site such as imgur
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435363 · Replies: 6 · Views: 91

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 15:18) *
Personally I think there is no chance of an order for costs. The outcome is neither obvious nor is it a foregone conclusion and while it appears the adjudicator might be leaning our way, the council's conduct cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. On the contrary, I'm sure the council wrongly but reasonably believe their PCN is compliant.


+1
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435360 · Replies: 32 · Views: 589

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


We need to see the back of the PCN and the council photos
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435266 · Replies: 6 · Views: 91

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 21:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


this one is also helpful

2180405914

The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
I have viewed the council's video footage of the incident.
I am satisfied on it that this vehicle had to stop in this box due the presence of the stationery vehicle in front but it did so with just its back wheels on box junction markings it only doing so for perhaps 5 seconds and I am satisfied that that amounts to no more than a de minimus breach of box junction rules.
I find for that reason that the contravention did not occur and I allow the appeal.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435158 · Replies: 10 · Views: 128

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 19:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


The blue sign is 953 a s36 sign so a regulatory one. That being so it is also mandatory that the carriage markings are used. as per

2170469229

I adjourned this case for the following reason:
The enforcement authority is offered the opportunity to make further submissions on the question of signage. The blue signs would appear to require the presence of the carriageway legend “BUS GATE” which seems to be absent. Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3 .

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 of the sign table at item 33. It would follow that the carriageway legend is mandatory and that authorisation is required to dispense with it.
In the absence of any further submissions or evidence from the enforcement authority I am unable to be satisfied the prohibition relied on was correctly indicated. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


The poor signage has been argued before at this location and won

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....jIXrRPRqW9Cn7Nw
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435148 · Replies: 12 · Views: 119

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 18:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I will write you an appeal loads of things to go on with the number of flaws in that NoR as well as the original representations
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435118 · Replies: 42 · Views: 1,595

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I think the council will say that the area was left clear of bays because of the cut in caused by the bus stop layby. There photos do not support though that an obstruction is caused

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Madge+G...#33;4d0.0512931

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435113 · Replies: 13 · Views: 166

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (qaz1 @ Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:19) *
here is the letter, hope i made it easy to read . look forward to peoples advice on making an appeal
thanks


All of it please
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435101 · Replies: 42 · Views: 1,595

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Paper17 @ Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:22) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:11) *
Perfect. So we have abuse of process and/or fail to consider. How can they accept the argument for one PCN but not for the other. I will put something together over the weekend


Bump the tread on Friday to remind me



Hello,

What do you suggest to write for the tribunal?


I will draft something tomorrow
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435100 · Replies: 39 · Views: 937

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


If you freeze frame at 01 seconds you see the mini in front clear of the box, it is still moving and there is a huge space easily enough to accommodate your car. IMO you were entitled at entry to believe your exit would be clear, so as per the essoo case here and to a degree khan no contravention occurs


https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...n%20v%20TfL.doc
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1435098 · Replies: 10 · Views: 128

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:50) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03) *
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN

I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity.


from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently

You think wrong I'm afraid, you cannot sue a court or tribunal acting in its judicial capacity. Under the convention, you can sue a member state for breaching its convention obligations in the European Court, but that would be a suit against the United Kingdom on the basis that UK law has caused a breach of the OP's convention rights, so the case would be OP vs United Kingdom (As ECHR cases always are).

I suspect such a suit would be unsuccessful because for proceedings of a summary or administrative nature, the ECHR has previously allowed two years where there is no special urgency (such as child proceedings etc...). Sure waiting 10-14 months isn't great, but in other European countries that's the norm.


Thanks, well wxplained
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434937 · Replies: 20 · Views: 271

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 17:31) *
Wih respect, the answer is in the decision:

In the absence of any direct evidence of a failure to observe the policy I am reliant on the logic of Mr. Campbell’s argument to infer that the EA did not have regard to it,


that no decision-maker who had regard to the guidance could have proceeded to enforce the PCN. It is quite marginal as to whether less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box; the decision maker was entitled to treat is as a marginal case. Even if s/he had accepted that less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box, as I read the guidance it requires the decision-maker to exercise a discretion. The guidance does not stipulate in which way the discretion should be applied

So do not let the matter rest with having to be determined by the adj, YOU MUST put the matter to the authority. The adj then has the authority's reply to consider and their guesswork is not needed.

Put the question smartly

Given that **** states **** and given that the facts of this case as shown in the video evidence show **** then I submit that my circumstances fall within **** and that the policy of the council requires that *******.

If the authority do not consider that **** applies then they must respond in detail to the following:
Do the authority:
Accept that the *** is 'large' for the purposes of the policy;
Accept that *******

OP, do you get my drift?

You do not leave it all until the last minute at adjudication, you would inevitably lose for the reasons above.


this case if anyone's interested

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....Z6egVqtFSUvioW8


HCA your point is well made . I have the council summary if it is of interest
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434935 · Replies: 16 · Views: 220

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03) *
Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN

I suspect the tribunal would simply claim judicial immunity. With the exception of judicial review proceedings, you cannot sue a court or tribunal which is acting in its judicial capacity.


from the link I would suggest the ECHR feels differently
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434902 · Replies: 20 · Views: 271

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 16:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


post the council photos and a GSV
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434899 · Replies: 25 · Views: 256

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Read the link I posted at #2 then claim compensation from the tribunal at least to the cost of the PCN
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434880 · Replies: 20 · Views: 271

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 14:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Every raised pavement has tactile paving, you will be hard pressed to argue they are speed humps
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434878 · Replies: 3 · Views: 76

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 14:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Start your appeal with something like this

I made representations to the effect that I had a clear exit from the box, but a taxi cut across me from the right taking that space. The council rejected this representation stating that this happened before I had entered the box.

Strictly this may be correct however examination of the video shows it happened within a vehicle length before entry to the box by my vehicle. There was only one second between the taxi cutting in front of me and my entry to the box.

In the traffic conditions prevalent at the time, I contend and would do so with experience that it would be impossible for me to stop in a normal safe manner in such a short distance and time. As such I had to enter the front of the box to avoid the risk of an accident.

Having been forced to enter the front of the box and thus being in contravention I made a decision to attempt to clear the box. The taxi now in front of me being still moving at that time. I then, seeing that there would not be enough space moved to the right and attempted to clear as much of the box as possible. This action I believe minimised any disruption to traffic flow brought about by the actions of the taxi drivers lack of consideration to others

In summary I contend that,
My entry to the box was clear on approach
On entry to the box I was cut up by a taxi that took the space available to me in my lane
The incursion into the box, once forced upon me was de minimis, mot in the length of time in the box but in effect on traffic management
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434875 · Replies: 88 · Views: 1,413

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 13:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (qaz1 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 10:43) *
would some one please advise, when i appeal to the adjudicater will i need to resubmit my reasons or will they get them from the first appeal to the council. ?

the original appeal letter [and reasons] may be hard to find on my new pc

thanks



you will need to submit an appeal, we will help you draft it but we will need to see the notice of rejextion
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434870 · Replies: 42 · Views: 1,595

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 13:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


a verbal contract you agree is due. Pop round with a cheque
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1434868 · Replies: 12 · Views: 395

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:25) *
I fear the council might content it's a kerb lowered to assist pedestrians in crossing the road. Let's see what they come back with.



Almost undoubtedly, but IMO hard to maintain when if you look at GSV there is a sloping kerb to the right of the driveway, then the lowered section runs for 40 metres to the grass verge where there is no discernible sloping kerb. There is no tactile paving and only driveways opposite
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434866 · Replies: 14 · Views: 218

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 10:28) *
If there is a policy document published by the council, then it binds officers of the enforcement authority.

In EVERY case where officers of the enforcement suthority have prima facie failed to comply with such a policy or where an owner's defence is that the exemption in such a policy applies then the question must be put in reps and full appeal, and keep asking until an answer is forthcoming.

Do not just say...they haven't complied, give the adjudicator more to go on.


Here's the decision for the case I appealed


2180222175

Mr. Campbell appeals against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the requirements of a ‘box junction’, contrary to paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (“the Regulation”).
The CCTV evidence shows Mr. Campbell’s vehicle entered the box junction fairly slowly at a green light. The traffic at the other side of the box junction was already stationary. Mr. Campbell slowed to a halt behind the vehicle ahead, with some of his car remaining stationary within the box junction for a few seconds. Mr. Campbell’s account was that, due to the nature of the rise and curvature of the road, it was very difficult to see if there was sufficient space between the far side of the box junction and the vehicle ahead. I accept that. I also accept that he stopped with a gap between his vehicle and the vehicle ahead so that the vehicles did not come into contact if the vehicle ahead rolled back a little.
I have had regard to the wording of the Regulation and to the case of Gillingham v. LB Newham et al which interprets it. The Regulation states:
“11 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(7) A reference in this paragraph (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within the box junction.”
The Regulation means in effect that the motorist must not enter the box junction unless there is sufficient space beyond it for him or her to clear the box junction entirely, even if the vehicle ahead were to stop unexpectedly. The motorist who enters the box junction when there is insufficient space beyond it takes the risk that, if the vehicle ahead were to stop, his or her vehicle would have to stop wholly or partially within the box. In those circumstances, the contravention would occur.
I have also had regard to the Highway Code, rule 150, which, although it does not have the status of law, is useful guidance. The Highway Code, at point 150, informs motorists that ‘you MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear’.
The CCTV evidence in this case demonstrates a clear contravention of the prohibition on stopping within a box junction. When Mr. Campbell entered the box junction the road ahead was not ‘clear’ - in the sense that there was demonstrably sufficient space beyond the box junction for Mr. Campbell to clear it without colliding with the vehicle ahead. Although I accept it may have been difficult to judge the space available, Mr. Campbell should have waited until his exit from the box was demonstrably clear for his whole vehicle before entering it. In entering the box junction without a clear exit the risk is, as transpired in this case, that insufficient space is available behind the vehicle ahead and the vehicle in question, or part of it, is ‘trapped’ in the box junction. The reason Mr. Campbell stopped partially within the box junction is, self-evidently, due to the presence of the stationary vehicle or vehicles ahead. But for the presence of stationary vehicles Mr. Campbell’s vehicle would have been able to move forward. I do not accept that the period in which the vehicle stopped was ‘de minimis’. In any event, it is not necessary for the enforcement authority (EA) to prove that the period in which the vehicle stopped was more than de minimis, or that an obstruction was caused, although these are relevant to the next point Mr. Campbell raises. The contravention is proved.
Mr. Campbell raises a further interesting point that arises from the EA’s regard (or alleged lack of it) to its guidance on the enforcement of penalties for alleged contraventions of the requirements of a box junction. Mr. Campbell says that the EA’s failure to have regard to its own policy or guidance, and to act fairly in accordance with it, renders the PCN unenforceable. Assuming that I have jurisdiction to entertain such a ‘collateral challenge’ to the PCN, I proceed to deal with the argument on its merits. I quote from the relevant guidance, which is the LBHF Box Junction Enforcement Guidance ver. 3 2007:
“9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction….”
It is Mr. Campbell’s case that, given it was a large type box junction, and less than 50% of his vehicle was over the box and was not causing an obstruction, the EA cannot have had regard to the guidance. If it had, acting fairly, it would have cancelled the PCN.
There is a presumption that a public body has had regard to its own policy unless the contrary is proved (see PCSU v. Minister for the Cabinet Office [2017] EWHC 1787 (Admin)). In the absence of any direct evidence of a failure to observe the policy I am reliant on the logic of Mr. Campbell’s argument to infer that the EA did not have regard to it, because no decision maker who had had regard to it could have reached the decision it did.
I accept that the box junction in question is ‘large’. I also accept, on my view of the evidence, that (slightly) less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box and it was not causing an obstruction. I am not able to accept, however, that no decision-maker who had regard to the guidance could have proceeded to enforce the PCN. It is quite marginal as to whether less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box; the decision maker was entitled to treat is as a marginal case. Even if s/he had accepted that less than 50% of the vehicle was over the box, as I read the guidance it requires the decision-maker to exercise a discretion. The guidance does not stipulate in which way the discretion should be applied. Some decision-makers would have exercised the discretion in favour of Mr. Campbell. In this case the discretion was exercised, perhaps strictly but fairly, against him. The guidance is, after all, just that. It is not a set of hard and fast rules. Despite Mr. Campbell’s diligent research and persuasive submissions, I am not, therefore, persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA failed to have regard to its own policy or guidance or to act fairly.




I think the OP in this case could fall foul of the same reasoning
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434862 · Replies: 16 · Views: 220

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Not sure about the legality of the sign The norm would be except in marked bays not a "P" symbol
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434856 · Replies: 20 · Views: 205

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


first post the documents you have. they sound like charge certificates, and you cannot appeal against them. But if you can show you had a live account with funds available then Dart are known to be reasonable
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434788 · Replies: 6 · Views: 122

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I think I would still try it but need some case law on a councils public law duty and on legitimate expectation. I know its out there but no chance to look till next week at best
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434785 · Replies: 16 · Views: 220

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 22:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,074
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I made quite a strong appeal at this location in another case with very similar circumstances. It lost


Appeal against the imposition of Penalty charge number xxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark aa 23 cde.

I made my representation against this PCN in the belief that the council, seeing that from the position my vehicle stopped, it could cause no obstruction to the flow of traffic and that the council would apply their own policy. I was sadly disabused by the rejection. Somewhat upset by this I undertook some research and sought advice and would appeal as follows. Firstly under the Statutory ground that

There was no contravention of a prescribed order

The video takes pictures from a hight looking down upon the traffic, unlike myself looking from road level. It appeared to me upon the traffic lights changing, there was both room for the range rover in front to move forward, and for me also to have moved slightly forward to clear the box. It is my submission that I believed that I had cleared the box, and that had I known differently, there was room for me to move forward and do so, Albeit this would be a tight fit.

I would contend that the second limb of the contravention is not made out. In the alternative, I submit that the principle of de minimis non curat lex can apply, both in respect of the amount of transgression of the box. Only the rear wheels being within the box. And also the amount of time stationary (approximately four seconds) is too trivial to warrant a penalty.

I also make a collateral challenge under the ground that

The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

That the council fail in their common law duty to act fairly. The council publish a guidance document for yellow box junction enforcement. At chapter 9 it says “ On larger type box junctions cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box junction should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction.” For small boxes this is reduced to 25% I would refer the adjudicator to paragraph two of page two of the Notice of rejection. The statement that “The rigidity of enforcement is equal across every square metre of the box”. Whilst this must of course be the position in law, it make a mockery of the council guidance. This is followed by the statement “While your vehicle would not be be seen as causing as much of an obstruction as one in the centre of the box it would still cause an obstruction”. This as can be seen from the attached GSV, from the council video and stills taken from it, is disingenuous to say the least. No obstruction was or even could be caused to any vehicle that had a legal right of access to the box.

I would contend that this particular box falls into the definition of larger, but either way less than 25% of my car encroached into the box.

A council as a public body has an overriding duty at common law to act fairly at all times. For this reason once a guidance policy has been agreed by the council it is not for individual officers to arability step outside it. There must be good reason that policy is not followed, and this must be explained. The council have at best cited a spurious reason this is not acting fairly, nor is it taking the guidance at its word “SHOULD” have discretion applied This can only mean that the default position should be to apply this discretion not ignore it, as has been done here,

The council have failed in their common law duty. As such the cannot seek to enforce a penalty on the back of that failing.

I respectfully ask that having given consideration to these submissions, the councils policy document, video stills and attached GSV you will find either or both of these reasons sufficient to order cancellation of this PCN

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5044308,-...3312!8i6656

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5072...er%203.doc.html
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1434779 · Replies: 16 · Views: 220

560 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: Tuesday, 20th November 2018 - 12:35
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.