Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ NO PCN affixed, received NTO, rejected representation

Posted by: Hypaspist Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 20:31
Post #1474402

Hello to everyone,

I would like to have your opinion on whether I should appeal to the independent adjudicator or not.

One day I received an NTO (attached) in mail out of the blue. It was about my failure to pay the PCN that was issued 1 month ago for parking in a marked bay area on a street in Bristol without paying and displaying a ticket. I indeed had parked there, after 21:00 but was under the impression that parking was free after 18:00. Regardless, my first surprise was the fact that there was no PCN affixed to my car at the time, which explains why I haven't attempted to pay it.

Now the NTO says that because I haven't paid in the first 14 days, the penalty is £50. Naturally, I appealed formally. In my appeal I stated that:

  1. The photo presented by the parking warden shows a blurry and distorted image of the front windscreen with a piece of paper under the right wiper. I assume this piece of paper to be the PCN, but regardless of this, nothing was attached on the windscreen as expected when I entered the vehicle.
  2. Anyone could have taken the piece of paper, it could have been blown away by the strong wind of that night or simply be a fake as the picture shown as evidence doesn't prove that it was a legit PCN
  3. The parking sign is not clearly visible. There is a parking sign that promts to check the ticket machine further than 10m away, deep within evergreen hedge that is private property.
  4. No other cars where parked next to mine or behind mine, all parking places where empty, includingthe side of the road with single yellow line behind my car. I could have parked there.


Explanation why I appealed to these points:
Point 1) The picture is so blurry that I dont even know if it is a legit PCN or not. If it wasn't, that would explain why the traffic warden didn't want to leave it and never actually did
Point 2) The picture shows this piece of paper left under my wiper. Not stuck on the windscreen as usual for Bristol but just left there. Either someone took it just for fun or actually it is their policy to never leave it in order for citizens to have to pay the increased penalty and therefore make more money.
Point 3) They follow up in the notice of rejection by saying that the signage of entering a CPZ was 5m away. No it is not. It is more like 10m away, 5 car widths, right next to hedges which have overgrown their space and therefore hiding it. There is a HUGE sign about new road layout in the middle of the pavement yet they opted to put the more important parking sign at the edge of the parking area, next to an evergreen hedge.
Point 4) I must be really stupid to park in a park and display zone illegally since I was the only car around and there are single yellow lines 10m away where I could have parked legally and free. This argues that their sign is not visible on a poorly lit street in the middle of the night!

I have received their rejection and a few points seem a bit over the line.
  1. They mention it is my responsibility to locate the signage. How? Take a pair of clippers and clip the hell out of someone's hedge? Following the NTO, I made a formal complain to the council to do something about the issue. They replied that it is a matter for the parking services. I replied that it is NOT, it is a matter of the quality and state of the road, to which they replied that " it is up to the landlord to maintain their vegetation. Notwithstanding, we have forwarded your service request to the neighbourhood enforcement team. They may contact you in due course." I never head back from that.
  2. Following my comments, they now allow me to pay the reduced rate, whereas previously they demanded the full rate. HOWEVER, if I dare apply to the adjudicator, my case will be examined with the full penalty! I consider this to be somewhat blackmailing.
  3. They mention that the "charging hours are displayed on road signs located on all entry points to the CPZ. The sign was approximately 5 m the rear of where the vehicle was parked" Firstly, there are no signs in the entry points to the CPZ. The only sign 5m away from where I parked says "Pay at machine", no hours. And what does the "rear of the vehicle" mean? There are no signs behind or infront of the parking area!



I am attaching all the pictures I can. I apologise for the lack of information but Im trying to be as discreet as possible.
I would like to know your opinion on pushing further with this and where should I focus my attention to. Do I have a case or do I count my loses and succumb to the reduced penalty?

Thank you in advance













Posted by: Hypaspist Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 20:45
Post #1474403

A bit of context for the photos

No1 shows a clearly visible sign that tells you when you can park on the yellow line.
No2-4 shows where I parked (the red car), the huge sign about the new layout, the poor lighting, the overgrown hedge and at the very end a small hidden sign
No5-7 The NTO and rejection received
No8-9 The area where I parked (green) and where the closest sign is (red). You can also see all the available marked bays (which were all empty at the time) and the available space with yellow line behing where I parked.
No10 The closest pic of the issued "PCN". Other photos exist but they show the car, its number, no-one parked next to it, the machine, a snap of the sign as I took it but more blurry (this guy must be suffering from Parkinson's or something) and a test ticket to prove that the machine works.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 20:47
Post #1474404

The only thing you need to redact from the NTO is your name and address and if you are bothered reg and PCN number we need everything else same with the notice of rejection

re post them with the needed details left in and also post the rest of the pages. There is a flaw with Bristol but cant tell if it applies to you.

Whilst you have a responsibility to look for signs the council have a responsibility not to hide them. I think you have a case but cant yet be sure

Posted by: Hypaspist Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 21:07
Post #1474410

Fair enough. I was overly protective

Here are some new ones. I snapped everything that is written







The only pages I didn't include was a couple that are basically a hard copy of a form for Representation to Notice to Owner, which I did online. One thing I did notice on that was that it goes from page 2 to page 4. There is no page 3. I can see Page 1 of 4, 2 of 4, 4 of 4 but no 3 of 4. Not sure how important this is.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 21:47
Post #1474421

IMO you should fight on.

The council use an 0870 number for payment, this is a surcharge that has been ruled illegal in the high court.

The council say they will issue a charge certificate if payment or appeal are not made. This has been found to be a failure to comply with the regulations that say only that they MAY issue

the council do not comply with the regulations by not siting adequate signage to inform of the restriction, the also mislead you as to the times. A CPZ controls only yellow lines not parking bays

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 10:22
Post #1474490

Your first post stated:

I indeed had parked there, after 21:00 but was under the impression that parking was free after 18:00.

And yet your thread is silent on exactly why you were under this impression.

IMO, their reference to CPZ is simply adding context i.e. informing you that the waiting and parking restriction tmes are aligned. It is their first statement which is your problem: all parking places are signed and the times are on the machines.


So, thinking that the parking place was free after 1800 implies you knew it was a parking place!

I parked, I assumed, I didn't look. Or I parked, I looked but I couldn't find?

@PMB, 'The council use an 0870 number for payment, this is a surcharge that has been ruled illegal in the high court.'

I don't thnk it's as cut and dried as you imply, and we know that adjs are not of one mind on this point. The OP should not, IMO, think they hold all the aces on this point.



Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 12:19
Post #1474533

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 21:47) *
IMO you should fight on.

The council use an 0870 number for payment, this is a surcharge that has been ruled illegal in the high court.

The council say they will issue a charge certificate if payment or appeal are not made. This has been found to be a failure to comply with the regulations that say only that they MAY issue

the council do not comply with the regulations by not siting adequate signage to inform of the restriction, the also mislead you as to the times. A CPZ controls only yellow lines not parking bays


Thanks for your suggestions. I didn't know all this. I'll look them up and include them in my case to the adjudicator.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 10:22) *
Your first post stated:

I indeed had parked there, after 21:00 but was under the impression that parking was free after 18:00.

And yet your thread is silent on exactly why you were under this impression.

IMO, their reference to CPZ is simply adding context i.e. informing you that the waiting and parking restriction tmes are aligned. It is their first statement which is your problem: all parking places are signed and the times are on the machines.


So, thinking that the parking place was free after 1800 implies you knew it was a parking place!

I parked, I assumed, I didn't look. Or I parked, I looked but I couldn't find?

@PMB, 'The council use an 0870 number for payment, this is a surcharge that has been ruled illegal in the high court.'

I don't thnk it's as cut and dried as you imply, and we know that adjs are not of one mind on this point. The OP should not, IMO, think they hold all the aces on this point.



"Assumed" as in there was no other visible sign other than the yellow one (first attached pic) that allows parking outside of Mon-Sat 8am-6pm. That sign was clearly out in the open and visible from afar. The proper one was not.

What am I supposed to do in these situations? Walk up and down the block till I find something?
My argument is that the sign should be visible, in public space. It is positioned adjacent to private property and the council should either trim the hedge or (if it isn't their responsibility) force the building management to do it or move the sign.

I know it is not to my defence but I didn't get my driving licence in the UK and I am not so familiar with such parking peculiarities. I doubt anywhere else they would fine a single car parked with so many empty free spaces around other than for monetary gains, especially when the whole process is so sketchy. Under the driving regulations of my country, there is no distinction between something that is a parking place (parking bay or whatever you call it) and an area you can park on but is not such a place. The only exception is signage that states places for disabled, motorbikes etc which are universal.

From a safety perspective, I believe that given the low usage of the particular bays at that time of day, the available single-lined space around them, the low-lighting, dual traffic direction and nearby construction site, I made the safest possible parking choice. Its not a lawful argument, but this is how I feel against their policy to address this issue in the most sketchy way.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 13:36
Post #1474557

OP, luckily I have a thick skin, but try 'What am I supposed to do in these situations? Walk up and down the block till I find something?' with the authority or the adj and you would get short shrift and 4 Noes.

You are required to look diligently for the parking place sign which regulates the location and not rely on a waiting restriction sign placed outside the parking place which any holder of a driving licence should and is presumed in law to know has nothing to do with parking places.

I think this just about covers it.

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 13:54
Post #1474567

Who said I didn't look diligently? I showed as much care and attention as possible. What if someone had unscrewed the sign and it fell on the floor? Would I be expected to search for it?
The warden wasn't also diligent about his job, either faked or placed poorly a PCN and took poor evidence. Yet, I am the only one taking the blame?
Does the law dictate that any place marked with white dotted lines is a pay n display parking space? I learned that they must be accompanied by an appropriate sign in visible space, otherwise it is free and the markings are there to outline parking so that people park efficiently.

I acknowledge and respect your opinion but considering all factors in play and the reluctance of the council to address the main issue which is the poor placement and maintenance of signage, I do not agree with it.

Just to be clear on this. I didn't park there because I saw the sign to be hidden and thought I could get away with it. I genuinely had no indication that the said area was controlled and made the best judgement considering the circumstances. I think this was clarified when I said that if there was clearer signage about that area requiring a ticket, I would have parked literally 2m away from it, as there were no cars around mine in a 15m radius. That is visible in their photo evidence from that night.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 16:49
Post #1474945

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 12:19) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 21:47) *
IMO you should fight on.

The council use an 0870 number for payment, this is a surcharge that has been ruled illegal in the high court.

The council say they will issue a charge certificate if payment or appeal are not made. This has been found to be a failure to comply with the regulations that say only that they MAY issue

the council do not comply with the regulations by not siting adequate signage to inform of the restriction, the also mislead you as to the times. A CPZ controls only yellow lines not parking bays


Thanks for your suggestions. I didn't know all this. I'll look them up and include them in my case to the adjudicator.

I would strongly advise against you arguing your case on the 0870 ground on your own, this is a novel technical point and you only have a realistic chance of success if you let one of us write the appeal for you. As a general rule, you should always run any drafts before us before submitting anything to the tribunal, we've seen a lot of cases being lost because people thought they'd go it alone.

Posted by: Hypaspist Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 19:21
Post #1474965

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 17:49) *
I would strongly advise against you arguing your case on the 0870 ground on your own, this is a novel technical point and you only have a realistic chance of success if you let one of us write the appeal for you. As a general rule, you should always run any drafts before us before submitting anything to the tribunal, we've seen a lot of cases being lost because people thought they'd go it alone.



I thought these appeals were supposed to be kept simple and non-technical as a simple citizen might be able to write them.
Anyways, this is the appeal I was thinking of sending:

QUOTE
Dear adjudicator,
I am appealing to the PCN XXXXX concerning the vehicle XXXX. On the 5/3/19 I received via post an NTO, claiming that a contravention occurred on the 24/1/19 on Redcliff Street, for which I had no prior indication. It is claimed that I failed to pay the PCN served and therefore the NTO was sent and I am requested to pay the total sum of £50 instead of the reduced sum of £25. This is the first point of procedural impropriety, as the PCN was not affixed (stuck, attached or fastened according to Cambridge dictionary) nor handed over to the driver. Evidence No 3 shows what I assume to be the PCN placed under the wiper. I speculate that the said PCN was either removed by someone or never actually properly served, as to this day I have not seen the original or a copy of it. The NTO is also addressed to “XXX ZZZ”, not “XXX YYY ZZZ” which is my full legal name.
I have also underlined the fact that the council is responsible for maintaining road signage in good condition, according to road regulations, as the signage that prompted for pay and display ticket was and is heavily obscured by a private evergreen and overgrown hedge. I have also made a formal complain about it to the appropriate council service (Evidence No 20) but to this day the problem is not addressed (Evidence No 8).
I have made a formal representation to the council parking service noting the poor quality of evidence, the way the PCN was served and the obstruction of the sign. On the 29/3/19 I received a NOR (Evidence No 10-12) stating that “the charging hours are displayed on road signs located on all entry points to the CPZ. The sign was approximately 5 meters the rear of where the vehicle was parked”. This is false. The sign in question does not mention hours, is not located on any entry point and is not 5 meters away from the rear of the vehicle. Evidence No 18 shows it is located approximately 4 car lengths to the right of the vehicle, which is about 8 meters. The matter of the obstructed sign was not addressed. No copy of the served PCN was presented, I was given a 50% reduction in good faith but I find the wording of the NOR marginally blackmailing in that it deters me from appealing to TPT if I wish to pay the discounted amount.
I have also taken advice on the matter and wish to raise the following contraventions:
Evidence No 14 shows a 0870 number for paying by telephone.
Evidence No 11 states that they “will serve a Charge Certificate” and not “may serve”
Evidence No 13-16 shows what listed as Page 1 of 4, 2 of 4 and 4 of 4 on the page margins. There is no page 3 of 4.
The rest of evidence provided support my case of poor maintenance of the sign in question.


The evidence no XX is referring to the evidence uploaded to their system but it is essentially what I have shown above.
Which points do you think I should alter or remove?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 20:49
Post #1474978

You can walk into an adjudication as a poor common soul and say I parked looked and couldn't see a sign but if you are going to argue a technical legal point, you need to argue it fully



This is an example of a 087 number appeal. To have any chance of success you would need something similar



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



The issue of a council requiring payment of a surcharge came before parking adjudicators at PATAS in 2009 the London borough of Camden for a period in 2008 and 2009 required that in order to make payment by credit card a surcharge of 1.3% would need also to be paid. Four cases were taken before the parking adjudicators who found that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Because more than 100% of the penalty set by statute was required to be paid in order to satisfy the debt.

Camden applied for judicial review and this was heard by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) (appendix 1)

The judge in his ruling summarises Camden's case thus

Did the Penalty Amount Exceed the Amount Applicable?
27. Mr Coppel's argument on behalf of the Council embarks from the legal nature of a credit card transaction. That involves the credit card company having separate contracts with the cardholder and the supplier of goods or services. Under the arrangement the supplier of goods or services agrees to accept payment by credit card in discharge of the cardholder's liability to him. The credit card holder agrees to pay the full price of the goods to the card company, albeit at a later date and subject to interest if not paid promptly. The supplier of goods or services agrees to pay to the card provider a percentage of the total cost of the goods or services provided. In this instance the percentage agreed was 1.3% so that for every £100 paid by motorists via credit card, the Council received £98.70.[1] The Council point out that the motorist in these circumstances secures a valuable benefit, namely the delay in having to pay the credit card company albeit that there are substantial benefits to the Council in addition. The general convenience (and thus reduction in administrative overheads) is obvious and importantly the credit card company assumes the risk of non-payment. That is not altogether altruistic, since very high interest is generally charged in the event that a credit card bill is not settled in full at the first opportunity. However, the Council is freed of the problem of chasing bad debts or dealing with bouncing cheques.
28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT did not accept the arguments of Mr coppel on behalf of the council, preferring the case put by Mr Rodgers for the parking adjudicators

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
30. It follows that the challenges in all four cases fail. Those Parking Adjudicators who allowed the appeals by reference to regulation 4(4)(e) were right to do so. The Adjudicators who allowed the appeals on a different basis were, as a matter of law, right to allow the appeals, even if this basis did not form part of the reasoning.

The ruling of the Honourable Mr justice Burnett ( as he then was) make two points, effectively the tests by which the substantive issue can be decided upon.

1:- Do the council require that to make payment by telephone, the motorist would be required to pay more than the statutorily limited penalty.
2:- Is the additional payment to the benefit of the council.
I submit that if the answer to both those points be yes then the service charge levied is a surcharge within the definition of this ruling, and that the statutory ground is met.

Do Cambridgeshire county council, make a service charge

With regard to the first point I would refer the adjudicator to this screenshot taken from an “Ofcom” website

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/how-much-does-a-phone-call-really-cost

The council use for this service a premium rate 0845 telephone number that requires a user to pay an access charge to their service provider and a service charge that is set and for the benefit of the council. The rate set by the council being 7p per minute inclusive of VAT This is revenue raised by the council in addition to the penalty that a user must pay in order to discharge the penalty.

I will note here a sentence within the notice of rejection purporting ot be taken from a decision of an adjudicator. The case and the context in which it was made being unknown.

“ but the issue does not arise in this appeal because Cambridgeshire county council have stated that there is no such service charge and Mr xxxx has produced no evidence to the contrary.”

I do produce evidence (appendix 2,3, and 4 are copies of a response by CCC to a FOI request on this matter in full, though below are the two questions asked and the response

Two points should be noted from the replies

1:- that the amount of 5.8333p per minute equates to 0.7p per minute inclusive of VAT

2:- That whilst the council make the claim that the gross revenue of £1,449.92 does not represent revenue as “ income” this is entirely erroneous. That the amount is used to defray an invoice for a service surely equates to a benefit to the council.

I submit that it is shown that the council do impose a charge in excess of the penalty in order to effect payment by this method and that the council do derive a benefit from this payment and as such the statutory ground is made out.

It is my contention that, as per the honourable Mr justice Burnett (as he then was)

“The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge.”
That the adjudicator should find on this statutory ground as allow the appeal.

Other methods of payment

It could be argued that the council provide other payment methods so the motorist is not obliged to make payment by telephone and thus not be subject to the service charge. His honour deals with this
“It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.”
Is this a normal cost to the motorist or a charge applied by the council

An argument can be made that a person in order to pay any bill by any method incurs a charge (excepting perhaps direct debit, which is not an option in this instance). To send a cheque one must buy a stamp. To pay online, one must buy an internet connection. To pay by cash, one would most likely have to pay for transport and parking. A cost free method of making payment is likely very inconvenient.
On the other hand however the council have a cost in processing these payments, cash itself being a particularly high cost to handle, cheque processing online and telephone processing all have costs associated with them that the council must bear out of the income from penalties. The ruling in Camden proscribes the council from recovering any of these costs by way of service charges as is happening in this case.

His honour Mr justice Burnett (as he then was ) says this
Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender.

De mimimis

The sums ruled upon in Camden might be considered relatively small at 1.3% however the judge did not find this to be a factor in his finding. The sums involved in the case of a telephone service charge could be said to be perhaps smaller still and fall to be decided as de minimis. I submit this cannot be the case. The surcharge is until paid an unknown and is dependent upon the length of the phone call. In normal circumstances dialling, listening to the instructions, entering the card number, the security number, the amount to be paid and the PCN number would take 4 or 5 minutes, but this could easily be extended. A card may be declined or a number entered incorrectly, easily doubling or adding even more time and therefore cost to the transaction. 1.3% of the lowest level penalty charge cited for a level 5 penalty as stated in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 is set at £20 if paid within the discount period. A sum of 0.26p would be the equivalent of 1.3%, and it would be the service charge incurred at the maximum allowed level for 0845 numbers of 0.07p for a call of just under 4 minutes. There was no indication whatsoever in Camden that a de-minimis exception might be allowable if the surcharge were small enough.
Parliament set by statute the level of the penalty, as with any other punitive penalty set by parliament the judiciary are bound by the law and cannot set a sum higher than that prescribed. Civil enforcement sets a penalty that is fixed so it is not open to the council to increase it by any amount, the penalty must be seen as a bright line from which no de minims departure can be allowed, in this regard see Behary, R (On Application) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3575 (Admin) in particular paragraphs 84 to 105 (appendix 5)
In Camden the High Court found in accepting the argument of counsel for the parking adjudicators that:
whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme
The court thus ruled:

It is clear, in my judgement, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal...



Posted by: Hypaspist Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 21:06
Post #1474983

I see
I was trying to stay under the limit of 500 words of their submission system but I guess I will have to develop the 0870 argument more than simply mentioning it and go for option 2 that allows me to upload my statement as a separate text file

The case you posted is a clear argument against surcharge yet I feel that the 0870 number is not the main focus in my case. I am not going to argue against that though, I don't know how the adjudicator thinks

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 22:12
Post #1475001

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 22:06) *
I see
I was trying to stay under the limit of 500 words of their submission system but I guess I will have to develop the 0870 argument more than simply mentioning it and go for option 2 that allows me to upload my statement as a separate text file

The case you posted is a clear argument against surcharge yet I feel that the 0870 number is not the main focus in my case. I am not going to argue against that though, I don't know how the adjudicator thinks


You should make a strong case for the signage being inadequate as your first point. I suggest you copy all submissions to PDF and download to the tribunal that way

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 15:50
Post #1475149

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 22:06) *
I see
I was trying to stay under the limit of 500 words of their submission system but I guess I will have to develop the 0870 argument more than simply mentioning it and go for option 2 that allows me to upload my statement as a separate text file

The case you posted is a clear argument against surcharge yet I feel that the 0870 number is not the main focus in my case. I am not going to argue against that though, I don't know how the adjudicator thinks

The main focus is on the signage. If you put a draft of your appeal on here, I'll write the 0870 bit for you. It needs to be specific to Bristol City Council, so unfortunately you can't just copy/paste what PMB put above.

Posted by: Hypaspist Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 22:19
Post #1475277

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 16:50) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 22:06) *
I see
I was trying to stay under the limit of 500 words of their submission system but I guess I will have to develop the 0870 argument more than simply mentioning it and go for option 2 that allows me to upload my statement as a separate text file

The case you posted is a clear argument against surcharge yet I feel that the 0870 number is not the main focus in my case. I am not going to argue against that though, I don't know how the adjudicator thinks

The main focus is on the signage. If you put a draft of your appeal on here, I'll write the 0870 bit for you. It needs to be specific to Bristol City Council, so unfortunately you can't just copy/paste what PMB put above.


Yes, I understand that. I get it is from a case in court?
I've attached the draft. Thank you for assisting me in this, I must admit Im not familiar with such legal procedures in the UK nor have I ever been to a position to appeal a contravention.

 adj_blind.pdf ( 130.44K ) : 38
 

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 22:27
Post #1475279

Bump tomorrow

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 08:07
Post #1475292

Your appeal is completely wrong in terms of tone, focus and content.

Point 1 is without merit. The PCN was served, get over it. If you start with such a losing argument you will p**s-off the adj. You capture your approach to parking signs very well in your shortened version: The picture is so blurry that I dont even know if it is a legit PCN or not. If it wasn't, that would explain why the traffic warden didn't want to leave it and never actually did This is the type of approach which on its own could see costs being awarded against you. It's all their fault!

The discount was re-offered and this carries weight with adjudicators


Point 2: Op Guidance has been withdrawn; the case you quote refers to a moving traffic contravention, not one where the driver is on foot and cannot be bothered to look for a sign because they, as in your case, have assumed the 'no waiting' restriction applied to a parking place when in law they are chalk and cheese.

Stick with the simple version and do not embellish, adjs love being lectured by unqualified and ill-informed appellants, it gets their days off to a good start, and if they haven't managed breakfast, you'd do!

I parked; I looked for a sign, if true; I did not see one. Forget the no waiting sign, this doesn't help you as regards its contents because it shows a restriction 8am-6pm.

My take:

I parked, I looked, I didn't find.
Even the authority are confused on this point because in their NOR (page 1 paras. 6 and 7) they state:

The charging hours 8am to midnight ..are also displayed on road signs located on all entry points to the Controlled Parking Zone.
The sign was approximately 5 metres to the rear of where you parked.


However, as far as I am aware, a CPZ has effect only as regards waiting and not parking. I therefore cannot follow their reasoning in this regard to reject my representations. Furthermore, the sign in the photo provided with their evidence(is this their photo or yours and have they given you any photos?) shows a stand-alone time plate covering different hours to those mentioned by the authority (*** to ***, not *** to *** as quoted in their NOR) which presumably formed part of their reasoning.

No matter how many times I read this part of their NOR, I still cannot understand the point of their reasoning given that in reality apparently the only relevant sign is that hidden in the undergrowth which states ******. No hours are mentioned whatsoever and in my case, having not seen this sign, hours on a ticket machine located elsewhere have little relevance.

This is the substantive part of my appeal as regards the contravention. However, for completeness I would also bring the following procedural errors to the adjudicator's attention:
In para. *** they refer to 'will serve a charge certificate'. As I understand it, this is not mandated by the regulations which instead require the authority to convey the meaning that they may continue enforcement, which implies that have determined even at this stage that they will not and would not exercise their continuing power of discretion.
I would also mention their use of an **** tel. no. because ...... and their failure to advise in their written NOR that the adjudicator has the power to register late appeals.

My focus would be the difficulty of finding the governing sign, everything else is a consequence, combined with their flawed reasoning (probably the third or fourth time I've used this word) plus the procedural improprieties(which may swing the game on their own, but not if you get the adj's back up!)

Can you pl confirm what photographic evidence they've supplied.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 08:57
Post #1475300

+1 on that approach.

IIRC we have had difficulties with adjudicators on this patch accepting a will/may procedural impropriety. So I would be careful how that ground of appeal is worded. Something like this:-

The NOR is a nullity because it does not substantially comply with the legislation. The NOR states the Council 'will serve a charge certificate' whereas the legislation mandates that it may serve such a document. This irregularity may be viewed as trivial but in Herron V Sunderland (Appeal) , Paragraph 37, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton stated that the test is not if irregularities are trivial, it is whether there is substantial compliance with statutory definition.

Furthermore, the regulations require the authority to convey the meaning that they may continue enforcement, which implies that have determined even at this stage that they will not and would not exercise their continuing power of discretion.


Mick


Posted by: Hypaspist Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 11:14
Post #1475342

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:07) *
Your appeal is completely wrong in terms of tone, focus and content.

Point 1 is without merit. The PCN was served, get over it. If you start with such a losing argument you will p**s-off the adj. You capture your approach to parking signs very well in your shortened version: The picture is so blurry that I dont even know if it is a legit PCN or not. If it wasn't, that would explain why the traffic warden didn't want to leave it and never actually did This is the type of approach which on its own could see costs being awarded against you. It's all their fault!

I am talking about the picture of the car, not the picture of the sign. How is my approach to parking signs conveyed by my comments on the poor quality of evidence regarding the serving of the PCN. I didn't get a PCN, the timing backs it up, the evidence of serving it is not strong, why wouldn't this raise suspicions to the adjudicator? I thought he is supposed to be neutral.

I actually have a theory why the warden wouldn't want to leave the PCN on. By not leaving it on, I am not aware of it and therefore dont have the option of paying the discounted rate. This brings in more money to the council. There was a survey a month ago about raising council tax up to a maximum of 4%. The rationale was that the council is in deficit. The result was that citizens wanted the maximum allowed increase (a bit hard to believe but anyway). But I don't want to accuse the council of this to the adjudicator.

Can you think of any reason why the warden wouldn't want to stick it on the windshield? It is actually shown in the photo that he put it under the wiper, didn't stick it. Now I know for a fact that the pockets they use in Bristol have a sticky coating at the back. Why wouldn't he use it? I've seen many cars being served a PCN stuck to the glass. Why not mine? The reason why Im commenting on the quality of the photo is because no one can tell even if it writes Penalty Charge Notice or Parking Charge Notice or anything in that matter. So I can't really argue whether it is a legitimate PCN. There have been cases where it is not.

On a side note, there is a case on this forum where evidence of the warden NOT leaving a PCN is caught on CCTV: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104039
The statutory guidance https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609788/statutory-guidance-local-authorities-enforcement-parking-contraventions.pdf states that "Wherever possible drivers should be made aware of a parking contravention
at the time. People should be able to examine the scene for themselves, so that they can understand the contravention. Therefore, the penalty charge notice must either be fixed to the vehicle or given to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle," How leaving it under the wiper is fixed? Isn't this a strong argument?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:07) *
The discount was re-offered and this carries weight with adjudicators

Yet they say if I appeal to an adjudicator the case WILL be heard at the original cost. The adjudicators say the penalty MAY raise to the original.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:07) *
Point 2: Op Guidance has been withdrawn; the case you quote refers to a moving traffic contravention, not one where the driver is on foot and cannot be bothered to look for a sign because they, as in your case, have assumed the 'no waiting' restriction applied to a parking place when in law they are chalk and cheese.

In both cases there is no visible signage. I didn't see the law specifying visibility for signs affecting moving vehicles vs stationary ones. Is there another case I could refer to?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:07) *
Stick with the simple version and do not embellish, adjs love being lectured by unqualified and ill-informed appellants, it gets their days off to a good start, and if they haven't managed breakfast, you'd do!

I parked; I looked for a sign, if true; I did not see one. Forget the no waiting sign, this doesn't help you as regards its contents because it shows a restriction 8am-6pm.

I didn't get that about the lecture part. In what way am I lecturing? Because I supply case numbers? (I thought Im supposed to) Because I make an argument about affixed?
Also, are you implying that I lie about looking for a sign? I don't lie. Lets get that clear.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:07) *
My take:

I parked, I looked, I didn't find.
Even the authority are confused on this point because in their NOR (page 1 paras. 6 and 7) they state:

The charging hours 8am to midnight ..are also displayed on road signs located on all entry points to the Controlled Parking Zone.
The sign was approximately 5 metres to the rear of where you parked.


However, as far as I am aware, a CPZ has effect only as regards waiting and not parking. I therefore cannot follow their reasoning in this regard to reject my representations. Furthermore, the sign in the photo provided with their evidence(is this their photo or yours and have they given you any photos?) shows a stand-alone time plate covering different hours to those mentioned by the authority (*** to ***, not *** to *** as quoted in their NOR) which presumably formed part of their reasoning.

No matter how many times I read this part of their NOR, I still cannot understand the point of their reasoning given that in reality apparently the only relevant sign is that hidden in the undergrowth which states ******. No hours are mentioned whatsoever and in my case, having not seen this sign, hours on a ticket machine located elsewhere have little relevance.

This is the substantive part of my appeal as regards the contravention. However, for completeness I would also bring the following procedural errors to the adjudicator's attention:
In para. *** they refer to 'will serve a charge certificate'. As I understand it, this is not mandated by the regulations which instead require the authority to convey the meaning that they may continue enforcement, which implies that have determined even at this stage that they will not and would not exercise their continuing power of discretion.
I would also mention their use of an **** tel. no. because ...... and their failure to advise in their written NOR that the adjudicator has the power to register late appeals.

My focus would be the difficulty of finding the governing sign, everything else is a consequence, combined with their flawed reasoning (probably the third or fourth time I've used this word) plus the procedural improprieties(which may swing the game on their own, but not if you get the adj's back up!)

Can you pl confirm what photographic evidence they've supplied.

Thank you for this input, it is most meaningful to me. If I do come out as naive or harsh in my approach I may be doing so because a) this is a process completely new to me in the UK and elsewhere so I don't know the specifics of the appropriate language and b) Im not a native speaker, one word might have a slightly different meaning to me and the way I use it.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 09:57) *
+1 on that approach.

IIRC we have had difficulties with adjudicators on this patch accepting a will/may procedural impropriety. So I would be careful how that ground of appeal is worded. Something like this:-

The NOR is a nullity because it does not substantially comply with the legislation. The NOR states the Council 'will serve a charge certificate' whereas the legislation mandates that it may serve such a document. This irregularity may be viewed as trivial but in Herron V Sunderland (Appeal) , Paragraph 37, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton stated that the test is not if irregularities are trivial, it is whether there is substantial compliance with statutory definition.

Furthermore, the regulations require the authority to convey the meaning that they may continue enforcement, which implies that have determined even at this stage that they will not and would not exercise their continuing power of discretion.


Mick


Thanks for that!

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 14:31
Post #1475411

OP, we still need to see all the authority's photos clearly separated from GSV snapshots and yours.

Posted by: Hypaspist Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 14:44
Post #1475414

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 15:31) *
OP, we still need to see all the authority's photos clearly separated from GSV snapshots and yours.


Here you go. 11 photos that the warden has provided. I only removed the licence plate. In most of them you can tell the number so there's no point arguing this is not the car. Hope you don't mind I uploaded it as a zip file. I had issues lately with tinypic

 New_folder.zip ( 754.19K ) : 33
 

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 19:55
Post #1475494

Having read your appeal, I agree with everything hcandersen has said. Redraft your appeal along the lines he suggests and post a new draft.

Posted by: Hypaspist Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 22:59
Post #1475545

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 20:55) *
Having read your appeal, I agree with everything hcandersen has said. Redraft your appeal along the lines he suggests and post a new draft.


I have removed a lot of stuff (mainly references to statutes etc so as to not to appear aggressive yet unqualified), included the points from @hcandersen and @Mad Mick V and this is the 2nd draft

I need to revisit the photo references though, to make sure they match up

 adj_blind_v2.pdf ( 109.82K ) : 26
 

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 12:12
Post #1475632

There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.

Posted by: Hypaspist Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 13:41
Post #1475667

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 13:12) *
There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.


I can send the editable copy early this evening.

What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly. I thought that messing up someone's name is enough to render the documents invalid. I even saw some cases in this forum where the title is Mr instead of Ms. And actually my name, without the 2nd first name, is fairly common.

Im starting to get the vibe that the adjudicators are not exactly as neutral as they are supposed to be. Basically any small detail that I can pick up as wrong will annoy him whereas the CEO not even being able to get a decent photo evidence is fine by him?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 13:50
Post #1475669

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 14:41) *
What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly.

The adjudicators are impartial but will only consider substantive issues as having merit. If your name were spelt wrong to such an extent as you could be in genuine doubt as to whether the paperwork was directed at you, you'd have a strong case. As you know you're the intended recipient, arguing over your middle name (or second first name or whatever) will be seen as nothing more than just trying it on, indeed if you were to appeal on that ground alone you would be risking an adverse order for costs.

The adjudicators are impartial, it makes no difference to them whether you win or lose so they have no reason not to be.

Posted by: Hypaspist Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 14:16
Post #1475681

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 14:50) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 14:41) *
What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly.

The adjudicators are impartial but will only consider substantive issues as having merit. If your name were spelt wrong to such an extent as you could be in genuine doubt as to whether the paperwork was directed at you, you'd have a strong case. As you know you're the intended recipient, arguing over your middle name (or second first name or whatever) will be seen as nothing more than just trying it on, indeed if you were to appeal on that ground alone you would be risking an adverse order for costs.

The adjudicators are impartial, it makes no difference to them whether you win or lose so they have no reason not to be.


Is there a case where this can actually happen?
If someone is called Anne-Marie Smith and the letter is addressed to someone named Anne Smith and you know there are Anne Smiths in general but no-one has obviously the same car, licence plate and live in the same address as you, when would this have merit? Obviously, they got your car in photo evidence, then from the licence plate found your details. So if they wrote the name wrong then surely the fault is with the DVLA or the parking services.

I'm not asking as to argue for putting this in the appeal but to get a sense on how are arguments graded for merit. Would you argue for example that you're not the person the NTO is addressed to if there was nothing else to base your appeal on?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 16:16
Post #1475732

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 15:16) *
Would you argue for example that you're not the person the NTO is addressed to if there was nothing else to base your appeal on?

If that were the only basis of appeal, I would recommend paying the discount.

Posted by: Hypaspist Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 17:20
Post #1475755

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 13:12) *
There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.


Here's the 2nd draft in docx format
I removed the wrong name part as suggested.

 adj_blind_v2.zip ( 17.81K ) : 29
 

Posted by: Hypaspist Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 19:39
Post #1475787

.

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 13:30
Post #1476173

bump

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 16:01
Post #1476208

Can't access on my ipad, I'm afraid.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 16:25
Post #1476214

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 14:30) *
bump


Not got time to reread the thread just now. What is the date of the notice of rejection of the representations against the NTO

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 17:12
Post #1476229

The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

Posted by: Hypaspist Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 18:11
Post #1476456

A few more pieces of evidence to support my case:

The sign as it was a few moments ago:


The closest place that has a single yellow line. Knowing that the place I parked was under ticket control, I would have parked here. It is literally on the other side of the road. Even from this angle, the sign is still not visible.


This is a ticket issued to a car that parked on an adjacent road. As you can see, the CEO who issued the ticket didn't bother sticking it to the windscreen and just placed it under the wiper. I could have very easily taken it and the driver wouldn't know. I wouldn't call this "affixed", unless the local council gives a different meaning to affixed other than e.g. what the Cambridge dictionary has. I guess it is the same CEO (maybe they have a dedicated patrolling area, I don't know) or they are all given the instruction to put it under the wiper.


Which makes me wonder. What if someone makes the argument that by placing the ticket under the wiper, the CEO caused damage to it? Indeed, the driver could very easily present receipt for parts and labour on replacing the wiper arm, probably completely unrelated yet the argument should stand.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:58
Post #1476484

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 18:12) *
The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

I think the photos you've provided have the potential to be very helpful, however we need to get things into proportion here:

1) The Notice of Rejection is dated 25 March according to you (I haven't got time to double check right now). This means you have until 23 April to register your appeal on the tribunal website, and you'd normally get a couple of weeks after that to submit your actual grounds of appeal. With that in mind, while I'm happy to help draft the appeal for you, I'm not going to do that right now. There are other cases that are simply more urgent right now (aside from the fact that this is something I do in my spare time).

2) I'm not sure we've seen all the council pictures. Put every last picture the CEO took on a site like imgur.com and post a link on here. I cannot formulate a signage appeal without this.

3) Bump once you've done the above and I'll put your appeal on my todo list.

Posted by: Hypaspist Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:12
Post #1476489

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:58) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 18:12) *
The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

I think the photos you've provided have the potential to be very helpful, however we need to get things into proportion here:

1) The Notice of Rejection is dated 25 March according to you (I haven't got time to double check right now). This means you have until 23 April to register your appeal on the tribunal website, and you'd normally get a couple of weeks after that to submit your actual grounds of appeal. With that in mind, while I'm happy to help draft the appeal for you, I'm not going to do that right now. There are other cases that are simply more urgent right now (aside from the fact that this is something I do in my spare time).

2) I'm not sure we've seen all the council pictures. Put every last picture the CEO took on a site like imgur.com and post a link on here. I cannot formulate a signage appeal without this.

3) Bump once you've done the above and I'll put your appeal on my todo list.


1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

2,3) I've uploaded them in post #22 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=126921&view=findpost&p=1475414 These are all the photos the CEO took

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 16:08
Post #1476646

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:12) *
1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

There is literally no advantage at all in registering your appeal early.

Posted by: Hypaspist Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 14:43
Post #1478950

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 17:08) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:12) *
1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

There is literally no advantage at all in registering your appeal early.


Given that the deadline is this Saturday and with Easter holidays coming, would I have to appeal tomorrow? Or it doesn't have to be on a workday?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 21:01
Post #1479029

Just register it online in time weekend dont matter

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 19 Apr 2019 - 21:26
Post #1479405

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 15:43) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 17:08) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:12) *
1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

There is literally no advantage at all in registering your appeal early.


Given that the deadline is this Saturday and with Easter holidays coming, would I have to appeal tomorrow? Or it doesn't have to be on a workday?

It doesn't matter what day it is, you can register instantly online, just make sure not to miss the deadline.

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 19 Apr 2019 - 21:48
Post #1479416

Ok thanks

Unless there's any further input, I plan to do so tomorrow

Posted by: John U.K. Sat, 20 Apr 2019 - 11:22
Post #1479476

QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 19 Apr 2019 - 21:48) *
Ok thanks

Unless there's any further input, I plan to do so tomorrow


You can always register the appeal, and in the appriopriate box write something like "Full submission to follow"

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 09:08
Post #1480684

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 20 Apr 2019 - 12:22) *
QUOTE (Hypaspist @ Fri, 19 Apr 2019 - 21:48) *
Ok thanks

Unless there's any further input, I plan to do so tomorrow


You can always register the appeal, and in the appriopriate box write something like "Full submission to follow"


Right

So, evidence uploaded, appeal registered, the council came back with their evidence.

Their evidence consists of the photos of the CEO already uploaded, the NTO, letter of rejection already uploaded
but also a copy of the PCN and the CEO comments and I guess their legislation about the area. No other photos.

I have 7 days to put my comments. I can either have it sent directly to the adjudicator or arrange for a call. Is there any benefit to having a call hearing and would I need one? I don't mind either way really but I don't know what is generally expected.

 

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 09:18
Post #1480692

What is interesting is that

a) The CEO got the distances wrong. The sign is not 5m away (it is 10m away) and the pay machine certainly is not 25m away, its 50m away. Both measured on google maps. Is there any legislation as to how far apart should the signs be?
b) The CEO got the car colour wrong. DVLA lists it as Red. The CEO has it as as Burgundy. The factory's official colour is metallic red.
c) The CEO marked the ticket location as "Attached to windscreen". I am not really clear as to what meaning the CEO gives to "attached", but nothing is going to be attached to the windscreen by simply using the wiper. Placed maybe, attached or affixed certainly not.

d) I am not going to pursue the naming issue anymore as clearly the DVLA is to blame for this.

No further evidence has been uploaded regarding the sign maintenance. It just feels that the council and the CEO has been doing all these small mistakes here and there.

Edit: regarding the entry sign to the CPZ, I noticed that in Google, under every sign there are hours noted. However, ever since they changed the charging hours of the CPZ last September I think and introduced charging hours for which I got the PCN, they removed the hours under the entry signs. This doesn't really indicate as to which hours the council is referring to as there are no hours indicated under the parking restriction signs, they are only indicated in the machine. Only the yellow line signs mention hours.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 09:50
Post #1480697

OP, you are at the point which most OPs forget - the evidence.

Forget everything which has gone before, the evidence upon which the adj will make a decision is what's in front of them in the council's pack and your written submissions.

So - pain in the neck that it might be - we need to see their summary, their photos and the extract from the traffic management order which creates the restriction in the first place.

If you have elected for a tel. hearing, then you may amend this to a personal hearing but it might take some time to arrange, so you could be looking at a couple of months hence.

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 10:06
Post #1480702

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 10:50) *
OP, you are at the point which most OPs forget - the evidence.

Forget everything which has gone before, the evidence upon which the adj will make a decision is what's in front of them in the council's pack and your written submissions.

So - pain in the neck that it might be - we need to see their summary, their photos and the extract from the traffic management order which creates the restriction in the first place.

If you have elected for a tel. hearing, then you may amend this to a personal hearing but it might take some time to arrange, so you could be looking at a couple of months hence.


But I have uploaded the evidence, at least the photographic ones. Its in my previous post. The photos they have uploaded are the exact same ones they provided as evidence for my PCN. Should I re-upload them?
Here is the legislation they've uploaded
https://resolver-tpt.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachment/source/a0d07962-d0b1-4486-aacf-54bb983146e2/1843.pdf?X-Amz-Expires=600&X-Amz-Date=20190426T095826Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJWWC3QCPY5LIWKPA/20190426/eu-west-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=7244daeacdfb97a28064d46ab20c1f2db9a656f204715c2461be7157b24cb69a
http://naws.com/production/uploads/attachment/source/e17d6569-8f21-4a93-952d-4c102c039067/TRO3.pdf?X-Amz-Expires=600&X-Amz-Date=20190426T095759Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJWWC3QCPY5LIWKPA/20190426/eu-west-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=e4887e49c43104aa4a58fdcc70b177215c9b2c395e208bc8d1dce9f16f086a6a

My comments are basically the comments I generated when I first viewed the new evidence they uploaded and the ones I think I should attach to the case as prompted.


And to answer my previous question regarding signage distance (and for the benefit of others) I found this wiki
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Traffic_Signs_Manual/Chapter_3/2008/7
Under 7.50 it says:
QUOTE
Signs should be provided at approximately 30 m intervals ..... Where the length of the bay is less than 30 m, a sign mounted at the mid—point should therefore be sufficient


Well, the parking bay is 37m wide. The sign is placed close to one end of it. I take it that the council failed to follow proper signage regulations? There is no sign at the other end of the bay.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 10:18
Post #1480711

Do not require us to infer that what you might have posted earlier is the exact same as presented to the adj, this is an impossible task to impose on us.

Sometimes even the PCNs submitted are in a different format.

Front of PCN;
The NOR in the pack;
Their pack photos.
Case summary;
Extract from order. (I cannot open your link, but perhaps this is at my end)



Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 10:24
Post #1480713

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 11:18) *
Do not require us to infer that what you might have posted earlier is the exact same as presented to the adj, this is an impossible task to impose on us.

Sometimes even the PCNs submitted are in a different format.

Front of PCN;
The NOR in the pack;
Their pack photos.
Case summary;
Extract from order. (I cannot open your link, but perhaps this is at my end)


Ok I will make another post with everything uploaded by them, for the convenience of anyone willing to assist. Is there an easy way to do this?
For example the links I provided are pdfs. How should I present these?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 13:44
Post #1480762

I use onedrive it seems to work fine

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 16:46
Post #1480800

Google drive works well for me.

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 17:30
Post #1480813

I apologise for the delay.
Here is a link on dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q4pb060hal57f57/AADWk4STfrhd0pIVRxjMgq0Ua?dl=0 where I have put all the evidence that the city council has uploaded.

Furthermore, if I download the evidence as a zip from the tribunal site, there is a pdf called "evidence summary", in which there is a section:

QUOTE
Authority Summary
The Council would like to add that (me) has pointed
out in his appeal that there are signs and lives in the area so should
be aware that parking charges apply. Furthermore, please see the
Notice of Rejection.


So my comments on the council's summary and evidence are:

a) The CEO got the distances wrong. The sign is not 5m away (it is 10m away) and the pay machine certainly is not 25m away, its 50m away. Both measured on google maps.
b) The CEO got the car colour wrong. DVLA lists it as Red. The CEO has it as as Burgundy. The factory's official colour is metallic red.
c) The CEO marked the ticket location as "Attached to windscreen". I am not really clear as to what meaning the CEO gives to "attached", but nothing is going to be attached to the windscreen by simply using the wiper. Placed maybe, attached or affixed certainly not.
d) The council is incorrect about my appeal. Of course there is *A* sign which is hidden in the hedge and this is why all the fight is about, the sign is there but I didn't know about it because it is hidden. However, I never said I live in the area in my appeal. The place where I live is 15 mins on foot and it is actually outside of the CPZ. I don't know what the council means by "living in the area". Even in my case to the adjudicator I wrote that since the incident of receiving the NTO, I have passed by the area on foot to monitor the situation, which as far as I know does not imply that I live or am familiar with the area.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 17:50
Post #1480818

There is an address they sent the NTO and NOR to, is that in the area?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 20:08
Post #1480837

The colour of the car is largely irrelevant as you accept it's your car. There's nothing in the attached / affixed argument, if they placed the PCN on the windscreen the tribunal will accept its been served.

Has the council not provide a case summary?

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 20:38
Post #1480845

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 18:50) *
There is an address they sent the NTO and NOR to, is that in the area?

The address they served the NTO and NOR to is outside the CPZ zone, 700m on a straight line, 965m on foot (google says 11min but due to works around the area plus height difference its more like 15min) or 1127m by car. It is not on my way to work (I commute off city), neither it is close to a supermarket I might shop in, gym I might work at, a church Im a member of etc. I haven't even seen any notifications they might put on display when they change the charging hours or neither have I received any mail about it. Plus, I have a private parking space, so I don't even have to ask for a parking permit from the council in case they send out any information about the CPZ and its changes. All in all, I don't think its a valid argument. I know there are parking signs in the CPZs of the UK in general, I know that there are parking signs outside my house that say "parking permit holders only" and the hours underneath, even though I don't use them. But to know about a specific sign of a road that is not in my neighbourhood is a bit much to ask, especially in an area that undergoes modification.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 21:08) *
The colour of the car is largely irrelevant as you accept it's your car. There's nothing in the attached / affixed argument, if they placed the PCN on the windscreen the tribunal will accept its been served.

Has the council not provide a case summary?

So its not a matter of pointing out the council's discrepancies but rather points to fight on?
For the attached/affixed argument, I do not claim to be a dictionary expert so if they don't really take it literally then I guess it doesn't make sense as an argument. It does however cover the case of someone or somehow removing the PCN which they already accepted since they offered the 50% reduction.

The case summary is the one I quoted:
QUOTE
The Council would like to add that (me) has pointed out in his appeal that there are signs and lives in the area so should be aware that parking charges apply. Furthermore, please see the Notice of Rejection.

Nothing more.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 27 Apr 2019 - 13:53
Post #1480963

Here are your grounds of appeal: http://bit.ly/2ZFMLsg

You will need to download the document to your computer, replace the bits in red with your real name and the real tribunal case number, change all the text to black, then save as a PDF and upload to the tribunal website. If you have any problems doing this, you can PM me the details and I'll make a PDF file for you.

Also upload the following PDFs to the tribunal website:

Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (case reference CV00067-1902): http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (case reference UW 05060M): http://bit.ly/2RNEZaD
London cases annex: http://bit.ly/2H0ACar
Ofcom call cost guide: http://bit.ly/2GOI6gk
London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2Sw3NJv
Behary, R (On Application) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3575 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2Vt23yf

Posted by: Hypaspist Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 21:11
Post #1481218

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 27 Apr 2019 - 14:53) *
Here are your grounds of appeal: http://bit.ly/2ZFMLsg

You will need to download the document to your computer, replace the bits in red with your real name and the real tribunal case number, change all the text to black, then save as a PDF and upload to the tribunal website. If you have any problems doing this, you can PM me the details and I'll make a PDF file for you.

Also upload the following PDFs to the tribunal website:

Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (case reference CV00067-1902): http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (case reference UW 05060M): http://bit.ly/2RNEZaD
London cases annex: http://bit.ly/2H0ACar
Ofcom call cost guide: http://bit.ly/2GOI6gk
London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2Sw3NJv
Behary, R (On Application) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3575 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2Vt23yf


Thanks cp8759! Much appreciated

Posted by: Hypaspist Fri, 24 May 2019 - 16:25
Post #1487628

Hello all,

Thanks to the support of this community, the appeal has been allowed.
This is the decision:

QUOTE
1. I have had the opportunity of considering all the evidence that has been presented in this matter including the written representations made.
2. (The appellant) appeals to the Tribunal on a number of grounds. Firstly he states that he did not receive the penalty charge notice. Secondly he argues that the signage at the location is deficient in that the single sign that denotes the requirement to pay at the pay and display machine is obscured by foliage from an adjacent bush. He therefore argues that the penalty charge notice cannot be enforced due to the inadequacy of the signage.
3. Thirdly he states that the notice of rejection of representations made reference to a controlled parking zone at this location. It is (The appellant's) contention that the controlled parking zone relates to the single yellow lines which can be seen within the vicinity and not to the area within which he was parked. Fourthly, he argues that the notice to owner and the notice of rejection of representations are not substantially compliant with the relevant regulations in that they indicate that if payment is not received within 28 days of the service of the notice of rejection then a charge certificate will be served. It is ((The appellant's) ) contention that the mandatory nature of this statement does not comply with the discretionary power contained within the Regulations.
4. Fifthly, (The appellant) states that a procedural impropriety has occurred in that the notice of rejection of representations which he received was missing page 3 of four. Finally, (The appellant) argues that the provision of an 0870 payment line for payment to the Council involves an unlawful surcharge of 2p a minute. The surcharge would result in an amount over the value of the penalty charge notice been paid by him to the Council. (The appellant) argues therefore that the amount pursued by the Council exceeds the amount of the relevant penalty charge.
5. A parking restriction is created by a Traffic Regulation Order which is a piece of legislation passed by local Councils in order to regulate parking within their jurisdiction. A CEO will issue a PCN where they believe that a contravention of the TRO has occurred. Of course, the motorist who intends to park in a certain location will not have a copy of the TRO to hand when they are considering parking. Therefore, there is a duty upon Councils to erect and maintain adequate signage within an area to convey the restriction contained within the TRO.
6. The signage must convey adequate information of the restriction in place. A PCN is issued not for failing to comply with the signage at a location, rather for being in breach of the TRO. It follows that if signs do not convey the information within the TRO adequately then no contravention occurs as the motorist is not aware of the restriction in place. The burden is on the Council in appeals to show that the signage is correct.
7. Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) provides:
“Traffic Signs
18(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
(a) before the order comes into force the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
©...
8. The obligation on the relevant authority is to provide signing that is reasonably clear and reflects the terms of the relevant Traffic Order. If the signing is not sufficiently clear either in terms of the information given on a sign or its visibility having regard to the particular location the relevant provision of the Traffic Order should not be enforced and is a basis for a finding that the parking contravention did not occur.
9. Mr Justice Beatson considered the question of adequate compliance further in the case of R (Oxfordshire CC) v Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). As the title suggests this was a case in relation to the signing of bus lanes and whilst it was decided very much on its own facts and the particular Traffic Order the judgment includes the following:
“68. The introduction to Chapter 3 (of the Traffic Signs Manual) states that “should” indicates a course of action that is “strongly recommended and represents good practice”. ...... In such circumstances wherever signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture and are clearly visible and comply with departmental guidance there must be strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information ......”
10. (The appellant) raised the issue of signage at this location at the outset of his dealings with this penalty charge notice. He has been clear and consistent in indicating that one of the main areas of contention in relation to this PCN was the question of the adequacy and sufficiency of the signage at the location.
11. I have considered the evidence that the Council have provided in relation to the. I find that it is of a poor quality. The photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time of the purported contravention are found at item 28 in the FOAM online system. These photographs are blurred, shaky and do not provide an accurate representation of the location nor the vehicle in context on this occasion.
12. The Council’s argument is that Redcliffe Street is within a controlled parking zone which is created by the uploaded Traffic Regulation Order. The TRO in this case appears to create a zone within which bays are laid out for pay-and-display parking. If the intention is to create a zone purposely for the use of pay-and-display bays the times of operation of such bays should be indicated by zone entry sings at all entrances into the zone.
13. The CEO did not take any photographs of the relevant entry signs into the controlled parking zone. There are no library photographs provided to illustrate the zone entry signs. There is no plan or map of the zone presented with the location of each zone entry and exit sign marked upon it. No diagrams are provided illustrating the type of signs that have been erected at the entrance to the zone. Bearing in mind the nature of (The appellant's) challenge, namely the adequacy of the signage, the evidence provided by the Council is wholly inadequate in this regard.
14. The best evidence of the condition of the signage at the location is provided by (The appellant) himself. He submitted a number of photographs along with a number of documents. In particular the photographs at item 17 and 18 of the evidence section, although taken in March 2019, show the view that a motorist would have from the bay when looking to their right down the street towards where the sign to pay at machine is located. The sign itself cannot be seen. If one was aware that a sign was present at that location, the only part of the sign can be seen is the lower section of the metal grey pole that is viewable underneath the bottom of the box hedge.
15. The evidence from (The appellant) shows what can only be described as a sign that is overgrown and partly obscured by the presence of a large box hedge directly behind the sign. The photographs taken in April 2019 show that a large proportion of the sign is obscured by foliage. The evidence presented shows that from the position a motorist would be in when parking their vehicle the sign which is approximately 5 m away from the vehicle, in January 2019, would have been obscured and setback within the box hedge. Even a motorist were to then walk to their right and pass the sign, there is every likelihood that the presence of the sign would be missed due to the presence of the foliage.
16. The CEO’s notes indicate that the pay-and-display machine is 25 m away from (The appellant's) vehicle. Neither the CEO’s photographs nor the appellant’s indicates to me where the pay-and-display machine was located in relation to the bay or the other sign.
17. I note that this penalty charge notice was issued at night time in January 2019 when it would have been dark and this would have further complicated the possibility of viewing the signage. Having considered the evidence presented by (The appellant) and the lack of evidence presented by the Council I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the signage erected at the location provided adequate information of the terms of the restriction relating to the bay within which (The appellant's) vehicle was parked on 24 January 2019. I therefore cannot be satisfied that a contravention has occurred.
18. Having made the above finding in relation to the question of signage, there is no requirement for me to consider the other points raised by (The appellant) in his notice of appeal.
19. For the reasons outlined above I allow the appeal.
20. I direct the Council to cancel the penalty charge notice and notice to owner in this matter.
21. (The appellant) is not required to make a payment to the Council.


It is interesting to me that the adjudicator agreed with the poor quality of the evidence provided by the CEO and the lack of signage that mentions CPZ hours.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 24 May 2019 - 19:00
Post #1487644

As I said, what counts is what's presented to the adj.

I've won appeals on this several times, in one case whoever compiled the pack - the dreaded human interface - even included wrong photos.

And with my ex-council hat on, this is appalling. Councils have a duty to their tax payers, let alone the law, to pursue due debts diligently, not pass them to third-rate eejits in 'parking admin'. This happens because they rake in so much money who cares if a few are missed.

But a win is a win. Well done.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 24 May 2019 - 20:17
Post #1487661

Yes well done for sticking at it, IMO it was always going to be signage, the technical points are a nice prod in the right direction though and should never be missed

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)