PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reading Parking Ticket, Parked without a permit
BenADI
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 12:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



My girlfriend and one of her friends parked on a road in Reading last night and misunderstood the sign and both received a ticket for parking without a permit. Both appear to be bang to rights but want to double check everything is correct before paying as I know Reading has a flaw on its bus lane PCNs and was wondering if parking PCNs have a flaw as well.

Many Thanks






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 12:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 20:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



PCN looks fine, post the council photos and a link to the location on google street view.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 20:56
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4581096,-0....3312!8i6656







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 21:21
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Wait to see what others say but unless there's a flaw in the TRO, I don't see a way out of this one.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 00:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 21:21) *
Wait to see what others say but unless there's a flaw in the TRO, I don't see a way out of this one.


Will do, only thing I can really see is the condition of the sign when it looks faded with makes it hard to make out at night and cause confusion. But will wait and see of someone spots something
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 21:31
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



Would something like this make sense as an appeal?

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to challenge this PCN that was issued onto my vehicle.
The sign which are located on George Street appears to be faded, which makes it hard to read at night (As can be seen by the pictures taken by the CEO). This issue caused my girlfriend confusion as it appeared that no parking restrictions is place at the time.

We ask that you use your discretion on this occasion, as the sign can appear to be misleading and is very hard to see in the dark.

Yours
xxxxx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 22:35
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (BenADI @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 21:31) *
Would something like this make sense as an appeal?

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to challenge this PCN that was issued onto my vehicle.
The sign which are located on George Street appears to be faded, which makes it hard to read at night (As can be seen by the pictures taken by the CEO). This issue caused my girlfriend confusion as it appeared that no parking restrictions is place at the time.

We ask that you use your discretion on this occasion, as the sign can appear to be misleading and is very hard to see in the dark.

Yours
xxxxx


just been looking at GSV and was thinking that sign lacks prominence


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 23:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,864
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



Why did your GF think it was OK to park there and what time did she park ?

Did she simply not see the sign or did she think the restrictions were not relevant to her at the time and why ?

My point being that there is cleary some restriction 8-8 and some permit of some description outside those hours. That doesn't mean that the restrictions are adequately shown or that the underlying order is correct.

It does, imv, start from the back foot. Eg unless one held some sort of readung permit why woyld one park the in the first place.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 12:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



QUOTE (Slapdash @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 23:19) *
Why did your GF think it was OK to park there and what time did she park ?

Did she simply not see the sign or did she think the restrictions were not relevant to her at the time and why ?

My point being that there is cleary some restriction 8-8 and some permit of some description outside those hours. That doesn't mean that the restrictions are adequately shown or that the underlying order is correct.

It does, imv, start from the back foot. Eg unless one held some sort of readung permit why woyld one park the in the first place.


She parked there after 8 pm, she must have thought with the sign face being partly covered that the restrictions weren't in force.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 15:43
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Can you get a photo of the sign with no flash?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 15:43) *
Can you get a photo of the sign with no flash?

In the first post
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:39
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (BenADI @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 16:14) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 15:43) *
Can you get a photo of the sign with no flash?

In the first post

I suppose a sympathetic adjudicator might think the sign is ambiguous, but it's 50/50 at best.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Tue, 19 Feb 2019 - 21:02
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



Got a reply from Reading in the post. Any advice on what to do from here?

Many thanks



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Feb 2019 - 00:00
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think you can argue the signs are ambiguous, they look like the restrictions have been partially blanked out. You can wait for the Notice to Owner and try again, even if they reject they re-offer the discount in most cases.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 - 00:01


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 18:35
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



Received NTO today, believe there is a May/Will Flaw in NTO. If so how should I reply?







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 21:39
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



definitely a will/may flaw


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 10:41
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, I cannot fnd any first-hand info here regarding either of the PCNs.

My girlfriend and one of her friends parked on a road in Reading last night and misunderstood the sign...

and in what way did she/they misunderstand?

And whle you could make informal reps, only the owner may make reps.

You've posted a NTO, but to whom is it addressed?

And what about her friend?

'and both received a ticket for parking without a permit. Both appear to be bang to rights but want to double check everything is correct'


This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 10:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 14:21
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 10:41) *
OP, I cannot fnd any first-hand info here regarding either of the PCNs.

My girlfriend and one of her friends parked on a road in Reading last night and misunderstood the sign...

and in what way did she/they misunderstand?

And whle you could make informal reps, only the owner may make reps.

You've posted a NTO, but to whom is it addressed?

And what about her friend?

'and both received a ticket for parking without a permit. Both appear to be bang to rights but want to double check everything is correct'


It was late at night and it looked like the sign was blanked out in certain places and they thought it was okay to park there.

I wrote out the informal Reps With my girlfriend telling me what happened and receive their reply saying they rejected the informal reps

I received the NTO yesterday in my name and at my address as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The friend paid the ticket at the discount stage
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 17:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Draft representations, make sure to preserve all italics, bold, and bold italics formatting exactly as I have used it below. Include a copy of these tribunal and court decisions:

Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (case reference UW 05060M): http://bit.ly/2RNEZaD
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N
David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 216022028A): http://bit.ly/2HPEbld
James Demery v London Borough of Bexley (case reference 2180251300): http://bit.ly/2UoMhXC
London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2V1utPz

------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I challenge liability for the penalty charge on the following grounds:

Ground 1: The alleged contravention did not occur:

As the enclosed photos demonstrate, the signs appear to have been partially obscured, in particular the text "Permit holders N1/05R" is significantly less visible than the remaining text on the restriction place. This creates confusion as it is not clear whether the council intended to obscure this text, or whether the text had been previously obscured but has since been reinstated. The requirement under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 it to install signage "for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road", the ambiguous signage used by the council in this instance cannot comply with this requirement.

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:

Regulation 19(2) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides that (my emphasis):

(2) A notice to owner served under paragraph (1) must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under regulation 3(3) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state—
...
(g) that if, after the payment period has expired, no representations have been made under regulation 4 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations and the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the applicable surcharge


Therefore Parliament has mandated that a penalty charge notice under the regulations must state that the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge. While I accept the wording of the regulation does not need to be followed verbatim, the PCN, when read as a whole, must convey the meaning intended by Parliament.

The Penalty Charge Notice issued by the council in this instance asserts that:

If full payment has not been received or you have not made Representations to the Council within the time allowed, the Penalty Charge will increase by 50%, thereby increasing the amount outstanding to £105 and a charge certificate will be served on you.

The fact that the charge will increase to £105 is therefore unequivocal and for all practical purposes a foregone conclusion.

It has long been held that where Parliament has given a public authority a discretionary power, that power may not be fettered. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal found as follows in case UW 05060M:

"The point clearly made by Mrs H is that the council are saying they will issue a charge certificate, rather than considering whether to do so under their discretionary power.

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 prescribed the minimum content of a Notice of Rejection:

6.—(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall—

(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;

The use of the "shall" means that these requirements are mandatory.
...
This may appear to the council to be something of a technicality, but the law is quite clear and must be applied as described above. The council will see that it is imperative that their Notice of Rejection is amended immediately to avoid this situation occurring again in the future

Appeal Allowed
"

The same situation arises here, where the use of the word "must" in the regulations means these requirements are mandatory. This principle is further illustrated in the case of David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 216022028A):

"The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
"

It is no answer to say that the council would not in practice exercise its discretion not to increase the charge, as found in James Demery v London Borough of Bexley (case reference 2180251300) (my emphasis):

"The Authority also submits that while it has discretionary powers to review a PCN at any point, in reality such reviews occur largely as a result of "statutory exchanges". It is uncommon for there to be a non-statutory review. The Authority went on to say that its policy is not to interfere with the statutory progression of a PCN.

One might disagree with this position in terms of parking law as well as administrative law but that is not the point. The point is not about whether the Authority is entitled to or likely to issue a Charge Certificate, it is whether it is permitted to say in the PCN that a Charge Certificate will be issued.

The Regulations provides that a postal PCN must state, inter alia, that if after the last day of the period referred to in subparagraph no representations have been made in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations; and the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the amount of any applicable surcharge and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased.

It seems to me that the Authority has been given a discretion to issue a Charge Certificate and the PCN must state that this discretion exists. The PCN cannot give the impression that there is no such discretion even if the reality is that such a discretion will not be exercised in the motorists' favour.

The PCN is non-compliant. It is invalid and cannot be enforced. It also amounts to a procedural impropriety. I allow the appeal.
"

It is also no answer to say that no prejudice is caused to the recipient of such a PCN, the High Court ruled as follows in London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at paragraph 41:

"Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise."

The above was accepted in the recent, detailed and comprehensive decision of adjudicator Jill Yates in Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810), where the tribunal held that a bus lane PCN issued by Tunbridge Wells council could not be enforced because it wrongly stated that the council "will" increase the penalty:

"f) The wording of regulation 8 is that the PCN ‘must state that and I take this to mean that the precise words are not mandatory, but that the wording used in the PCN must accurately convey the information set out in the regulation.

g) The wording of the regulation makes it clear that the word ‘may may’ applies both to the increase in the penalty charge and to the taking of further steps in enforcement, however, the PCN sent by the council does not reflect this and I therefore find that the wording used does not correctly convey the meaning of the regulation.

h) I note that the council system means that the charge does not in fact increase until the point when the charge certificate is issued, but, whilst this may mean that no prejudice results, it does not alter the fact that the recipients of the notice are likely to understand that the increase is automatic once the 28 days have passed.

i)Mr Justice Jackson, in the case of R (on the application of the London Borough of Barnet Council) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin), made it clear that this is not relevant at paragraph 41:
‘Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.’
That case dealt with the law under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, but the principles are the same and my view is that prejudice is irrelevant in this case.

j)In the same case, at paragraph 38, Mr Justice Jackson said:
‘The statutory requirements are simple and clear. Compliance is not difficult.’
My view is that the regulations set out in similar, simple terms what the council are required to say in their PCN’s, and I reach the same conclusion, there is no excuse for a failure to comply.

k)As mentioned above, the cases referred to by Mr Hall all refer to parking contraventions and the tribunal cases were dealt with under the parking contravention regulations which give procedural impropriety, ie a failure to comply with the regulations, as a ground of appeal. Such a ground does not exist under the bus lane enforcement regulations. However, the Barnet case pre-dates those regulations and the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on the basis that the PCN was not valid and could not be enforced. That decision was upheld by the High Court.

l) For the reasons given, I find that the PCN issued by the council in this case was invalid.
"

A copy of this decision is attached for your reference. In light of the faulty wording employed on the PCN, the penalty charge must be cancelled.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BenADI
post Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 14:28
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,814



Sent off representation today 1st class with proof of postage, will let you know what they send back.

Thank you for the reply cp8759
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:03
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here