PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

731 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 12:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Loading is an exemption but one you will have to claim.
Tell them what you were doing, what flat, address, how many flights of stairs, security doors (detail that justifies the time), include any evidence like receipts or tenancy papers (to show just moving in)

Forget about the CEO on double yellows, they are allowed when on business and that is all he was doing.

Here??
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4947769,-...33;1b1!2i40
Where is the student accommodation ?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1376185 · Replies: 1 · Views: 20

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 22:00) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 21:51) *
Assuming they weren't represented it would be better if legal costs were capped at say x100 the debt (£4,000).

What does the size of the original debt have to do with an action in tort against the bailiff?


Plus, not only did they lose in original court but it seems at appeal.
Double dipping on costs.
Actually more then double dipping, according to the article, the appeal added 20K to the original 10K costs.

QUOTE
Otherwise you can have a very rich company ruin someone's life over a £40 parking fine. That is IMO disproportionate and too greater punishment for legal naivety or stupidity.

No, was the other way round.
They failed to pay a parking penalty, which escalated to the point where bailiffs clamped the car.
At that point they had choices, pay the bailiffs and write off the loss, seek to reinstate the original penalty via TEC (if grounds applied) or take the bailiffs to court.
The latter when it would seem that all the bailiffs had done is what the law allows them to do.
They chose to fight the very rich company, they face the consequences of what seems a very stupid decision that they made.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1376108 · Replies: 14 · Views: 428

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


This would seem to be the relevant Traffic Order
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...rshire/GD15.pdf
Article 27 is only one I can see that comes close but does rely on the vehicle being in a parking place.
Cannot see that deliberately parking completely outside a parking place can trigger that article.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1376106 · Replies: 8 · Views: 162

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 21:27) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 20:02) *
It is para 17 that really sticks in my craw.
A junior bl00dy member of staff considering formal reps is unreasonable and derelict in their duty in the first place (IMO)
A member of staff considering formal challenges without necessary training (doesn't need legal training, just the basics of parking law and legislation) is also unreasonable.
A junior member of staff who when faced with a challenge outside of their knowledge or training, rejects instead of seeking advice from more learned.
That IMO makes it wholly unreasonable.

I feel your frustration, but unfortunately you can't be impartial as you're directly involved. Taking a dispassionate view it's impossible to say the adjudicator was wrong. The fact that a different adjudicator might have made a different decision also doesn't make the decision wrong.


Not directly involved but accept not impartial.
However, any enforcement authority have a mandatory duty to consider challenges fairly and impartially.
How in the world can they pretend to do that if they seek to excuse a totally incorrect rejection on administrative error?
And how can the adjudicator justify that with comments on junior staff and no legal training?
That, to me, makes both authority and adjudicator happily ignoring the mandatory duty and the implications of an authority paying no more then lip service to it.
Whether that translates to wholly unreasonable in terms of costs is a matter of judgement.
To me, it cannot be otherwise.

It is frustration, I accept that.
Frustration that enforcement authorities often, far too often, ignore the law, ignore legislation, ignore the duties imposed on them and treat consideration as no more then an exercise in creative writing to persuade motorists to pay up.
And further frustration when adjudicators paper over the cracks
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1376104 · Replies: 220 · Views: 11,710

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Get the spanners out and fix it yourself smile.gif
Far cheaper.


  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1376103 · Replies: 9 · Views: 198

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Maybe asking the company would get the relevant order/legislation ?
https://www.theforthbridges.org/plan-your-j...s-restrictions/
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1376102 · Replies: 6 · Views: 136

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Far and away better.
I started reading last night and got bogged down, a sure indication that council muppets will go all glassy eyed and reject.

This reads far better.

The only thing I would add is a leading paragraph/heading.

"The PCN was served when the 10 minute grace period applied and therefore must be cancelled. Details below"
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1376041 · Replies: 30 · Views: 1,204

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 12:37) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 12:11) *
Ridiculous !!!!

Yes, I accept that the original service was an error and not something that costs would be awarded for.
But once the error is pointed out (in a formal challenge) there is no excusing the rejection.


Para 17

How can it be that ignorance is no defence. Unless you are a council it seems
..........


It is para 17 that really sticks in my craw.
A junior bl00dy member of staff considering formal reps is unreasonable and derelict in their duty in the first place (IMO)
A member of staff considering formal challenges without necessary training (doesn't need legal training, just the basics of parking law and legislation) is also unreasonable.
A junior member of staff who when faced with a challenge outside of their knowledge or training, rejects instead of seeking advice from more learned.
That IMO makes it wholly unreasonable.
It's riper then a two year old Camembert.

Rest of it I have no gripes with and as CP points out, with the adjudicator's powers to make a judgement and reach a decision.
But that doesn't make it right.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1376039 · Replies: 220 · Views: 11,710

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Ridiculous !!!!

Yes, I accept that the original service was an error and not something that costs would be awarded for.
But once the error is pointed out (in a formal challenge) there is no excusing the rejection.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1375880 · Replies: 220 · Views: 11,710

DancingDad
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 21:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Diana Loson is facing legal bills of nearly £30,000 after a court battle over a ticket issued to her husband, immigration lawyer Tiki Emizie, in 2010.

A lesson in how not to deal with council parking PCNs or the bailiffs when they clamp your car.
Or maybe a lesson on not believing everything your husband tells you, especially when hubby is an immigration lawyer.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mother-f...t-a3817311.html
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1375517 · Replies: 14 · Views: 428

DancingDad
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 20:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Never needed an FOI for traffic orders.
Relevant council highways dept are usually very helpful.
Don't ask parking dept, they are not.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375510 · Replies: 28 · Views: 408

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 13:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


WE need the PCN, location link (streetview) and a photo of the sign you rely on.
It sounds like you were in a CPZ where CPZ times would regulate the single yellow lines.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374782 · Replies: 7 · Views: 142

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 13:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Do not ignore the signage as they did either.
You gave a clear description, including map and photos showing no signs on the route you took.
They simply say signs were in accordance but ignored otherwise.
Basic tenet of enforcement is that signs must adequately convey the restriction.
They have failed to show any indication that signs were present, simply saying that the motorist must be aware of restrictions.
The latter is true but can only be achieved with signage.
If it ain't there, the contravention did not happen.

To me this is the elephant in the room and should be dealt with before any technical issues, not as an afterthought.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374775 · Replies: 34 · Views: 757

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 13:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


This one?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5787133,0...3312!8i6656
If not, please locate and link the right one.

This one has something else bar the yellow dashed outline and wording.
It has the broad yellow line by the kerb.
Readily visible and means it is most likely a no stopping bus stop/stand.
The little yellow sign, though required, simply confirms.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374773 · Replies: 5 · Views: 187

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 11:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (NannyPlum @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 11:40) *
.........So what the heck do I do next time I go, if there is a next time, basically park miles away or make sure I am back within one hour?


If machine is still covered, there is a choice.
Either do not pay, risky as almost guaranteeing a PCN but if they do not provide the means of payment then they should not enforce.
And does depend on what the machine cover says as well as the Traffic Order.
Or
Pay for two hours at the machine used before.
There is nothing to say parking is limited to 1 hour, they cannot enforce on that and a PCN that tried to would see an easy win.
That you know (or think you know) that there is a 1 hour limit is irrelevant, signs are everything and if they do not show the limit, it doesn't exist.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374749 · Replies: 43 · Views: 1,020

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 10:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


It is not that you cannot pay for it, that is irrelevant as you can. Or I could. Or anyone could. All they need to do is put details from PCN into the system and pay.

It is that the CEO recorded the VRM incorrectly and that this error was transposed onto the PCN system.
Without the latter, the difference between 1 and I could be regarded as minor.
That they did not pick this up and entered it into the system means that they must correct the error if they want to continue enforcement.
But in correcting, they acknowledge that the VRM was incorrect and therefore the PCN invalid.

As I said before, if you want to chance it, I would ignore the PCN and wait and see if an NTO turned up.
If it does, challenge on PCN not served as VRM was incorrect.
But keep PCN and Screenshots of the system error as these are your evidence.
Still not 100% an adjudicator would not dismiss it as minor but 60-80% they would accept.

A lot closer to 100% that you will hear nothing as the next stage will be automatic and result in either incorrect keeper details or Null result.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374744 · Replies: 42 · Views: 1,246

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 09:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Nanny, being blunt, you are still missing the point.
The contravention cited on the PCN is correct for what you tell us happened.

The confusion comes from the rejection letter where council bring in the limited time period.
This does show that they considered something else then the actual contravention and thus is not reason alone to reject.
And is a PI in its own right, failing to consider.
But would be regarded IMO as a minor one and not sufficient on its own to get the PCN cancelled.
And it does not show that the PCN used the wrong contravention.

Do not forget mitigation.
That the low level muppets at informal stage disregarded does not mean that it will be at formal stage (should you go that far)
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374727 · Replies: 43 · Views: 1,020

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 09:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 10:27) *
........On a serious note, I think it would be a bit of a gamble to challenge this one on the signs, an adjudicator could take the view that they're substantially compliant, and the photos do show further signs on the same side of the road as the car.


Will be a gamble but I think a good one.
OP did what they should, they parked, saw a suspension sign, read it, worked out that it didn't apply and relied on it.
Had the council removed the sign, included the other suspended dates, changed it for a valid one, OP would have little to argue on.
But none of these happened.
OP saw a sign, read it, complied with it.

The next sign, which seems to be on the normal restriction post, should, in normal times have been looked at.
Being obscured by a tree would not be accepted.
But OP saw a sign, read it, complied.
There is not and cannot be an expectation that a motorist must check every sign in the street, including ones across the road, just in case.
There is an expectation that councils will not put up conflicting signs that could mislead.

That the council then rely on a sign across the road is to me, icing on the cake.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374721 · Replies: 14 · Views: 306

DancingDad
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 08:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


I would appeal on confusing signage and that the sign that the council is relying on is on the other side of the street, where there can be no expectation or duty for a motorist to look or read it.

That there was an out of date sign next to the vehicle can only be confusing and can be expected to lead motorists astray.
Even if council changes its tune and refers to a sign on the normal restriction post, why should a motorist, having seen and read one sign in the bay that allows parking, be expected to go and read the next one, just in case council have put conflicting suspension signs up.
The normal assumption would be that all the signs are the same.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374704 · Replies: 14 · Views: 306

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 17:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 17:27) *
QUOTE (tommy12345 @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 16:48) *
right into the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building.

Like I said was found in a previous case: Hence Teper was wrong.


I reckon he was wrong anyway but there we go.
In this case, as the TMO is specific that the no right turn is into the loading area, as long as Op did not enter the area, it would not matter if they had been performing Donuts, the restriction is explicit.
May be argumentative if the wording was No Right turn at the loading area (or similar) but into is specific.
Op needs to point this out to LT before the hearing, in writing.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374598 · Replies: 110 · Views: 5,512

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 13:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Foxy01 @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 13:15) *
After further investigation it appears that the driver was issued a FPN, however this wasn't reported to the company. So it appears the signs are at odds with the enforcement.


Sure it was an FPN ?
That would suggest police involvement.
If a council CEo would be a PCN.

Signage should make it an easy win with a PCN, and FPN may need to go to court but signage should win there as well.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1374560 · Replies: 10 · Views: 449

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 13:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Location All Zones ????
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374558 · Replies: 20 · Views: 324

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 13:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Can we see the PCN please?

And any council photos.
Why is the kerb dropped? Pedestrians, access to your driveway, cycle path, why?

Re the roads, who maintains them, managing agents or council
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374548 · Replies: 20 · Views: 324

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 12:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


There certainly was a vehicle in contravention, with no driver and 3-4 minutes before PCN timing.
PCN timed as same as the blurred photo (Wife trying to block)

So nothing to show PCN served although enough to show a contravention and nothing to disprove your story.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374546 · Replies: 12 · Views: 325

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 09:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,315
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Not sure I have seen that incorrect amount before on a NOR.
There is no mandatory requirement to show the amount due on an NOR so I would not expect an adjudicator to cancel the PCN on that.
But I would assume that this is the full amount and that the authority have decided to exercise their discretion in charging less.
So no matter, would only expect £65 as the maximum payable.
And would make that point in the appeal.

Re appeal to adjudication.
Have you got the council photos?
They should go some way to confirming your story so let's see them.

CEO notes.... "No need to supply at this time...." WTF?
If they show what council claim, it is in both party's best interest to supply them.
And if they don't.
Not to supply goes against SOS guidance on early disclosure and at least one key case.... Chase v Westminster ??

Stick with your story, no PCN handed or fixed.... then can add anything else arising.
Include loading exemption.
Plan for personal hearing, this will come down to adjudicator deciding on your honesty.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1374516 · Replies: 12 · Views: 325

731 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 21st April 2018 - 13:08
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.