Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Completed Case Summaries _ Parking Case Success Stories

Posted by: Insider Tue, 15 Aug 2006 - 23:51
Post #126433

As it says on the topic description - Parking Success Stories (Only for members here, not news stories!)

A new "Parking Success Stories" as suggested by Mista Pendle wink.gif

Posted by: Wayne Pendle Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 15:36
Post #126588

5th May 2006

1. Westover -v- Buckinghamshire County Council

Wayne Pendle on behalf of L Westover

Grounds for appeal:-

(a) No date of contravention on ticket
(b) Lines Unclear
© signs did not conform to RTRGD 2002.

Summary:- I argued that for the PCN to be valid, the PCN required two dates, the date of contravention and the date of issue. I quote evidence from Als Bar, Macarthur -v- Bury and RTA 1991 itself. I also used the Councils own evidence against them in that the lines were not clear and quoted Heatley, Council protested that they do not have resources to check all lines 24 hrs a day. Council were told by Adjudicator that they have a duty to ensure lines and signs were lawful and that it was not for the motorist to interpret those lines.

Outcome:- Victory

Decision:-

Was by post; the Adjudicator declared that whilst my evidence was "interesting", he had based his decision on Lukha -v- Aylesbury which was made 10 days after my appeal. Lukha was the decision where the Chief Adjudicator for England and Wales drove 200 odd miles to Buckinghamshire (same County as me) and then started to check other documentation. I can't begin to understand why all of a sudden this should be so when they haven't been checking documentation for 10 years prior, oh well, Lukha -v- Aylesbury was born as a result.

Anyway, the adjudicator wrote that he didn't have to hear my arguments for Lukha -v- Aylesury made it clear that Buckinghamshire did not have a lawful notice of rejection.

As such, convently my appeal was allowed!!

5th May 2006

1. PCNs

2. Various parking infraction of a non-obstructive nature, obtained byme to to prove unlawfulness of Council activity.

Outcome:- all bar two, cancelled.

reason for Cancellation:-

You tell me, No appeals by me were made.


Council just cancelled my PCNs. Still have two one going through at Charge notice stage, another at NTO. Can't wait to get it before a Court. Council believe they have all their problems sown up now and as such are 'testing' the water, council are going to lose and it's going to cost them dearly.

Posted by: technoman Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 19:25
Post #126648

me V London Borough

I appealed solely on the basis that I felt thatthe contravention did not occur. Howver, after posting my thread, i was advided that I have a strong case of "Date of Issue" and "Date of Convinction" not on the PCN.
Went all the way to teh stage where I filled the apeal form to PATAS, quoting, as advised by Barrie Segal " Moses-V-Barnet"

A couple of days later the Council said that they have dropped the matter as there was an "error" in the issuing of the PCN

Am in the process of claimimg costs and also have requested the Council for copies of past PCNs

Posted by: peodude Thu, 24 Aug 2006 - 12:25
Post #128208

I've had 2 successful appeals in the same place, due to yellow lines being hidden by mud and shrubbery biggrin.gif

Posted by: mk1 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 - 18:41
Post #128911

Oldham MBC

PCN for parking on double yellows plus no waiting.

lines were a bit crappy but because already successfully contested a pcn on Heatley and unclear lines, decided just to go for lack of two dates on PCN.

just quoted and enclosed "bury -v- Mcarthur" and victory is mine.

Posted by: Jammy1 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 - 08:42
Post #129172

Found this letter in the South London Press, Aug 29 2006: http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/southlondonpress/letters/tm_objectid=17643731%26method=full%26siteid=50100%26headline=my%2dvictory%2din%2dparking%2dbattle-name_page.html

Posted by: fearmonkee Sat, 2 Sep 2006 - 12:58
Post #129871

My First 2 success stories here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=11878

Posted by: rambo Sun, 10 Sep 2006 - 19:50
Post #131444

Transport For London
Recieved a parking ticket for being parked in a suspended bay, the sign saying suspended bay was about 8in square, and you can't see it until you are in the bay, ticket is issued by camera.
I wrote a letter to TFL and they cancelled it stating they made a procedure error.

Camden council
Recieved a camera ticket for an illegal u turn. The PCN stated " 28 days from date of this letter....".
I wrote to camden a told them I would not pay as the PCN as it was illegal under the road traffic act and quoted "Lukha -v- Alyesbury". They wrote back and cancelled ticket.

Posted by: BikerPaul Mon, 18 Sep 2006 - 23:18
Post #133413

Camden

Camden faled to file and serve a defence to a claim for the refund of the costs of a defective ticket.
Judgement for 84.98 including costs and interest. Bailiffs on Monday 2 October if they dont pay up by then.

Posted by: Wayne Pendle Thu, 28 Sep 2006 - 19:29
Post #135986

Buckinghamshire County Council:

Made representation to Council, indicated that Ombudsman had deemed that rights to appeal information on NTO was to vague and that lines and signage was unlawful.

appeal accepted by Council as they have admitted theparking bay lines were not clear. I will be following up with a letter informing them that as a result of my appeal, they are to refund everyone else who were fined on those same lines as clearly the traffic order was unenforcable as a result. I know they've dropped a huge bollock with regards to the signs, i'll be watching to see if these are changed too.

Council accepted that their NTO was being changed to reflect the Ombudsman's findings but not that their NTO was unlawful as a result.

Are we beginning to finally see the making of an honest Council????? It would be nice but I doubt it!! We shall see. Actually i've been laying off of Bucks CC recently, too much other stuff going on. Hope they realise there's plenty more for later (escpecially when the traffic management act 2004 goes live laugh.gif )


OH, I forgot to mention, It's been interesting receiving reports as to which parking related websites their members of staff have been visiting too wink.gif

Posted by: Krakers Wed, 4 Oct 2006 - 16:40
Post #137425

Received an NTO and made formal representations after my first representation was dismissed. Received a letter today from Wigan Council stating : "On review of your case it has become apparant that a technical error has occured with the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice, therefore I am unable to process it in this instance."

PCN cancelled - Wigan 0 - Krakers 6.

Funnily enough they have the cheek to say "Notwithstanding this decision, the Council may be obliged to enforce any similar future contraventions". They've admitted it wasn't a contravention, so I'm not sure what they're prattling on about.

Krakers.

Posted by: Des Sun, 15 Oct 2006 - 15:47
Post #140221

For information I am posting re. a Camden ticket, received earlier this year. One of many tickets regularly picked up when parking legally displaying a blue badge.
The blue badge is not recognised in much of central London, thus it is very confusing and usually impossible to know where parking is allowed. The usual brief is to put a token payment in a pay and display or meter and an extra hour is allowed. P.A. is then very likely to ignore badge / additional hour, and issue a ticket, next step is hassle of sending off photocopies of badge with covering letter, to get ticket cancelled. Of late however, I have found that the first badge photocopy / letter gets ignored and an NTO is issued, so for the past year or so, I have found it necessary to phone one of the buggers, explain what has happened, get their name and send another photocopy addressed for their attention. This has long since become tedious so I was delighted earlier this year to take a fresh approach, in hauling them up over a flaw in the NTO, where it is stated ‘Before the period of 28 days of the date of this notice you must pay’ where I was actually entitled to 28 days from receipt, they deny me of at least 2 days while it’s in the post, and thus is an unlawful document, and they’re not getting their filthy claws on my money. I am grateful to Mr. Pendle for his help in this matter, he walked me through filling in the stat dec etc. and I’m ashamed to say I have recently received an NTO from Kensington and Chelsea, with the same flaw, and I didn’t notice, had to have it pointed out to me after posting, on this one however, I hope to have fun querying NCPs authority to issue on behalf of Kensington and Chelsea.

Posted by: Clear Skies Fri, 20 Oct 2006 - 09:19
Post #141516

ANGEL : angel7.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=14953&st=0


Yellow lines, but little angel due soon .. sympathey vote following letter from the midwife .

The lines wouldn't of stood scrutiny anyway..

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Thu, 26 Oct 2006 - 22:54
Post #143364

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11475&view=findpost&p=143111. Bristol, three tickets, defective road markings.

Posted by: scotchio Mon, 6 Nov 2006 - 09:45
Post #145735

PCN for not parking properly within bays.
Issued in Crystal Palace (Croydon Council)

Grounds of appeal was that the parking signs were not positioned correctly, stating the traffic sign manual.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=14748

I received a letter stating my representations had been up held and the PCN was cancelled they have even offered to refund my penalty charge if I had already paid it!

Get in!
S

Posted by: mr2 Wed, 8 Nov 2006 - 11:13
Post #146251

I parked on double yellows down south street, weybridge for a couple of minutes to nip into the tesco local. When I came out there was a council parking vulture putting my reg no. into his computer. I got in the car and drove off before he had a chance to put a PCN on my car (I don't think he had even printed it off by that time).

About a month went by and I received a NTO through the post saying a PCN had been issued and hadn't been paid.

I phoned the council to establish if they had any photographic evidence and the guy said 'no, but we don't need any, the attendant says he put the PCN on your car as you drove off.'

Having recently lost a speeding case I realised it would be their word against mine (any guesses as to who normally wins in that situation?) Armed with a digital camera it wasn't hard to find numerous breaks in the lines where roadworks had been.

A strongly worded letter had the whole case dropped.

Posted by: countrybluenose Thu, 9 Nov 2006 - 13:49
Post #146613

Parking Charge Notice recieved following my vehicle having over stayed its time in a supermarket car park.
Although I was the owner of the vehicle,I was not responsible for parking there.This was pointed out to Total Parking Solutions Ltd.,PO Box 599,Borehamwood and they cancelled the notice. Thank you to those who assisted.

Posted by: twokcc Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 15:11
Post #148111

Sheffield parking on double yellows 9/7/2006
Only one date on ticket.
Qouted Jackson judgement Moses v Barnett
PCN cancelled 10/11/2006
Thanks for all advise on forum

Posted by: DW190 Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 18:56
Post #148173

Bolton Single Yellow 9/8/06
Informal Appeal before NTO on signage and Non Compliant PCN. Acknowleged and put on Hold.
After reminding them I was sick of waiting received response PCN cancelled due to clerical error on PCN. (Likely Story)

Posted by: jonsutters Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 23:23
Post #148262

This week the NPAS adjudicator favoured my appeal against Bedford County Council.

My car was ticketed at 7am, in a parking bay which had been temporarily suspended. The bay normally operated from 9am to 5pm. The temporary sign, fixed above the normal 'time plate', stated the day and date of the suspension, but the council lazily used the words '1 day' instead of 'at any time' or some specified hours.

The adjudicator agreed that it was 'inappropriate' wording, considering the sign specifications described in the 2002 Traffic Regs, and so it had caused sufficient ambiguity that the offence did not occur.

This website encouraged me to see the appeal through, and it was a good resource to help find the exact grounds for appeal. Thanks.

Posted by: greatscot Fri, 17 Nov 2006 - 22:47
Post #148730

GS and press vs Aberdeen Council.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=15769

Serves them right and there is more of this to come...

GS

Posted by: Silver City Tim Mon, 20 Nov 2006 - 17:27
Post #149201

Glasgow City Council have backed out of a fight over a PCN I recieved in April. They stood up to all appeals until I took them to SPAS. Word was that Glasgow was the only council seeking adjournments on appeals quoting the Jackson rulling. All the other DPE councils in Scotland were capitulating. I got word today Glasgow have cancelled my ticket before the appeal took place. biggrin.gif Maybe it was because I had sent SPAS the evidence to get them on 7 different failings. Only the evidence was submited because the grounds were listed on a seperate sheet. The wrong document was printed off so the only grounds for appeal on the form sent in was Jackson's ruling.

Posted by: Cuff Em &Stuff Em Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 19:55
Post #152871

Hi there - I got a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd on 22/11 for parking in McDonalds at Gatwick South on 24/10 at 05.36am until 07.01am.

They wanted £150 or £75 if paid within 14 days. I therefore decided to do some research and after trying to get hold of Civil Enforcement in Nottingham and telephoning McDonalds I came across this GREAT Forum.

I therefore decided to appeal using some of the material on here and sent a letter as follows :-

27 November 2006
Civil Enforcement Ltd
DBH House
Carlton Square
Nottingham

NG4 3BP Ref PCN **********

Dear Sir or Madam
:
I refer to the above PCN dated 22/11/2006 which was sent to me as the Registered Keeper of this vehicle. As you are aware this incident is covered by Contract Law which can only be agreed by the parties that entered in to the contract.. In this case the driver of the vehicle who may or may not have read the sign.

As I was NOT driving the vehicle I am NOT responsible for the payment of this Parking Charge Notice and owe you NOTHING..

This vehicle is used by several drivers so please supply your photographic evidence. These should be a clear and concise picture of the driver of the vehicle so I can attempt to identify which driver entered in to this contract.

The photographs should show the time and date of the incident and be accompanied by a copy of the latest calibration certificates from the independent contractor that verifies the timings of the cameras that take these photographs. Also supply a copy of the Parking Charge Terms and Conditons plus evidence of under whose authority you are acting.

Unless you can supply ALL this information within 7 days I am afraid I can help you no further and ask that you cancel this notice forthwith.


Yours sincerely


Cuff Em & Stuff Em


GUESS WHAT ? - Today 5/12 I received a postcard from Civil Enforcement postmarked "lLondon"

Dear Sir/Madam

Your Parking Charge Appeal

We refer to you correspondence in respect of the Parking Charge Notice that we recently issued to you.

We are pleased to inform you that this ticket has now been cancelled.

Yours Faithfully

Civil Enforcement



THANK YOU EVERYONE - I couldn't have done it without your help !!

Do Not PAY these Thieving SCUMBAGS

Appeal Appeal Appeal !!

Posted by: greatscot Wed, 13 Dec 2006 - 21:33
Post #154822

More fall-out from my car-park win that I have found out!

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/11/08/newsstory8942808t0.asp

Posted by: Weevil Wed, 10 Jan 2007 - 22:45
Post #159599

I've been a member of this forum for a while now. I joined when I got a NIP for speeding a few years ago. I used the PACE letter which at that stage was a relatively new wheeze and it did the trick - the speeding offence timed out and I've heard nothing since. Anyway, I've got a new (and slower) car now and so have had no bother from Plod. This means that last year I found myself scratching around trying to find something to occupy me in my spare time. And then a parking attendant working for Parkwise (Preston) fixed a PCN to my Dad's van whilst he was unloading in a residents only bay....

My dad's case got all the way to appeal. I raised four grounds of appeal of which NPAS rejected three and accepted one - the markings and signage on the road where the alleged contravention took place were inadequate. Result: Appeal upheld by NPAS, PCN cancelled.

Around the time the NPAS decision came through my brother got a PCN for overstaying in a different parking bay. Again the road markings were inadequate but Parkwise messed the documents up and I was too late to get my appeal in (on that point all I'm saying is that I wish I knew then what I know now...) so my brother ended up paying that one.

Shortly afterwards a friend got a PCN for overstaying on the same stretch of parking bay. This time I was more on the ball - the road markings were still inadequate and again it got to appeal. This time Parkwise offered no contest. Result: Appeal upheld by NPAS, PCN cancelled.

{Edit!} Almost forgot! In amongst all this I got a ticket for failing to display on a council owned car park. I park on the same car park everyday but for some reason this particular day I forgot to pay. What made this interesting was the fact that my car was registered to my brother. I bought it off him and as we live at the same address, there didn't seem any point in updating the info with DVLA. My brother received the NTO and I wrote him an appeal on the basis of him rebutting the presumption of ownership of the vehicle. Parkwise offered no evidence in the appeal. Result: Appeal upheld by NPAS and PCN cancelled.

So its 3:1 to me. That could be about to change, however. I still have the PCN issued to my brother and it only has one date on it. Yesterday I sent my claim for restitution....

Fingers crossed.

dry.gif

Posted by: Bazil Thu, 11 Jan 2007 - 00:43
Post #159620

QUOTE (DW190 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 18:56) *
Bolton Single Yellow 9/8/06
Informal Appeal before NTO on signage and Non Compliant PCN. Acknowleged and put on Hold.
After reminding them I was sick of waiting received response PCN cancelled due to clerical error on PCN. (Likely Story)

Hi Do you still have your PCN from Bolton I have 2 PCN's from december paid first PCN then challenged it, waiting for reply and waiting for NTO for 2nd PCn so I can appeal to NPAS hopefully on wording of PCN's.
Barry

Posted by: Felix Fri, 12 Jan 2007 - 13:53
Post #160012

Me vs Ed Council - T-bars.
Non-contested.
See - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=13941&st=0&gopid=160007&#entry160007

Posted by: padster Mon, 15 Jan 2007 - 12:15
Post #160568

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=16897&st=0&gopid=160567&#entry160567

Posted by: fatboytim Fri, 19 Jan 2007 - 03:02
Post #161641

Ticketed while broken down,
Sent letter and copy of 'piggyback' recovery slip, cancelled without a fight.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=16692

fatboytim

Posted by: zooper Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 00:06
Post #162967

biggrin.gif Igot a ticket and was clamped for parking in a bay not displaying a sign.When i parked in the early hours ,there was a pole there but without a sign .i took a photograph of the signless pole .I returned to my vehicle late in the evening to find my vehicle with a pcn,clamped and the pole now displaying a sign residents permit holders only.

PATAS ruled in my favour .the local authority have failed to produce a copy of the PCN
Without a copy of the PCN there is no evidence that a contrav occurred. smile.gif

Posted by: zooper Thu, 1 Feb 2007 - 10:48
Post #164936

QUOTE (zooper @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 00:06) *
biggrin.gif Igot a ticket and was clamped for parking in a bay not displaying a sign.When i parked in the early hours ,there was a pole there but without a sign .i took a photograph of the signless pole .I returned to my vehicle late in the evening to find my vehicle with a pcn,clamped and the pole now displaying a sign residents permit holders only.

PATAS ruled in my favour .the local authority have failed to produce a copy of the PCN
Without a copy of the PCN there is no evidence that a contrav occurred. smile.gif


Oops before i go PATAS said i should contact Hackney about refunding my money.
The 28 days will soon be up .How do i go about getting it??????

Please let me know . Thanks excl.gif

Posted by: flopper Fri, 2 Feb 2007 - 19:01
Post #165353

Ticketed on a very poorly signed bus stop. Half the road markings were gone where tarmac had been replaced. Sign facing away from road(warden took photo of this?) excl.gif

Sent letters to Parking Services (NCP) and head of parking for borough detailing what road markings and signs should be there. One letter brushing off the subject and asking for the fine to be paid was sent to me. I sent another firmer letter stating I would like an opportunity in front of adjudicator and if they asked for fine money again legal proceedings would start against them.

Result:

Letter of apology from head of parking (now framed) confirming that road markings are 'not sufficient' icon_hang.gif (free parking!!) and ticket is canceled! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: NotAnotherTicket Sat, 10 Feb 2007 - 18:32
Post #167277

Won a TfL case involving the legality of a Red Route loading bay beyond the termination of the Double Red Lines.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=16435

biggrin.gif

Posted by: scotchio Mon, 12 Feb 2007 - 12:20
Post #167580

Bentley v Croydon Council

Received a PCN via CCTV at Westow hill in Crystal Palace for waiting on a double yellow lines.
The PCN was delivered via the post but did not allow 30 days from when the PCN was recieved (i.e. 2 days later) Thus cutting short the time to pay the fine, and therefore rendering the PCN un-enforcable.

Although this never went to court I still managed to get the PCN cancelled on these grounds
Thanks to everyone who chipped in with ideas
Scott

Current score
Bentley 2 Croydon 0

Posted by: Wobba Tue, 20 Feb 2007 - 22:53
Post #169749

Daniel Mumford had £25,000 of fines written off by Southampton City Council...though they claim the recent Barnet ruling had nothing to do with it...yea, riiiiight.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,,2005226,00.html

Action continues.

Posted by: Balvine Mon, 5 Mar 2007 - 10:33
Post #172697

Another dozen or more success stories can be found if you follow the link on this website to Parking Tickets relating to BP and Wild Bean Cafe at Gatwick. Probably best to start beyond page 30 unless you have a spare couple of hours to read everything.

Posted by: Leon G Thu, 15 Mar 2007 - 10:12
Post #175250

Had 3 private tickets cancelled by BPM Ground Services in Brent Cross South.

Posted by: FEENIX Mon, 19 Mar 2007 - 01:07
Post #176073

Hi
My nephew received 2 PCN's for unenforceable lines in Atherton Greater Manchester, first PCN payment was returned and 2nd PCN cancelled, the Traffic order TRO was also out of order as it had not been amended when a T bar was moved making the Dubyells illegal, as there was 3 T bars on one line.

Posted by: dave99 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 - 19:38
Post #192053

I had my PCN cancelled by manchester council. I sent representations against the NTO stating incorrect/predudicial wording on the PCN as well as invalid controlled zone due to tarmac'd over yellow lines - they rejected all the points in their reply but still cancelled ticket biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=14043

Posted by: cedric5000 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 - 09:20
Post #193830

PCN received for "failing to display a valid pay and display ticket". Ticket fell off windscreen but it was valid. First appeal was rejected. Received NTO and appealed with a polite and precise statement on the grounds that a contravention did not occur and sent a copy of the valid ticket. Received letter back from Council saying after careful consideration my appeal would be upheld on this occasion. Yay!

Posted by: gavbo Wed, 11 Jul 2007 - 13:40
Post #197608

Ticket cancelled hurrah! - case here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=21594&st=0&gopid=197604&#entry197604

Thanks to everyone!

Posted by: Ashalla Wed, 18 Jul 2007 - 15:53
Post #198892

LAMBETH PARKING THIEVES
I confirm that the thieves who run Control Plus on behalf of Lambeth Council are true rogues.

I had a parking ticket at 9.50pm one night just five minutes after returning home. I parked outside my drive (on my white line) but normally on the road. There are no yellow lines so they gave me a ticket for parking on the pavement; except it was on the road normally parked. In fact I had castigated my wife for parking on the pavement a few days before and told her to pay up. So, I was especially surprised to get this ticket.

The attitude of the staff was by and large horrendous. I spoke on the telephone to them and they said I would need to write in, especially with regard to photos they allegedly took (which I was please to hear about). After calling back 2 weeks later, I asked when the photo was going to be sent to me. They said I wasn’t specific enough because I had only said “I hear you have a photo of the alleged incident so I will be very please to view any”. I told them that I was trying to be polite. So, I wrote again and said “please send me copies of your photos”. By this time the number of photos had been breeding and had multiplied from one to five, apparently.

Another 2 weeks passed and I called up again, asking when I would receive the photos. I was told “didn’t anyone tell you? Your ticket was cancelled”. What a surprise!

I am now fighting a PCN issued on worn out yellow lines, and they are ignoring the points I raise about them being unregulated.

Posted by: Avalanche80 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 - 13:11
Post #200559

Using this excellent Forum I have had a success, Avalanche80 v Thanet District Council.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22012

Many thanks to all who helped. cool.gif

Posted by: Slaav Mon, 30 Jul 2007 - 12:32
Post #200991

The story details are here :

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22165

And every word in my letter is true! I really thought I would be at another hearing on this one or has somebody at Westminster started to see sense?

Anyway, One down and one more to go.... (Both 100% legit gripes on my part)

Posted by: FEENIX Thu, 16 Aug 2007 - 20:22
Post #204286

January 2007 nephew got PCN for being parked 6 inches over a DYL, he paid it then got another PCN same spot, I checked it out, it had 3 T bars on the line. I got his £30 refunded and his 2nd one cancelled. also checked the TRO it was invalid as it had not been amended when the shortened the DYL to make more room for residents parking, forced wigan Council to pay back over £100 for 35 penalty charges issued on same DYL.

June 2007 appeal I took to NPAS on behalf of my D.I.L the appeal is now known as Pilkington v Bolton Council, TRO invalid due to the word Wholly missing from Condition of Use sign at entrance to every car park in Bolton over 30 signs unlawful, PCN cancelled on the basis that the sign did not comply with the TRO therfore TRO invalid, now campaiging nearly full time against Bolton lawless parking regime every TRO I have checked as been invalid.
Awaiting restitution for several cases.

Posted by: greatscot Sat, 18 Aug 2007 - 13:10
Post #204676

Just received written decision see here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22666

Thanks for the help guys!!

All the best
GS

Posted by: sakoni2001 Tue, 21 Aug 2007 - 10:18
Post #205230

Following Boxclever's advice, I had appealed to Ealing Council for a late PCN and today they cancelled the PCN.

Thank you Boxclever. Full story here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22525&st=0&gopid=205227&#entry205227

Posted by: Captain A Tue, 21 Aug 2007 - 19:49
Post #205365

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=16398&view=findpost&p=205330

Thanks everyone

Posted by: greatscot Tue, 21 Aug 2007 - 20:00
Post #205370

Just to add to the previous win on NOR, NTO, 2 dates etc in this post

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22741

I'd like to post up the press attention it attracted:

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149212&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232919&home=yes&more_nodeId1=149221&contentPK=18158085

and the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6956426.stm

Thanks everyone for the help wink.gif

All the best
GS

Posted by: barrowboy Fri, 31 Aug 2007 - 13:30
Post #207136

Victory. Though I feel its kinda hollow.

Motorcycle parked on pavement outside my house adjacent to a 4m break in the double yellows which coincided with a dropped kerb. Oh and its a wide pavement so I wasnt forcing the elderly and prams into traffic.

My arguments:
Obvious one a 4m break in the lines and the council failing to maintain ect.
TRO provided for a 30m restriction which in fact measured 44m between T bars.
PCN had printed poorly and the '2' was missing off '21' on the date of contrivention.

Council rejected the lot. Break in signage didnt matter, 44m is approx 30m(!?) and they had 3 dates on their PCNs including the one on the tear off, so it went to NPAS.

NPAS rejected the 4m break in the lines as 'a break of a few feet' wouldnt invalidate the signage and the poor council cannot be expected to maintain every temporary break in the lines. Remember everyone NPAS reckon 15 feet is only 'a few' and inspite of the TRO itself showing that the council have never maintained the lines; it is only a temporary thing.

The 14m discrepancy in the actual lines and the TRO didnt even get mentioned in the judgement, unless that was part of the 'few feet'? Interesting that the council can have an approximate measurement when it comes to issuing tickets but presumably I didnt have the same argument of being approximately parked on my property.

The missing '2' off the poorly printed PCN was confirmed as indeed missing and the ticket quashed (eventually) as the PCN failed to conform with requirements.

My thanks to everyone on here as this forum has provided a lot of useful advice and good luck to everone else who is fighting against unjust tickets.

I'd also like to say to those wonderful people in parking services (who lets face it read this thing) tough. And you're lucky I'm not sueing you for the two criminal acts that I was accused of in your evidence.

Posted by: Clear Skies Sat, 1 Sep 2007 - 09:57
Post #207276

hi, a late entry, I had a win against westminster end of last year , defective signs and markings..

Rumour has it most of their parking bays are incorrect..

rgds

Posted by: greatscot Sun, 2 Sep 2007 - 13:12
Post #207431

Win on faulty CPZ signs....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=23055

The Council have set out a great deal of their CPZ signs incorrectly

All the best
GS

Posted by: Lostdog Mon, 10 Sep 2007 - 11:56
Post #209110

Finally seem to have beated Central Ticketing (although not recevied confirmation in writing - should I push for this?!) - anyway, here's a link to the thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=20505&st=40&start=40

Thanks everyone on the forum for their help! :-)

LD

Posted by: BikerPaul Mon, 10 Sep 2007 - 12:39
Post #209118

Basingstoke and Deane - Parked on the clear side of a DYL Tie-bar, with no signs or lines at all.

Ticket said "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours" but said "Church Street" - I was in Haymarket yard, off the DYL.

Informal challenge was accepted by council after directing them to the regulations and putting them on notice that I'd take it to NPAS with costs from day 1.

BikerPaul 2, Basingstoke Nil.

Posted by: Adenuff Wed, 12 Sep 2007 - 10:13
Post #209540

I am pleased to announce, pour encourager les autres, that I have just clocked up my 25th PCN success

Most of my PCNs are contested under the loading exemption and have been against 10 different LAs.

10 of mine have gone to PATAS-including 7 which had multiple grounds including Lukha and one went to PATAS appeal which was won on the 2 dates issue.

For the record I don't condone indiscriminate illegal parking but I am sick of the way London PAs conduct their business and IMHO lie and cheat to help the Councils to our hard earned cash.

Posted by: greatscot Fri, 14 Sep 2007 - 17:56
Post #210062

Front page press article regarding CPZ signs

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=23391

Keep at them!!!

Posted by: Parrot of Doom Thu, 20 Sep 2007 - 21:39
Post #211213

I received 2 tickets for 2 separate offences, both detailed in this thread. I have just received this, regarding the second ticket in this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22608&st=0&p=204131&#entry204131

QUOTE (Islington)
Dear Mr **********
Penalty Charge Notice No. IS11982845 Date of Issue 25/08/2007 at 09:25
Location of Contravention Benwell Road, N7
Thank you for your recent email.
I am writing to advise I have cancelled this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
To recap, the PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a residents or shared use parking place without clearly displaying a permit, voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place:


I was not able to cancel the PCN on the grounds you stated. This is because the Word document you attached to your mail was inadvertently not scanned properly by my colleagues. I felt it would be inappropriate to re-request details you have already provided, so I cancelled the PCN on the basis of our mistake.
Please take care to observe on-street signage next time, so you may hopefully avoid receiving a PCN:


The appeal was emailed to them as a word document. Totally standard, nothing special about it.

I contested the claim on the incorrect bays (long single bay with double ends) and the PCN not having the required information on the front. Although its a result, I personally feel they've 'let me off' on this technicality because they don't want to set a precedent regarding the bays.

£120 saved!

Posted by: waapaa Wed, 3 Oct 2007 - 09:49
Post #213615

Just got a result from a TFL CCTV pcn issued on Streaham Hill.
I had parked there unwittingly at 1657 and the restcrictions were no parking 7-7pm , except 10-4pm. And it was a free 1 hour park , no return blah blah.
Anyway all i saw was the free 1 hour parking, didn't read the rest properly. Got the pcn sent to my address, and staright away i picked up on the road name. They had stated that the road name was Streatham high road SW2. i wrote back and told them that for a pcn to be valid, you need the date , time, and road name where the offence took place, the road name was wrong , as Streatham high road starts 500m down the road, annd i was in fact parked on Streatham Hill.
They rejected it , went throught the notice to ownere procedure, and issued a charge notice . But i stood my ground.
Finally got the cancellation notice today, saying due to the circumstances explained in your letter , i'm cancelling the penalty charge. What a waste of time.

For your information, the road name MUST be correct, otherwise it didn't happen. It's an absolute. Think of it as a pcn with the wrong registration number for your vehicle. Will you accept they made a mistake? No , under law, it's not the same car.

So please,please CHECK your tickets properly for road names, use http://www.streetmap.co.uk.
type in the road name they have used, if it doesn't come up , then it doesn't exist. Also look for postcodes. If they have used the wrong postcode, that could work in your favour too.

Posted by: razorwire Tue, 9 Oct 2007 - 18:24
Post #214937

We won!!!! laugh.gif
Predictably enough no-one from TPS/ Devere parking Services turned up which was a shame as it would have been fun - the judge was not exactly impressed with their claim and dismissed it in about 2 minutes flat
Thanks to all here for their help and support, it was worth the grief and stress, the judge picked up on the fact that my wife was the RK and NOT the driver so they would not have had a claim against us had they bothered to turn up.
DO NOT let these scammers bully you into paying.
We had demands, were given false informationby TPS, had 2 threats from bailiffs, threats of legal proceedings, court action and finally VICTORY!

Posted by: Parrot of Doom Tue, 16 Oct 2007 - 19:29
Post #216300

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22608&view=findpost&p=216299



biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: rodders1 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 - 20:31
Post #217345

A thank you to all who gave advice when I was ticketed for parking at QE Hospital King's Lynn in August, I sent the following letter and have heard nothing since.


Dear County Parking Enforcement Agency Ltd,



I refer to the enclosed invoice which was found fastened to the windscreen of my vehicle together with a notice warning that removal is prohibited by anyone other than the driver/keeper. You should be aware that Section 40 (d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from another as a debt due under contract, he or she utters a document falsely represented by him or her to have some official character or purporting to have some official character when he or she knows it is not.



You should also be aware that invoices issued by Private Parking Companies are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and also that in any case the timescale for payment on the invoice does not conform to mandatory requirements of the said Act rendering the “notice” invalid.



Should you continue to harass me for payment this matter will be reported to the Police who are duty bound to investigate.


Posted by: emanresu Wed, 24 Oct 2007 - 10:16
Post #217664

Thanks for all the help here in getting my clamping fee back. The clampers accepted my view that they were not correct in demanding payment for parking on private land.

See http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22845</a>

Posted by: Kai Tue, 6 Nov 2007 - 17:17
Post #220041

Hello Everyone,

I received a PCN a short while ago, see the thread here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24258&st=0&gopid=220038&#entry220038

Well, after an informal appeal to Gateshead council it was cancelled, so I am off the hook.

To summarise:

I was parked in a council run, small, free car park, supposedly over the bay line.

Received a PCN, code 24.

I appealed it on several grounds:

1 - The wrong contravention code was used, 24 is for on street, I was not parked on steet.

2 - Discresion would have been suitable on this occassion, no obstruction whatsoever was caused.

3 - There were several errors on the PCN which don't comply to the RTA.

4 - The DYL were illegal as they did not comply with 1018.

The council cancelled the PCN based upon point 3, but they rejected points 1,2 and 4.

For reference, this bit of my letter that counted: (making reference to the RTA)

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

3) The PCN has been incorrectly issued and is thus misleading, invalid and unlawful.

My justification for this is as follows:

• (3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent .
The PCN does not comply with the above legal requirements. Specifically, the text on the front of the PCN reads: ‘A penalty charge notice of £60 is therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice. If payment is made within 14 days a reduced penalty charge of £30.00 is required’.

The first point to note here is the grammatical error: ‘therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice’. The PCN does not clarify the unit of measure referred to by the number 14. This could be hours, days, weeks or months.

Secondly, the PCN does not advise that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice (please see act above).

To summarise, the PCN issued does not comply with points 3 c, 3 d and 3 e of the aforementioned road traffic act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, success. Thanks to everyone who helped, it is greatly appreciated.

Kai. smile.gif

Posted by: Kai Tue, 6 Nov 2007 - 17:20
Post #220042

Hello Everyone,

I received a PCN a short while ago, see the thread here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24258&st=0&gopid=220038&#entry220038

Well, after an informal appeal to Gateshead council it was cancelled, so I am off the hook.

To summarise:

I was parked in a council run, small, free car park, supposedly over the bay line.

Received a PCN, code 24.

I appealed it on several grounds:

1 - The wrong contravention code was used, 24 is for on street, I was not parked on steet.

2 - Discresion would have been suitable on this occassion, no obstruction whatsoever was caused.

3 - There were several errors on the PCN which don't comply to the RTA.

4 - The DYL were illegal as they did not comply with 1018.

The council cancelled the PCN based upon point 3, but they rejected points 1,2 and 4.

For reference, this bit of my letter that counted: (making reference to the RTA)

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

3) The PCN has been incorrectly issued and is thus misleading, invalid and unlawful.

My justification for this is as follows:

• (3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent .
The PCN does not comply with the above legal requirements. Specifically, the text on the front of the PCN reads: ‘A penalty charge notice of £60 is therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice. If payment is made within 14 days a reduced penalty charge of £30.00 is required’.

The first point to note here is the grammatical error: ‘therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice’. The PCN does not clarify the unit of measure referred to by the number 14. This could be hours, days, weeks or months.

Secondly, the PCN does not advise that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice (please see act above).

To summarise, the PCN issued does not comply with points 3 c, 3 d and 3 e of the aforementioned road traffic act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, success. Thanks to everyone who helped, it is greatly appreciated.

Kai. smile.gif

Posted by: muckychimney Sun, 11 Nov 2007 - 17:17
Post #221080

Another victory against HullCC and their victimisation via Vinci park PA's.

I was contacted by a member of the public who had seen my victory win over Hull CC and was asked for advice, after following advice from myself, DW and CKent the Council responded yesterday to the gentleman that they were cancelling the PCN.


Posted by: roythebus Sat, 17 Nov 2007 - 15:43
Post #222504

SUCCESS AT LAST

I've just had notification from the Northampton Bulk Process Centre that the the order for the unpaid penalty charge be revoked following my statutory declaration.

They also order that the charge certificate and notice to owner be cancelled.

They also point out that this does not cancel the original PCN and the local authority may take further action.

Link here to original post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24827

THANK YOU to all on here who have given help and advice. Another £95 the scammers won't get.

Posted by: jmc990 Sun, 18 Nov 2007 - 22:10
Post #222750

As youll see in previous posts I had an 'invoice' from central ticketing after parking outside a comet store. After explaining my reasons for not paying they continued with the usual letters.
The final nail in the coffin for them seemed to be when I sent them a letter saying that I would charge an admin fee for replying to there junk mail.
Since then heard nothing. Yay.

Posted by: Wayne Pendle Sun, 18 Nov 2007 - 23:38
Post #222766

I think jmc, if you are the owner and/but not the driver, that, is that key.

Posted by: jaykay Sat, 24 Nov 2007 - 20:16
Post #223988


Probable success from down under, sunny (and hot) New Zealand.

Got some sort of ticket for overstaying in a ten minute parking slot at the local shopping mall 7 or 8 months ago. Got a letter a couple of weeks later saying the car owner had to pay - replied that no debt was owed (car is registered to a company), no stamp on letter. Follow up letter said that all the signage was correct and I had to pay more, strange as I hadn't made any comments about the signs. Unstamped letter sent again, saying they owed me money because I had to write again.

Some sort of further demand turned up about a month later from some outfit claiming to be debt collectors - a very dodgy piece of paper, regretting that I had to pay their collection costs as well. Yeh right, filed in the bin.

Perhaps coincidentally at about the same time a piece of paper was left in my letter box asking if anyone knew the physical whereabouts of my company. Let me explain, rural addresses in New Zealand are not identified by a house number - in order that you get your post you have to fill a form in for the Post Office giving all the names of everyone living there plus the identifying number for the post box (on the roadside). Therefore only the post office actually knows where people (or a company) live - try and find the Widget Company on River Rd, Rangiora, and you will have a long job knocking on a couple of hundred doors.

Suffice to say, no more demands for payment and I reckon they've given up. Curious thing, the demands for payment mentioned nothing about contravening any laws, so I suspect they are invoices which do not need paying. Now where would I have got that idea from!

A round of applause for heros such as Wayne Pendle, Tuefel, Box Clever, Legal Adviser and others. The beer is in the fridge, the steak is on the barby.

Posted by: jaykay Sat, 24 Nov 2007 - 21:17
Post #223996


And another one from sunny NZ.

Company van got parking ticket last December.

To avoid the "infringement fee" turning into a fine which is difficult to get out of, the recipient of a Reminder Notice has to request a hearing within 28 days. Did this, confirmed as recieved by local council (they wrote "you have requested a hearing"). Despite this the council still told the court just within six months (the six month court ruling is here as well), that I hadn't asked for a hearing. So the court issues a fine..........the ensuing form filling is specific to New Zealand so I won't go into the details, suffice to say the court staff do their best to prevent you actually getting to a court hearing.

Anyway, the law states the procedure that has to be followed when a Notice of Hearing (summons) is dated within six months of the alleged offence. This one wasn't, so I though an easy win - probably by an appeal to the High Court. As I have some personal issues with the local council (!) about perjury and malfeasance I witnessed summoned an enforcement officer to court........and cross examined him for half an hour. If I knew it could be such fun I would have done these sorts of things years ago - the transcript is very amusing.

To cut a long story short I won, but for the wrong reasons. My company never became the confirmed registered keeper of the van, this can only be completed by paying money and showing the company registration documents, and I didn't. Parking offences (and many other motoring offences) here are "owner liability", as the company wasn't the owner we weren't guilty. BUT, the court decided all the court paperwork was dated correctly (which it isn't).
My polite request for costs was ignored, so it's off to the High Court on 5th December for an appeal. The council will probably have to pay a few hundred pounds in preparing some sort of defence - naturally to avoid this shocking waste of ratepayers money I will be contacting the council about an out of court settlement - however this will involve them in admitting they committed perjury on a previous occassion. The letter I will be lodging with the council tomorrow will basically say we can all avoid wasting the courts time if they pay me some costs and admit they lied to the court, if they don't agree, a copy of this letter may just find its way into the papers submitted to the High Court about costs. I'll keep you posted.

and if you really must know http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4233014a24035.html
and http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4234395a6530.html

If you read these links bear in mind I appealed on the wrong grounds, a mistake I won't make again.

Posted by: jaykay Wed, 5 Dec 2007 - 10:19
Post #225779


Continuation of the story above - this time it was a costs appeal in the High Court. It would appear council staff here in NZ are similar to their counterparts in the UK, routinely lying to the court and ignoring the law. The solicitor representing the council must have been annoyed with what he had been given to work with, ie documentory proof that council staff had written to me saying I had requested a hearing, then telling the court I hadn't etc etc - and he was effectively told off by the judge on a few occassions. He was trying to argue that I shouldn't get costs because I got off on a technicality in that the the council didn't prove unambiguously that I was the vehicle owner - the judge thought it was fundamental, -
the upshot was that the judge reserved his decision - which means I won't get it for a few days - I suspect it's going to be quite amusing. Will I get costs? almost certainly but probably about thirty pounds rather than the five hundred I asked for. If I do then it will off to the local paper to get a picture. The whole episode will have cost the council a few hundred pounds (again), I doubt I will be on their Christmas Card list.
I'll post the full decision when it arrives - thanks again chaps.


Posted by: ali-b Thu, 13 Dec 2007 - 11:35
Post #227463

I was in an RTA on my motorbike on the way to work, near the London Planetarium when it happened. The Police officer that attended the scene dragged my wrecked bike to the kerb out of the way of traffic and arranged on my behalf with the AA (I was a member at the time) to get the bike recovered while I was taken to hospital (I was pretty banged up, but OK). In between the time when the bike was dragged to the kerb and the AA picking it up (less than an hour), I got a parking ticket. I appealed of course and they came back and said I still had to pay. I wrote a letter explaining the exact circumstances, where I was at the time of ticket issue, included pictures of the written off bike - sent it to the officer dealing with my case as well as Westminster Council and the parking enforcement dept. and they dropped the charges. Nice, but still a pain in the rear when you're recovering from hitting a transit van and they're being belligerent.

Still, a win is a win wink.gif

Posted by: secretmachines Mon, 17 Dec 2007 - 13:57
Post #228360

re: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24454

i contested, and got a letter back at the weekend saying "with reference to the evidence you supplied, i am pleased to confiurm that your PCN has been cancelled".

have faith people, have faith!

Posted by: The Dirty Bubble Sun, 30 Dec 2007 - 14:17
Post #230204

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=25660

PCN cancelled, thanks to you lot!

Posted by: marshyc Wed, 23 Jan 2008 - 02:51
Post #235087

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=25010

I won!

Council didn't even contest.

Posted by: JGX Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 15:41
Post #236815

Thanks guys, another win thanks to Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26891

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Sat, 9 Feb 2008 - 19:59
Post #238605

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24851&view=findpost&p=236398. A missing sign was erected whilst the driver was parked; also non-compliant bays. Westminster Council cancelled tickets.

Posted by: Grimsby Man Mon, 18 Feb 2008 - 11:32
Post #240233

Well, Well, Well

It took just one E-mail to the owners of the retail park to get my Parking Charge Cancelled.

UK POA Ltd Leeds page 10

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22075
This is how I got there

  1. Wrote standard letter to PPC stating that I was the Registed keeper and not the driver. UK POA replied with court letter
  2. Very quickly realise that writing to UK POA was a waste of time.
  3. Wrote to the Fee Paying Section of the DVLA, letting them know that, I believed UKPOA had unlawfully obtain vehicle details.
  4. DVLA replied with all UKPAO details and Owners details, plus a named person who could cancel Tickets
  5. Wrote/emailed Named person ask for ticket to be cancelled - 3 days later Parking Charge Cancelled
  6. Thanks to all that helped
  7. I am still carrying on the fight with DVLA, this Government agency is helping the scumbags to con people.

Posted by: TINBASHER Wed, 20 Feb 2008 - 20:54
Post #240908

Road traffic act 1984

Vehicle was allegedly parked in a pay and display car park without a valid parking ticket.I was NOT the driver at the time. Nasty letter from council was the first I know of the alleged offence.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26946


1. Check the ordinance maps you would be surprised as Wayne Pendal has said many times how they cock things up

2. Check the orders have been sealed and dated.

3. The EHCR issue although I haven't gone into this in great detail it may come in handy for someone someday.

ps remember my case is not under the decimalised parking/ NPAS/PATAS system.

Posted by: greatscot Sun, 24 Feb 2008 - 22:57
Post #241735

£2.65 Million worth of PCN's written off!!!
Thanks for the advice!!!

Newspaper article:
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=19960882&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Thread Link:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=27368

QUOTE
Parking fines worth £2.65million have been written off by Aberdeen City Council, it can be revealed.

More than 35,000 parking tickets issued between 2003 and 2006 will not be pursued by the local authority after an appeal ruling last year meant the fines may be unenforceable.

Council chief executive Douglas Paterson said "no further action" would be taken to collect the money, in a letter obtained by the Press and Journal.

The move follows a Scottish Parking Appeals Service adjudicator ruling in August 2007 that a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was invalid.

It was said that the notice created uncertainty because it did not make clear the date that it was issued.

Mr Paterson said in the letter that he did not accept the tickets were unlawfully issued, and they had not been cancelled. He admitted there were no plans to chase up the £2,649,539 worth of fines however.

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 29 Feb 2008 - 12:27
Post #242782

Can't compete with the £2.65 million by Great Scot but won my NPAS appeal against Hastings from summer 2007.

NPAS rejected the "28 days" statutory wording on the ticket [Barnet decision] but accepted it as a failure on the NOR [Lukha] as it did not follow para 4 RTA 1991.

The suggestion to challenge every stage was correct in my case. Thanks to all for the advice.

Edit: Was NPAS and not PATAS

Posted by: roythebus Mon, 3 Mar 2008 - 13:53
Post #243214

From my Parking in Shepway post, here's the transcript of the NAPAS judgement.


Roy Gould v Shepway District Council Case SH05045K

Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the council to cancel the penalty charge notice and notice to owner.

Reasons:

The PCN was issued on 13 May 2007 at 13:17 to vehicle WX52AVB in Harbour Approach Road Folkestone for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

This is a personal hearing attended by Mr & Mrs Gould.

Mr gould has appealed because he says that the yellow lines are not enforceable. He has raised other issues concerning the documentation. He says that at the time he parked in order to collect a return fare, He says the gentleman was elderly and suffering from mobility problems. He therefore parked and walked across the road to the market where the fare was waiting in order to help him to the vehicle, to assist boarding and to load his shopping.

I have read the Parking attendant’s notes ans studied the evidence. On the basis of the evidence presented by both parties I find as a fact that:
1 The vehicle was parked on double yellow lines
2 the vehicle was parked for the purpose of assisting a passenger to board
3 The vehicle was parked for the purpose of loading the passenger’s shopping
4 the passenger was elederly and under a disability.

An exemption exists in relation to allowing passengers to board and alight from a vehicle. Whilst that exemption would normally entail the pavement adjacent to the parked vehicle, where th passenger is elderly, under a disability or a minor the exemption extends to taking and / or collecting the person from the address / location ansd assisting them to (or from) the vehicle. It is evident that the part of this process will not take place within sight of the vehicle thus activity will not be witnessed.

Whilst the appeal process has centred on other matters I have elicited the above explanation by way of questioning- I am satisfied that the responses provided are genuine and credible. It is evident in the circumstances had been originally considered irrelevant and thus not explained or explored. A contrary position is in fact true.

Due to the specific reason and purpose for parking a contravention did not occur.

I am in the circumstances obliged to allow this appeal.

James Richardson
Parking adjudicator appointed under s73 RTA 1991.


Posted by: Mrs_P Wed, 5 Mar 2008 - 10:11
Post #243629

Please see 'Date has been altered, is it legal?' 13/10/07 in this forum.

I originally contested this ticket on the grounds that the date had been altered and received help from various members confirming that I should pursue it. So thanks to all who replied.

Following help from Wayne Pendle, who realised that the issuing company was incorrect, I got in touch with Neil Herron who confirmed that the ticket had been issued by NCP Ltd., rather than NCP Services Ltd. and they didn't actually have a contract with Sunderland Council! He suggested I write to them asking them to confirm their contract, send me a copy of it and also to write to my MP.

Within two days I had the head of Parking Services on the phone telling me that my MP had contacted him. He said the ticket had been cancelled in December, but someone had put all the correspondence in a file and it had been overlooked (Yeah right!).

I will be getting a letter confirming this and I no longer have to pay the £90, or worry about bailiffs coming round.

Many thanks for the help I received here.

Mrs_P

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 02:52
Post #247977

Back a few years and the only one I've ever fought. not sure if it was worth it but there is just something about injustice that makes us go for it whatever the cost - and it was a heavy cost.

I WON ! - but felt bedraggled, tired and out of pocket afterwards.

I'll post the text of the Adjudicators decision when I get the technology/knowhow.

Simple case of an attendant deciding to say i was parked other than where I was and (probably) deliberately not putting the PCN on the vehicle so I knew nothing until six weeks later.

Produced lots of evidence to show it was extremely unlikely that I was parked where alleged and not where I actually was. Got lucky (which disturbs me) that neighbours all made statements to that effect and one was a solicitor whose house I had actually been parked outside. It all cost too much time and money though for something I didn't do in the first place.

i think I'd already won but the absolute crowning moment was when I used the attendants own notes, that they had offered in eveidence, against them.

He said I was parked at the beginning of the road, on a yellow line, as he entered but his notes then show he failed to notice me until 2 or 3 minutes later which virtually proved I was parked where I said - some 60metres further up in a P&D bay.

Still it didn't feel that much of a victory cos it cost so much of my life: All because the Council just ignored my initial points entirely. I'm convinced that they just try it on and dismiss appeals automatically, relying on the statistical likelihood that people will take the easy option rather than challenging them.

No surprise to find that, despite the Adjudicator basically saying that the attendant had lied - or appeared to be mistaken there was no reaction from Newham and he continued to work for them for some time afterwards and possibly even today -'944' if u ever run into him.

One consolation was that by shear coincidence my hearing was scheduled in february 2005 at New Zealand House in the Mall. On the tube on the way I read that Someone was to appear in Trafalgar Square that day and the timing was perfect. After winning I walked around the corner to see the great Nelson Mandela in the flesh.

Why talk now - well you might have guessed - another one coming soon! See other thread when I get around to it.

Thanks

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 03:02
Post #247978

Just one more thing - an amusing post-script. Not sure if this will get me into trouble.

The Adjudicator really made me laugh when I asked if ther was any chance of getting some compensation after all my expense.

i suggested that they had been vexatious in defending their action because they had ignored all of the points i raised in my appeal. I think that legally I had little to stand on despite it being true but he was really clever in appeasing me with his reply: Not an exact quote and 'off-the-record' but along the lines of ''I can't find them vexatious when it is far more likely that they are incompetent''.

A gem and it cheered me up no end!

Posted by: a97 Fri, 23 May 2008 - 11:35
Post #262148

One more for PePiPoo! smile.gif

http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=barnetresult1v2wd5.jpg

Thanks to all who contributed.

Posted by: whitewing Fri, 23 May 2008 - 11:46
Post #262153

QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 04:02) *
Just one more thing - an amusing post-script. Not sure if this will get me into trouble.

The Adjudicator really made me laugh when I asked if ther was any chance of getting some compensation after all my expense.

i suggested that they had been vexatious in defending their action because they had ignored all of the points i raised in my appeal. I think that legally I had little to stand on despite it being true but he was really clever in appeasing me with his reply: Not an exact quote and 'off-the-record' but along the lines of ''I can't find them vexatious when it is far more likely that they are incompetent''.

A gem and it cheered me up no end!

Isn't "wholly unreasonable" grounds for costs? Is it not wholly unreasonable that a public body should deal with financial matters in an incompetent fashion?

Posted by: SunDayDriver Tue, 24 Jun 2008 - 18:30
Post #269144

Ticket with Torbay council was voided the other day thanks to Pepipoo! Another £70/£35 for the pub fund! Cheers guys

Posted by: atlantis Tue, 24 Jun 2008 - 19:01
Post #269149

Box junction penalty ticket outside Goldsmiths College in New Cross. Looked at Road Traffic Act 1991 and appealled on the basis of things missing from the ticket that they are required by law to say. I won, yay, but have now got another ticket and the law has changed to this stupid Traffic Management Act 2004 which makes such things unclear. Butts.

Posted by: enensis Wed, 25 Jun 2008 - 18:09
Post #269491

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=30263&pid=269488&st=40&#entry269488

My letter to Richmond


I wish to make a representation against my PCN issued 5/6/2008 – received by post 9/6/08.

The PCN I have been given is legally incorrect. It clearly states at the top of the form:

Traffic Management Act 2004 s78
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals
Regulations 2007

None of which cover driving in a bus lane.
None of which cover my alleged contravention which was an apparent moving vehicle contravention.
As such it is unclear what I have done and what the process of enforcement and appeal is.

This is unfair and prejudicial

The hight court case of Moses v Barnet sets a high standard for council notices for such penalties
and that failure means the notice is a nullity.

I therefore request either the legally correct information is provided to me in order to make a correct representation or the PCN be canceled.

I have attached scanned images of the above mentioned PCN for your viewing.

Kind Regards


Richmond Replied

Notice of acceptance for your representation.

After concidering the circumstances relating to the issue of the above mentioned PCN, I am pleased to inform you that this PCN has now been cancelled.

Looks like Richmond messed up Royaly and wanted to avoid a court case lol

WOOWOO smile.gif

Posted by: Cheryl M Tue, 8 Jul 2008 - 18:04
Post #273003

I win! biggrin.gif

I posted my rant in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=29521&st=0&gopid=272998&#entry272998

My appeal was straight to the point - that it was extremnely harsh to fine me for making an inadvertant error in forgetting to display the disabled time badge whilst in a rush to aid my mother, but having displayed the BB, parked on a yellow line.

However it wasn't that straight forward though.... I ended up receiving a Notice to Owner through the post, meaning they hadn't recieved my appeal by email!! That made me mad. So I had to personally go to the council to make this point and said my ISP could prove an email (including its contents) was sent to their address from mine. They investigated, eventually found it, and within a week I recieved a letter saying my appeal was accepted, without prejudice to the council's position and that similar appeals would not be considered in future.

Yay! cool.gif

Posted by: greatscot Tue, 29 Jul 2008 - 08:13
Post #278906

Well, 4.7 MILLION POUNDS this time!!!

And the lucky Council is ..... Glasgow.

See thread here....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=31550

and the article...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2411588.0.council_writes_off_4m_of_parking_tickets.php

I even got a mention for Pepipoo!!

Posted by: flopper Sun, 3 Aug 2008 - 09:36
Post #280303

Great Scott, Greatscot! You will end up bankrupting Scotland at this rate!

It makes my effort of forcing Enfield Council to repaint their bus stops to comply with TSRGD seem like small fry.

Well done.

Posted by: skymaster Tue, 5 Aug 2008 - 13:17
Post #280835

At Long last... success!!!

After recieiving a ticket for not activating a residents visitors permit I have finally had the council cancel it. This was after an epic 5 pages of formal representations I sent them.

interestingly, I sent the representations in on the very last day possible, even taking advantage of the 2 days grace you get. I sent them special delivery. A few days later the council sent me a charge notice claiming the representations had not been recieved. I called them and said I had royal mail proof of delivery, I also wrote demanding them cancel the charge notice immediately. Then today a letter came though cancelling not only the wrongly issued charge notice but also the PCN as well.

I argued the following points:-

Wrong bay markings
Wrong signage
Poor instructions on how to operate the permits


So huge thanks to all those guys on here that pointed me in the right direction and helped me out! Well done....

Me: 2

Banes council: 0

Ha Ha Ha... I am so happy about this!!! Yipee!

Posted by: peterboro Tue, 19 Aug 2008 - 07:18
Post #285282

Camden ... Parking outside the bay (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=28401&st=0)

Challenged on the validity of the TRO but Camden decided to ignore my formal response and go straight to the Charge Cert (which seems to be happening a lot). Anyway a FOI request showed they had my formal response in time. Camden cancelled the TRO because of this error

Posted by: oshkosh Fri, 22 Aug 2008 - 10:57
Post #286413

Thanks everyone for your help.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=31781

Posted by: glasgowfocusboy Sat, 23 Aug 2008 - 13:11
Post #286647

Thanks to all those who helped in my fight against Glasgow City Council

Ive won! biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28622&view=findpost&p=251831

Specific thanks goes to:

Southpaw82
Bama
Teufel
Greatscot
Neil B

Cheers again to everyone, ive learned sooooooo much about parking regulations over the past few months my brain hurts!

Posted by: BArgue Mon, 22 Sep 2008 - 09:25
Post #293786

Compensation by councils

I have recently got £75 compensation from Westminster for being royally screwed around over my successful appeal over an invalid ticket in an allegedly suspended bike bay and another £50 from Southwark for not displaying a resident's permit that was in fact clearly displayed, even though the ticket was invalid due to the wrong reg anyway.

Complain direct to the council/borough concerned. It seems they are quite willing to pay up. I was put onto this when I was giving the Director of Parking Services an ear-roasting on the phone. He actually volunteered compensation when I said it was win/win for them but we have to do all the work for free to prove our innocence. I shall be going through all my old PCNs now and making complaints. It might be worth mentioning when you make your first appeal that you will be seeking compensation.

Posted by: Rob S Sun, 28 Sep 2008 - 20:41
Post #295496

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26375

Details of my success in beating the London Borough of Barnet over a bus lane PCN.

Posted by: Spiraldive Thu, 2 Oct 2008 - 10:03
Post #296521

Was given a ticket for parking outside of bay markeings by Richmond Borough Council in Old Deer Car Park. the demarkations are just lines of bricks set into the ashfalt. reason i was outside of a bay was because guy to the left was outside and I just pulled up alongside. Was going to the swimmingpool over the road which had construction works in carpark so restricting parking there.

I wrote a letter explaining I was forced to pay for parking as the swimming pool car park was obstructed due to construction work. Parked as near to foot bridge as possible but next to another car that was not within its bay. Had toddler with me so wanted to be as close to bridge as possible.

After about 2 months they wrote back saying they dropped charges. Good thing too as I can not see I was at fault in any way.

Posted by: wonz Thu, 16 Oct 2008 - 13:57
Post #300452

with respect to this story: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=32137&hl=garnethill

I am happy to say that I got a letter from Glasgow Council stating "I can now confirm your representation has been accepted and the Notice To Owner issued to yourself has now been withdrawn".

Hurray!

May I take this opportunity to thank everyone on this forum that helped me deal with this issue and to glasgowfocusboy in particular.

This is the first time I have done this so I would recommend to any newbies to keep going and to fight as I couldn't believe myself that a Council could possibly be issuing tickets that it knew were not legal.

Posted by: Ticket ripper Fri, 31 Oct 2008 - 12:06
Post #304492

See original post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=31248&st=0&gopid=304491&#entry304491

Have a subsequent ticket for the same bay where NoR not received and Charge Cert issued but am hopeful Ealing will cave once back to NtO stage as exactly same circumstances.

Many thanks to all contributors to this site

(Note to Mods Sorry I tried to post this in success stories feel free to move it)

Posted by: robfsg Sat, 1 Nov 2008 - 14:35
Post #304790

This is where I managed to get my PCN in Hounslow cancelled!!!

PCN for visitor where residents' parking applies

Many thanks for all the support, posts and comments

Posted by: dave35 Tue, 4 Nov 2008 - 20:35
Post #305624

I posted up a thread a few months back about an Excel fine, I think I got 4 or 5 letters, it went up to demand of several hundred quid, haven't heard anything for a a couple of months. Win?

Posted by: bribri Fri, 7 Nov 2008 - 12:14
Post #306488

I had a PCN for parking on zigzag white lines. However the pelican lights had been removed and the crossing barricaded. So crossing existed, so zigzags unenforceable.

It went all the way to PATAS and a week or two before the hearing, the LA withdrew.

So I wrote to the LA.
I told them that they had 3 opportunities to withdraw at each appeal stage and not put me to the costs of time and money preparing case for PATAS.
I also said that there had been 3 complaints that had been upheld by the ombudsman who awarded £50 compensation.

Guess what.

I received a cheque today for £50. Thank you Haringey.

Posted by: Adenuff Tue, 18 Nov 2008 - 14:30
Post #309673

50 Up

Just clocked up 50th PCN success against the avaricious London LAs, 12 different authorities including TfL.

To any LAs watching, some advice from a p***** off small businessman: Stop making your own law up, stop employing people who are prepared to do and make up anything to issue another ticket, show a bit of commonsense and decency and then maybe people like me can concentrate on earning enough money to pay the exorbitant amount of Business Rates that you apparently need to take from me in order to provide me with naff all.

Posted by: thedino Mon, 24 Nov 2008 - 20:49
Post #311542

Original thread - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=33738&hl=batchwood

I won my appeal on the grounds the lines were poorly maintained and extremely worn!

Posted by: JonInEd Mon, 24 Nov 2008 - 21:10
Post #311549

Not sure if this is the place, but wanted to share.
Recently has a PCN withdrawn on the basis that Edinburgh's Central Controlled Zone is invalid.

There is only one sign on the entrance on St Leonards Road (which is more than 5m wide). As such any line that does not have it's own sign cannot be enforced.

Hope this is of use to someone out there.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 26 Nov 2008 - 16:49
Post #312099

Bus Lane Camberwell New Road.

Adjudicator 'on-site'



See this CAG thread. Last couple of posts by 'Fobia'.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...e-please-2.html

Useful to know for such a prolific cash cow of a site.




Posted by: bama Wed, 26 Nov 2008 - 16:53
Post #312102

link doesn't work

Posted by: Glacier2 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 - 17:33
Post #312119

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/103787-bus-lane-fine-please-2.html#post1837888

Posted by: onlyme2 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 00:31
Post #318370

Received my letter yesterday telling me Glasgow City Parking were refunding my £135. My car was towed in October from a CPZ in the city. I appealed on the grounds of their tickets were wrongly worded. My cheque arrived today. A BIG BIG thanks to Southpaw for his help. I owe you a pint

Posted by: Ticket ripper Tue, 23 Dec 2008 - 15:40
Post #319775

Another success to chalk up to the advice and tips received from numerous contributors on this site biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34568

Camden accepted non-compliant bay markings and cancelled two PCNs!!!

Posted by: greatscot Thu, 1 Jan 2009 - 14:59
Post #321371

Tiana vs Brent Council

£260 towing refund

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=33257&view=findpost&p=292933

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 21 Jan 2009 - 14:54
Post #328039

The PATAS experience.

The link is a successful case of interest but particularly the tail end gives a description of a PATAS hearing.

Hope I'm not taking liberties but i think the tail end of this thread has some useful info for those who may be nervous about attending a hearing.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...60&start=60

-

- and Good Luck!




Posted by: Spectre Tue, 3 Feb 2009 - 22:01
Post #332318

In Oct 2008 I got a parking fine from RCP Parking Limited, on advice of members of this forum I didnt respond and they never sent any letter chasing for the money so thanks for your help biggrin.gif http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34331

Posted by: melodycool Sat, 7 Feb 2009 - 12:29
Post #333547

I had my PCN cancelled as the council's TRO's didn't correspond to the Act stated on the PCN.
I was parked on double yellows and also argued the boarding/alighting issue to help with my young children getting into the car, but I think I won on the 1st point.
Anyway, main thing is that I won!!

Posted by: Ticket ripper Thu, 12 Feb 2009 - 12:29
Post #335271

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34577

Another success biggrin.gif


PCN cancelled on invalid bay markings - "I have noted your comments regarding bay markings and I have passed this information on to the relevant department for their attention". I attached photographs showing invalid lines so it would have been nice to have them say yes the lines are invalid.

Also regarding the omissionfrom the PCN of the required declaration about representations received prior to NtO being considered but if an NtO is issued anyway follow instructions on NtO "I have considered the issues relating to the PCN and I have decided, on this occasion to cancel the PCN" Not yes you are correct our PCN was invalid and we have now corrected it.

I wonder how many PCNs issued for the same place and with the same errors were paid and retained by RBKC?

Posted by: dave35 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 - 12:42
Post #335597

High triviality rating but...

I parked in an Exel Carpark today, I only needed to pay 20p for an hour and a half (student campus).
I didn't pay and was dissappointed to find no ticket when I returned.

Posted by: buzzm Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 10:48
Post #342626

Of the 3 parking tickets i've ever recieved I have managed to successfully appeal 1, with 1 in the process at the moment.

The one I won was because the double yellow lines I was accused of parking on had faded to the point of not being visible at night. I parked at 10pm with cars up and down the street covering up the visible parts of the lines, with the part I parked on being very faded.

Predictably I got a reminder for payment in the post and not a ticket on the windshield as they claimed I had been given.

Fortunately at the time I had a lot of spare time and revisited the location with a camera on another night to photograph the poorly painted lines. Much to my surprise they actually accepted the reasoning and withdrew the ticket, on a later visit to the area I noticed they had even repainted the lines to avoid screwing anyone else over!

This was the London borough of Richmond upon Thames.

---

Posted by: arrgee Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 15:34
Post #342746

Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice which was recently received at this office.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because you were parked on a single yellow line within a controlled parking zone (CPZ) during match day restricted hours.
After investigating the matter however, I can confirm that the PCN was issued in error. As a result I have now cancelled the PCN. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
As the ticket has now been cancelled, there is no need for you to take any further action.


Yours sincerely

Islington Parking & CCTV Services

I hadn't as I had parked on the other side of that sign, but no matter for it is cancelled. The ticket was issued at 14.06, 36 minutes after the restriction ended on the side of the sign I had parked on. The moral of the story - get a camera phone!












Posted by: Bellisperennis Tue, 10 Mar 2009 - 15:21
Post #343189

I have just won an appeal against two parking tickets from Glasgow Council, issued within days of each other for parking in spaces which were so poorly signed and marked that I couldn't tell I wasn't supposed to be parking there (with a resident's permit). These were the only two parking tickets I've ever had, so I'm very pleased I don't have to pay them.

Advice for future appealers to Glasgow Council - they played hardball by refusing all preliminary appeals, official appeals, and only backed down when my case went to the adjudicator. I think it's significant that they didn't even challenge the case but just withdrew the ticket, meaning they pretty much knew from the start they would lose and were trying to scare/fatigue me into just paying. Don't do it! Appeal (but don't bother with all the preliminary stuff, just wait for the NtO and then go to the adjudicator). Untold hours of my time wasted and several poundsworth of postage, but worth it to make the point.

Full details in this post: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34149

Posted by: spp Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 19:32
Post #344017

hi everyone,

A special thanks to pepipoo, its adminisrators/mods etc and its users. Ur all doing an excellent job, keep it up!

Had used pepipoo to win two 'cases':

1- was given a parking ticket by newham borough council, when i had parked on double yellow lines (for only two mins, max! had to re-organise meself with sat nav, baby etc...). didnt even know about it until got a letter thru the post, saying a bloody camera got me!! anyway, found out from this site, via links that 'they' have 28 days from the date of 'offence' to inform me. it was in my luck that newham council had botched up, it took em 29 days to inform me, found a very good template letter and all!!

2- was given a ppn by parkingeye for overstaying 20min. took the advise by just simply ignoring the lame threats... not heard anything from them blood suckers for 6wk now...

thanks once again guys

wink.gif

spp

Posted by: Ticket ripper Fri, 13 Mar 2009 - 16:21
Post #344299

Success at long last.

Bucks caved on envelope showing NtO printed and posted on different days. Always check envelope!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=31247

Posted by: paperchaser Tue, 17 Mar 2009 - 14:14
Post #345515

Parking appeal success in Huddersfield (Kirklees)

The short story: I often park in some bays near the Uni (studying law) which are mostly pay and display, but there are some free 2 hour bays there too. I normally use the free bays.

Last week, I had to call in at the County Court to sort some paperwork and I bought the shortest ticket that the machine would allow me. 5 hours at £2.50. Ker-ching!

I got what I needed to do very quickly so rather than leave the car up there and have to collect it later, I moved it to a bay nearer the Uni where there are the same machines run by Kirklees Council on the same terms. I used one of the paid bays near to where I usually park.

After a leisurely 3 hours at Uni, I came back to my car to find this.

Front:


Back:



I appealed the ticket on 2 grounds:

1. I sent a copy of my ticket from the first machine claiming that the ticket should be cancelled on statutory grounds, since the offence may have not been committed

2. The details on the front of the PCN gave wrong details of my car's colour, a wrong tax expiry date and no note made of the ticket displayed in the windscreen. I claimed that these inaccuracies meant that the ticket should be cancelled for procedural impropriety.

I did not mention anything about bay markings, which would have been my back-up, should this have gone further. I needed time to gather evidence and didn't want anyone going out there with a paintbrush before I could get there!

Here is their reply:



So success, but they still maintain that I should have paid them twice over. Greedy b*st*rds!

Thanks for all the useful information here.

Paperchaser

Posted by: spanner345 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 - 15:07
Post #345528

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=38492&mode=linear.

Two days in a van to beat sector security. The-General deserves a medal.

Posted by: GM71 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 - 21:18
Post #346823

Money Back From PPC Clamping - Christ's Hospital of Abingdon

After nearly 2 months of correspondence with the PPC (Parking Control Management) and also the landowner, followed by initiation of joint court proceedings against both parties, the pressure of legal action seemed to be too much and PCM finally coughed up the full amount I was claiming before the case got to the court room. Another victory against the PPC thanks to this forum biggrin.gif

Full story here...


And the successful conclusion here...

Posted by: Tuonorider Mon, 23 Mar 2009 - 11:27
Post #347342

CCTV PCN overturned on appeal to adjudicator.

Full story here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=35498&st=0

In summary:

Stopped my motorcycle to adjust backprotector for 1 min on single yellow line, did not get off bike. Initial appeal turned down, appeal to adjudicator on the basis that this was a safety measure, that I was neither parked or loading, that the PCN had incorrect information about viewing the video, that TRO had not been supplied before I appealed (despite requesting it) and that signs were obscured and kerb markings fading.

Lambeth, finally, decided not to contest my appeal.

Thanks to everyone who helped!

Posted by: GDA Tue, 24 Mar 2009 - 13:11
Post #347690

Camden PCN

U-turn on Southampton Row WC1, November 2008

Invalid PCN - days for representations.
3 point turn, not a u-turn.
Signs not visible.

Absolutely ridiculous rejection received from Camden. Didn't address the issues above.
Appeal into PATAS. Appeal date for late March.
Received charge certificate from Camden when already had a date for appeal.
Camden pulled out 4 days before the appeal. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36397&view=findpost&p=347684

Whole thread:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36397

Thanks guys smile.gif

Posted by: carlsberg83 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 - 16:09
Post #348089

Success agains Hammersmith & Fulham council and towing on a yellow line. Car broke down so was neither parked nor loading.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34504&st=0&p=344253&#entry344253

Will be uploading decision soon.

Posted by: Big_cat Sat, 28 Mar 2009 - 10:03
Post #348979

Another success story!! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Victory over wheel clampers that ignored my appeal for four months.
A full refund, apology and removal of their illegal clamping signs!

Here's a link to my thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36735

Posted by: peterboro Mon, 30 Mar 2009 - 10:39
Post #349452

Hastings cancelled after issues with their not understanding the owner / keeper issue

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34135&hl=

With thanks to Neil B

Posted by: IH8_12R Tue, 31 Mar 2009 - 08:26
Post #349748

Dear All,

Thank you all for your continuing efforts spent on this site.

Please find the letter below which successfully cancelled my PCN in Twickenham, a short while ago.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to make representation against PCN ref: xxxx xxxx.

Re: Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) xxxxxxxx issued to vehicle xxxxxx on 15/10/2008 at ST PETERS RD TWICKENHAM for the contravention of: 27 - Parked in a Special Enforcement Area adjacent to a dropped footway

The relevant document on your web site confirms that:

TMA 2004 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040018_en_8#pt6-pb3 84

Designation of special enforcement areas Schedule 10 provides for the designation of areas (“special enforcement areas”) where the following sections apply— ·
section 85 (prohibition of double parking etc.); ·
section 86 (prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.). 86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc. (1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where— (a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of— (i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway, (ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or (iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or (b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
This is subject to the following exceptions. (2) The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised. A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27). (3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises. This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway. (4) The third exception is where the vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes. (5) The fourth exception is where— (a) the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises, (b) the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and © the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes. (6) The fifth exception is where— (a) the vehicle is being used in connection with any of the following— (i) undertaking any building operation, demolition or excavation, (ii) the collection of waste by a local authority, (iii) removing an obstruction to traffic, (iv) undertaking works in relation to a road, a traffic sign or road lighting, or (v) undertaking works in relation to a sewer or water main or in relation to the supply of gas, electricity, water or communications services, (b) it cannot be so used without being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and © it is so parked for no longer than is necessary. (7) In this section “carriageway”, “cycle track” and “footway” have the meanings given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66). (8) References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where— (a) the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or (b) the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it. (9)
The prohibition in this section is enforceable as if imposed— (a) in Greater London, by an order under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27), (b) elsewhere in England and Wales, by an order under section 1 of that Act.

The reason for my belief that the PCN has been incorrectly issued is that:

1: The dropped footway is not within the definition of a shared footway. The dropped footway is not used by more than one resident or business user to enter/exit their driveway and it is not used as a means of helping pedestrians crossing the road.

2: The dropped footway is a single use dropped footway and I do not believe that the residential user has authorised the Council to take enforcement action.

3: I would question the length of time used to determine that I was “parked” as the ticket is timed within three minutes of me stopping my vehicle and getting out of it. I do not think that three minutes can be considered “parking” especially as there is no information of any sort - signs, yellow lines, notices, to say that parking is not allowed at that point, or to indicate that it is a 'Special Enforcement Area. How can a driver know where he or she can park if you hold that parking is only prohibited at “some” dropped footways when there are no signs or lines provided? Surely common sense would dictate that the parking attendant should have provided a warning as he or she must have been close enough to me to do so in view of the timing of the PCN.

4: I was delivering a document to a resident close by which I am certain only took a maximum of 15 minutes to complete.

In any event, as none of the circumstances listed on your web site seem to be an appropriate reason to apply the PCN it is my contention that the ticket has been incorrectly issued. I have also today spoken with the owner of the premises which uses the dropped footway in question and he was astounded to hear that I had been given a PCN especially after I showed him the photo's which were sent to me.

For the above reasons I request that this PCN be waived and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Your sincerely,

biggrin.gif cool.gif laugh.gif


Posted by: mummy3 Mon, 6 Apr 2009 - 20:54
Post #351726

hi, not sure if i am posting this in correct place but i see it as a success!

I recieved PCN's from eurocarparks and parking eye back in Nov, i did not contact any of them and have not recieved anything further other than 1 letter in Jan threatening action. I am hoping that means they've given up!

many thanks to all those on here who gave me the advice to do bugger all...thanks wink.gif

Posted by: greatscot Sun, 12 Apr 2009 - 12:43
Post #353131

Another success this time against Dundee City Council about Parking tickets. wink.gif

After a couple of FOI requests they admitted to not pursuing £350,000 worth of PCNs.

However, they said that they are still pursuing £150,000 of single date PCNs. With the usual route which involve sending sheriff officers and debt collectors after folks when they are not entitled to do so.

That's a bit naughty considering all the PCNs are unlawfully worded as the Barnet High Court case proved.

See thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36499&view=findpost&p=322370

Oh and I had a wee word with the press wink.gif ,

http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img001wwc.jpg

Should encourage more people to take on Parking tickets.

Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 - 13:21
Post #353137

Well done sir! smile.gif

They don't like it up 'em! biggrin.gif

Posted by: greatscot Sun, 12 Apr 2009 - 13:33
Post #353140

An absolute pleasure Glacier biggrin.gif .

That's my grand total of cancelled and exposed tickets nudging £8 MILLION pounds now!!!

Not bad considering I joined Pepipoo because of a couple of dodgy tickets I received!

Right who's next? wink.gif

Posted by: offroader Sun, 12 Apr 2009 - 20:32
Post #353220

Evenin'
A bit of a strange one but I won anyway! Last year I got ticketed by TfL. Sent in an appeal; thrown out. Wrote in again; thrown out.Tried one more time, you guessed it; thrown out! Thought in for a penny etc so I decided to go the PATAS route. My first hearing was scheduled for Friday 13th (I kid you not!) so I sent in more evidence including photo's. Re-scheduled to April 1 due to PATAS moving house (I'm getting bad vibes about the whole thing!). Booked another days holiday and I'm already set to go when I get a phone call from PATAS. A very nice lady told me that, as TfL hadn't sent any evidence, I didn't need to attend and if TfL did send evidence that arrived before the hearing, the adjudicator will either make a ruling or re-schedule again. Got a letter two days later saying that TfL have been directed to cancel both the ticket and the NTO. I'm well chuffed and it proves the point about keeping on at them, you may just win! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: jaykay Sat, 18 Apr 2009 - 23:15
Post #355189

Another success down under thanks to pepipoo........

Saved myself the grand total of five pounds (yes, that's that amount of a parking ticket in Christchurch NZ for overstaying the time in a five minute unloading zone).
I had a problem whilst installing a hot water heat pump in a house of pleasure last November, you see Friday lunchtimes is strip show time and I had some technical issues to sort out with naked women running around. And rather than being parked for a few minutes it turned into a few hours..........

Parking is still a criminal offence here, but the council paperwork still has to comply with the law - and despite the law being written in 1957 the council paperwork is still wrong. They have recently revised the rear (your rights etc) as a result of a High Court case of mine about a year ago - but as a result of checking every last item on the front of the paperwork I realized it was prejudicial.

Briefly, the council give you 28 days to pay from date of issue - but they give 28 days to deny the allegation from date of service (this on a piece of paper sent through the mail). This is nonsensical as the date of service can never be the date the letter was issued, hence their paperwork doesn't comply with the law (perhaps 52 years isn't long enough for them).

I wrote to them along the lines of "until your paperwork is correct, take me to court". Bearing in mind that the council knows my name and I've cost them a lot of time and effort over the last few years, their intriguing reply was
"Due to an inconsistency in the details recorded by the Officer this council does not intend to proceed with this matter". Perhaps the Officer was too busy trying to sneak a free view into the house of pleasure.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll all be glad to know the owner of the pleasure house is getting a 50% rate of return with electricity savings on the hot water heat pump - which reminds me perhaps it time to go and check it's working
correctly, I wouldn't want them to run out of hot water at an inoportune moment.

Posted by: shabs39 Sun, 19 Apr 2009 - 20:03
Post #355348

Hi all,

Received a PCN from Redbridge in March 2009 for parking on yellow line while collecting my son from nursery. I sent them an appeal using assisted boarding exemption and got the nursery manager to be my witness, but Redbridge sent me a letter stating that they do not allow drivers to park on restrictions to collect children from school/nursery totally ignoring my point about the boarding exemption.

By this time I was seeing red so I sent them a second letter and quoted Roy Gould vs. Shepway and Wanambwa vs. London Borough of Southwark. I also said I was willing to go to appeal and if I won would be seeking compensation. This did the trick and I got a letter saying that the 'matter had been investigated' and the PCN would be cancelled.

Thanks to everyone who posted on this forum for the info and special thanks to roythebus for posting a copy of his appeal.

Power to the people!

Posted by: dessie Thu, 30 Apr 2009 - 08:38
Post #358917

Just recived news today that my PCN had been cancelled not due to the basis of my appeal that it was a non prescribed bay but that Leeds City Council had marked the position of the alleged offence incorrectly on the evidence they submitted to the Parking Appeal

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34395

Thanks to everyone for their help and advice

Posted by: roythebus Thu, 14 May 2009 - 07:03
Post #363752

Had a call from my brother yesterday who had a PCN from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for overstaying his welcome in one of their car parks. His grounds for appeal were lack of suitable signage.

After looking on here for advise and my encouragement, he went to the PATAS office at The angel, Islington, put his case and won. The adjudicator agreed the signage was very poor; the pictures they sent him purported to be taken at 21:30 on 2/2/08, but were clearly taken in broad daylight; the car park mentioned in their paperwork was for a totally different location. Needless to say the adjudicator was not impressed with the evidence presented by LBRoT!

Posted by: Waggy Wed, 27 May 2009 - 14:11
Post #367299

Me vs TfL on 11th May 09
Location of Contravention: YBJ Battersea Rise/Northcote Rd.
Appeal Outcome: Allowed


Case details:
Entered Box junction whilst traffic was moving. A lorry to the right of me also entered the junction at the same time in the 2nd lane. The traffic then abruptly came to a halt due to the blind corner and the lorry cut me up, preventing me from clearing the YBJ fully.


thanks to PePiPoo for help ! smile.gif

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 4 Jun 2009 - 12:30
Post #369669

Originating from another forum but whilst i might co-ordinate info between appellants in the background sometimes, the knowledge and info originates here at PePiPoo and the great members.

Hence two more PEPIPOO victories today.

Newham surrendering two Barking Bus Lane PCNs issued just prior to the road marking changes. the appellant had already had a surrender on a third!

Pathetic excuse. Claiming to have timed out on response to reps, IMO a deliberate move BUT there is no timescale for bus lane reps other than 'reasonable'. Utter tosh and clearly dodging responsibility of fault.


Posted by: Twigman Thu, 4 Jun 2009 - 18:32
Post #369829

Full refund received from Premier Parking Services for unjustified towing from disused retail car park after Small Claims procedure was initiated - it never made it to court because they immediately settled once they realised we were going all the way. The Notice Before Action letter sent before the Small Claims process began set out our case:

NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

I hereby give you formal notice that I intend to pursue your company in the small claims court unless the sum detailed below is returned.

On 28th September 2008 at 15.40, operatives of your company removed my vehicle from Swindon Transfer Bridge Industrial Estate due to alleged breaches of parking rules, 80 minutes after it was clamped. The sum of £365 was demanded from me for return of my vehicle. This was paid by credit card.

I contest the full amount for the following reasons:

1) I did not enter into any contract, implied or otherwise. The signs, which I later discovered at the site, are not positioned in such a way as to make any parking restriction clear. They also deviate from SIA and BPA guidelines significantly. Upon entering and parking in the site I was at no point aware of any parking restriction. Therefore I could not have understood or entered into any contract with your company.

2) Damages for trespass can only reflect actual losses. The car park was a free retail car park, and at the time was almost completely empty. Therefore, actual losses are £0.

3) The charge levied by your company was unfair and disproportionate, and completely out of line with the fines levied for lawful council vehicle removals.

4) The SIA's regulations on removal of vehicles state:
Any license holder who collects a release fee must provide a receipt, which must include the following:
-the location where the vehicle was clamped or towed.
-their own name and signature
-their license number.
-the date.

The receipt handed to me by your company does not include a name or signature. Therefore, your company has not satisfied the SIA's regulations, making removal of the vehicle unlawful.

5) The SIA license number is registered to a Mr. Mathew Lewis. A removal can only lawfully be carried out in person by a license holder. As no name was supplied on the receipt, the implication is that the removal was not carried out by Mr. Lewis. This would also make the removal unlawful.

6) Section 46 of the BPA Code of Practice makes clear that vehicles should only be removed in ‘very special circumstances’. Such special circumstances would be those that made it necessary to tow the vehicle away, and would include vehicles that are dangerously parked, those causing obstructions or those blocking an emergency exit. As the evidential photograph taken by Premier Parking Services will attest, the vehicle was not parked in any way that could remotely fall into those categories.

7) Premier Parking then failed to apply the BPA Code of Practice in respect to the amount charged. Section 35 (note 2) of the Code makes clear that even if a vehicle is moved, if this is done within a three hour period of the clamp being applied, then the maximum charge should not exceed the charge for removal and storage only. In this case, the time elapsed according to the figures provided by Premier Parking show that only one hour and twenty minutes had elapsed between the clamping and the removal of the vehicle. However, the clamping fee was charged in addition to the removal fee.

8) Premier Parking committed a Misleading Action under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) as the above two violations demonstrate. You publicly state on your website (and further confirmed this in the letter to me dated 13th October 2008) that you comply with the BPA Code of Practice. According to reg 5(3)(b) of the new Consumer Regulations, misleading action:

‘concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if —
(I) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
(ii) the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.

All such misleading practices are ‘unfair’ (reg 3(5)(a)) and hence prohibited (reg 3(1)). As I am sure you are aware, a trader is guilty of an offence if he engages in a commercial practice which is a misleading action under regulation 5 otherwise than by reason of the commercial practice satisfying the condition in regulation 5(3)(b).

9) Finally, your website makes this claim:
Q. Does the service offered by Premier Parking Services require a contract?
A. No! A contract is not necessary.

As I am sure you are aware, a contract with the landowner is necessary for any removal operations to take place by a third party. Should this contract not be in order, the removal would once again be unlawful.


I hereby demand return of the full amount of £365. Should this amount not be returned to me by February 20th 2009, I will take the following actions:

a) Register a claim in the small claims court against your company for £365 plus interest plus expenses.

b) Make an official complaint to the SIA regarding the potentially unlawful practices of your company. This complaint will be rigorously pursued until a review of Mathew Lewis's license is carried out.



Huge thanks to everyone, especially Dave-O and Bama for the legal stuff and excellent advice. Full thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=37493&view=findpost&p=369743

Posted by: Boxwinner Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 15:54
Post #370137

Finally, success at Northcote road/Battersea rise YBJ ; It should be no more - at least in present state;

Patas judgement, 14th MAY 2009, Case No 2080441604 deemed the box '.. non compliant and cannot be enforced ' (Contact Patas, and quote above number for copy).
Posted more detailed info yesterday on Waggy's forum on this junction, but reason for this decision was that it was,right from it's original painting/whole junction layout, upside-down !

To see plans, look at Waggy's posting, or Google ' GT46/37/113 ' , scroll through the 14 pages of plans, and deleted names (!), and the last 3 are relevant; 2x authorisations, 1x plan. Compare this plan with Google Earth shot of junction, then spin around! (Huge thanks to Brian for this vision).

Noted after judgement; para 3 of attached Authorisation of plans - ' ...shall be retained for no longer than 2 years from the date of this authorisation.' Plans dated 22/01/07, stamped by D of T 18/04/07 ; ergo out of date.
Box and all crossings, lights and signs are laid out upside-down, and a month,(or six?) out of date!!

Don't pay, and keep winning .

Boxwinner

Posted by: rapid Sun, 7 Jun 2009 - 21:31
Post #370727

With the help of PePiPoo and the great people who use the forum I have won against Ealing council who tried to enforce a PCN issued to me when I parked in a parking bay which had a dropped dropped kerb. If you are within the law do not fold as it seems that the councils are prepared to carry illegal tickets down to the wire hold your nerves and do not buckle. biggrin.gif

Thanks agin guys
Rapid.

Posted by: FatTulip Fri, 26 Jun 2009 - 09:39
Post #376169

Received a PCN in a residential bay in Enfield whilst collecting my baby daughter from her grandparents.

Within 2 minutes, and literally as I was about to put her in the car, a CEO arrived and began issuing a ticket despite my explaining the situation...

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=41472

I appealed informally to NCP t/a Enfield Council and the ticket was cancelled on the grounds of 'assisted boarding'

Thanks to everyone who has helped.


Posted by: Barkley Mon, 6 Jul 2009 - 19:06
Post #379265

Glasgow City Council - Motorbike in bike parking bay given a PCN for parking 'in a restricted street'.

The Council stated that the bay was for the use of 'pedal cycles' and the ticket would stand. No signage specified or backed up their assertion. A formal appeal to the Scottish Appeal Service prompted the Council to finally cancel the PCN (with seeming bad grace). Now attempting to pursue them for costs incurred, due to their 'vexatious pursuit' of an invalid ticket.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=41373

Posted by: BiteThem Mon, 6 Jul 2009 - 23:50
Post #379353

Three to report:

1. Ticketed for "Parking" on a yellow line. Warden took a photo of the tax disc but didn't stick a PCN on the car, driver was dropping kids off and had to escort them up the ramp into the building so wasn't parked anyway. Council refused to cancel the ticket but offered no contest when we took it to the adjudicator demanding that they show us photos of the PCN attached to the car. PCN canceled.

2. Council pay-and-display ticket blew off the windscreen (no sticky on it). Paid the couple of pounds to park and got fined 80. Produced a copy of the pay and display ticket (found on the floor of the car) but "Informal representations" rejected. Sent in "Formal representations" and they were rejected too. Now exactly what the difference between "informal" and "formal" representations are, I really don't know. I suspect that it's just to mess you around so that there are more steps and you might give up or miss a deadline to write in. Took it to the adjudicator complaining that council pay and display tickets were flimsy and lacked sticky and this was a nice little earner for the council on windy days. Council offered no contest. PCN canceled.

3. Parked in a "suspended" bay in City of London. Most parking bays in the area had a suspended sign with a date written in inch high letters using a permanent marker. Some dates were from last year. Representations rejected so went to adjudicator and said that there were about 20 vehicles parked in the suspended spaces that day and it wasn't properly marked and that their method of suspending the bays wasn't reasonable. I insisted that if I won the case then City of London should cancel all the parking tickets and rework their signage. City offered no contest. PCN Canceled.

4. Got a charge notice because my vehicle was seen leaving a private car park without paying. Was going to pay it, but on advice from here I wrote back to them asking that they identify the driver (they couldn't) or stop harrassing me.

Keep up the good work, guys!

Posted by: greatscot Tue, 7 Jul 2009 - 16:33
Post #379583

After my long running battle with Aberdeen Council in which I ended up with 16 parking tickets outstanding and my loss of a case at the adjudicator with them about a couple of parking tickets they wrote to me asking how if I was going to defend the remaining tickets.

I wrote back stating that I would defend each remaining PCN outstanding vigorously and individually!!
Obviously, not wanting to spend the next couple of years sending with them sending a squad of 5 to defend against me every time I got a lovely big Brown envelope with 16 acceptances of my appeals in it.

I'm just as relieved as they are!!

Posted by: matt_w Tue, 7 Jul 2009 - 23:15
Post #379732

Last year I was loading on a single yellow line with a No Loading restriction that ran Mon-Fri. It was a Match Day and although parking bays further up the road had 'match day' No Loading restrictions placed on them by temp. signs and police no loading traffic cones the stretch of single yellows were 'as is' apart from a laminated A4 typed notice claiming that match day restrictions applied to the whole road. The date of the notice was posted was the same day as the start of the restriction.

The CEO claimed that the cones in the parking bays meant the the no loading restriction applied to the whole road hence the PCN.

I made an informal appeal through the Council's website on the basis that the A4 typed sign was of an unprescribed kind and therefore no contravention had occurred.

The PCN was cancelled on the basis of the appeal a few days after they issued a NtO. The reason for the cancellation was 'due to an error at the point of issue'.


Posted by: ssfoe Sun, 26 Jul 2009 - 01:28
Post #384794

Glasgow Counci persisted in their case that they had served me with a PCN but the adjudicator thought otherwise. Please see my thread and many thanx to all.

SSFOE

Andy please move this to parking successes.

Posted by: glasgow_bhoy Sun, 26 Jul 2009 - 02:15
Post #384796

Well done clearly Taggart was a crap detective if he couldnt figure out his own team were lying to him over the service of the PCN

Posted by: Froggy Wed, 12 Aug 2009 - 13:19
Post #389633

My success : London Borough of Hownlsow vs Me and my motorbike.

Outcome, Me and my motorbike won.

Then I claimed compensation.

Outcome, I also won.

See: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=33179

Yipee.!

Posted by: Trixie Fri, 14 Aug 2009 - 22:06
Post #390342

Me v Westminster Council.

I parked adjacent to a dropped footway. I appealed as the DF did not appear to be lowered for pedestrians (no corresponding DF the other side of the road) or to allow access for vehicles (the alleyway was blocked with bollards). The Council said they only enforce pedestrian DFs and that is what I was parked adjacent to. I asked them to prove it - they said they didn't have to as it was obvious and rejected my appeal.

So I went to adjudicator. Just before the hearing date, Westminster Council notified the Chief Adjudicator that they would not be contesting my appeal (with no explanation) so the adjudicator upheld my appeal and cancelled the hearing!

Result!

Posted by: johnjames Sat, 15 Aug 2009 - 17:14
Post #390499

Case won on grounds of Loading and Unloading others mentioned were not looked upon by the Adjudicator although he did state "Mr X raised serious legal issues ..." but this is a short term blah blah and I wont touch these points.
Since it was April it took a long time to reply and funny enough just had a reply about the FOI request made. (Sorry it took so long.)
After being in front of the adjudicator for an hour and three members of the NCC sitting there going for costs as they did not provide the infor required if not sue!
(1) Proves bias (2) Go for the simple (3) It was fun winding the NCC up. (4) Dont be afraid of the adjudicator and standing your ground. As usual Bama was right!

Posted by: bama Sat, 15 Aug 2009 - 17:16
Post #390500

A copy of the written decision at some time please.

and well done.

Posted by: ali123 Sun, 23 Aug 2009 - 22:32
Post #392514

I forgot to pay the £1 parking charge for motorbikes in Westminster. Upon return found an £80 ticket stuck on.

I would a grovelling apology saying id paid in the past and had just complelely forgot. please dont penalise me for an honest mistake.

They wrote back and said as it was a first offence they were going to cancel and apologised for the inconvenience caused!!!!

Posted by: andypandy Tue, 25 Aug 2009 - 17:15
Post #393152

Two ticket victory against Nottingham city council for incorrect marked parking bays.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=43030&st=0&gopid=393150&#entry393150

Posted by: Lucifer Fri, 28 Aug 2009 - 12:02
Post #393888

Westminster v me - 16th May 2009

Appealled to PATAS and requested personal hearing. Westminster withdrew prior to hearing (possible not only due to evidence, but their refusal to provide specific evidence requested in formal appeal to NTO, including CEO notes, time synchronisation of camera and issuance of PCN)

Parked for 2 minutes to pick up one heavy item on a double yellow with wheels on pavement, but had specifically asked CEO if I could do so for the one item, and had two witnesses. NTO received in post with no PCN issued at time or by post.

Many thanks for all the information on here once again - second success for me.

Posted by: jonesenbury Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 14:55
Post #394201

Thought it worth sharing this, last year, I received a PCN from Bury Council, despite the fact that I had a valid ticket displayed with 18mins remaining on display - Bury MBC argued that the ticket was 'Non-Transferable as it had been purchased in a cheaper charging zone than the one that the car was parked in...which was factually correct.

I had Attempted to buy a ticket at a P&D machine which would not accept a 20p I was using, with no other change, I followed the instruction on the machine "in the event of equipment failure, please use next nearest machine"....which I did, from a machine 50yds away that happened to be in a less expensive charging zone.

Using maps from Google-Earth and some reasearch on the internet, I was able to argue that it is unlawful (a breach of my European Human Rights) to use a form of entrapment to then lead to a prosecution (ie - you follow an instruction to buy a ticket from another machine due to a fault...and by doing so get prosecuted).



This was referred to the Adjudicator and Bury Council withdrew their case - in his summary, the adjudicator said that Bury MBC's unwillingness to continue their case was a clear indication that they acknowledge that their signage and multi-zone charging system was fundamentally flawed. 3 Months after my successful defence, Bury MBC harmonised their town-centre charging zones to the same level and introduced a 'First 15 mins Free' system - VERY FAIR !, so if you've had a similar experience with a Multi-zone town centre PCN and the machine states 'Use nearest machine if faulty' defend yourself by using the entrapment/European Human Rights...it cant fail !!


Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 15:03
Post #394205

QUOTE (jonesenbury @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 15:55) *
defend yourself by using the entrapment/European Human Rights...it cant fail !!


What does either entrapment or ECHR have to do with it?

Posted by: dawmdt Sun, 30 Aug 2009 - 08:33
Post #394301

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 16:03) *
QUOTE (jonesenbury @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 15:55) *
defend yourself by using the entrapment/European Human Rights...it cant fail !!


What does either entrapment or ECHR have to do with it?


I seem to recall reading about some Spanish case where that court found that actions by the police were considered entrapment and this immediately denied the apparent offender a right to a fair trial and thus was a contravention of Article 6... although I'm not sure that's the question you're asking. The parking ticket scenario above isn't actually entrapment...?

Posted by: Matts Dad Mon, 7 Sep 2009 - 17:08
Post #396514

Had to take Bath and North East Somerset all the way to appeal, but the adjudicator agreed that the Council had not laid out the CPZ in accordance with regulations and ordered that the PCN be cancelled.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=40780&st=0

Posted by: cshm37 Mon, 7 Sep 2009 - 20:13
Post #396554

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 16:03) *
QUOTE (jonesenbury @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 15:55) *
defend yourself by using the entrapment/European Human Rights...it cant fail !!


What does either entrapment or ECHR have to do with it?


I can kinda see where the OP is coming from, he is saying an authority made itself the 'agent provocateur' therefore the Op didn't exactly 'apply himself to the trick'.

Posted by: clark_kent Wed, 9 Sep 2009 - 17:17
Post #397110

QUOTE (jonesenbury @ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 - 15:55) *
Using maps from Google-Earth and some reasearch on the internet, I was able to argue that it is unlawful (a breach of my European Human Rights) to use a form of entrapment to then lead to a prosecution (ie - you follow an instruction to buy a ticket from another machine due to a fault...and by doing so get prosecuted).


You didn't get prosecuted.

Posted by: rapid Tue, 22 Sep 2009 - 20:46
Post #400725

PCN contravention 27 parked adjacent to a dropped kerb
Just an update took Ealing council before the Adjudicator......and won £32.12 rofl read it all here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34282&hl=

Posted by: quickboy Tue, 22 Sep 2009 - 20:52
Post #400729

QUOTE (rapid @ Tue, 22 Sep 2009 - 21:46) *
PCN contravention 27 parked adjacent to a dropped kerb
Just an update took Ealing council before the Adjudicator......and won again rofl read it all here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34282&hl=


Ealing may learn their lesson one day! Then again, probably not! laugh.gif

Posted by: pop Tue, 29 Sep 2009 - 12:31
Post #402405

I thought this was funny but it worked!
I was caught by a Mobile CCTV camera last month for parking on a bus stop to pick up my wife - i sent this to them and won!!!
thi sis the letter i sent !!


You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me. You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them. I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of god given Natural Rights.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am Paul Knowles and that I owe £80 (£40 if paid or responded to in 21 days) for services rendered by your company, upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person, and not a human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person' actually is, in legal terms.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between a 'human being' and a 'person', legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between 'legal' and a 'lawful'.
5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction 'person' (my name), being the entity to which your paperwork was addressed, and not (first name)l: of the (sirman) family, as commonly called.
6. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
7. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
8. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.
9 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within any alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society.



Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Posted by: tasty_snacks Mon, 5 Oct 2009 - 18:18
Post #403906

I am now 3-0 up against Southwark Council. In all cases, I had received a PCN for being on a single yellow line. I wrote the first informal appeal stating that there were no time-plates and/or kerb markings, only to be told it was in a Controlled Parking Zone.

A quick skirt around the zone (gleaned from website) revealed incorrect signage at no less than 11 entry points. The first was upheld by PATAS as Southwark declined to represent themselves, the second was nullified by Southwark at the formal appeal stage, and the third was upheld on the basis that a proceedural impropriety had occured, as Southwark (despite this time submitting evidence), failed to discharge its duty...., which is to consider the representations and any supporting evidence by the person making them.' I thought this last one was v. interesting, in that failure to acknowledge the basis behind your claim (which in my experience is 90% of the time due to copy and paste rejections), may lead to an impropriety.

Posted by: bama Mon, 5 Oct 2009 - 18:39
Post #403912

well done, but it is noticeable that they didn't find twice against the signage....(avoids refund issues...)
IF you get another see if you want to fight it just on the signage. smile.gif

Posted by: Mike777 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 - 14:40
Post #406562

Me V's Tower Hamlets, then to PATAS. No parking permit or visitors scratchcard.
Appealed on the basis of incorrect signage (non compliant parking bays) and lack of appeals paperwork issued at the pound.

Success after 7 months or so.
Didn't managed to get costs back but still a result - Thanks all.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=37961

Posted by: DriverTom Wed, 14 Oct 2009 - 22:47
Post #406685

Just had a PCN from Lambeth council cancelled after filing a Stat Dec. and forcing them to actually look at my original appeal which I had submitted within 28 days.

Offence was for turning right at a no right turn junction. I picked them up on the wording of the PCN since they had written 28 days from date of notice instead of 28 days from date of service of the notice.

Thanks for the help of everyone on this forum. Now I only have to get TFL to back down over a box junction.

Letter below in case anyone wants a template for responding to a Lambeth PCN.

QUOTE
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to make a representation against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) XXXXXXX, dated 31/10/2008 on vehicle XXXXXXX.

I have filled in the representations form with “The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case”. I will state my main reason for appeal first and will then go on to back this up with evidence as well as listing other grounds for appeal.

Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 states clearly that the period in which representations can be made is “the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served (my emphasis)”. Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXX issued by Lambeth Parking however misleads by stating that the owner has until before “the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice (my emphasis)” to make a representation. The date the notice is served is different to the date of the notice, the former being 2-5 days later depending on whether the council sent it by first or second class post. By attempting to force the appellant to make representation earlier than legally required, the PCN is both threatening and non-compliant with the 2003 act and therefore invalid.

The above paragraph shows that the PCN should be cancelled, as such the owner of vehicle XXXXXXX is no longer liable to pay PCN: XXXXXXX and the enforcing authority shall state in writing that the PCN has been cancelled.

I have multiple other grounds for both appeal and for making a representation. Although I shall not explain them here fully in case you mistakenly decide to allow this to go to PATAS:
- The wording of the PCN in places fetters the right to appeal.
- The wording can be construed to imply that the driver has no option but to pay.
Both of these also invalidate the PCN.


Posted by: bilbobaggins Sat, 24 Oct 2009 - 14:36
Post #408930

I've just had a letter from PATAS, effectively and formally allowing our appeal on the basis of a 'procedural impropriety'. There were two 'grounds for appeal' notified in our communications with PATAS, and I understand - informally - that the Adjudicator chose to reflect the one which permitted him to make use of the strongest language of censure.

In the interests of others who may find themselves similarly offended against, I reproduce the Adjudicator's Reasons below. It may also be useful to view aspects of the original thread :

<http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=19024&st=0&gopid=408921&#entry408921>

BB



Posted by: confused77 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 - 18:58
Post #409131

Just wanted to thank all of you who made the time to reply with advice regarding my parking ticket. I have just received
a letter from the council to say that after investigating with the traffic regulation department the council have accepted my representations and the charge has been cancelled., with measures in place to rectify the incorrect road markings. I am thrilled that justice has been done. I couldnt have done it without the information gained here so thanks again. happy.gif

Posted by: Brucie Sun, 8 Nov 2009 - 19:47
Post #412968

I got a PCN for parking on a pedestrianised area outside Birmingham Moor Street Station, where I was carrying out some work. I parked there regularly and was told by the station staff that this is where I should park. Sent numerous emails, my first appeal was dismissed but I then made representaions based on the fact that they had put down my tax disc expiry date incorrectly and that they had made a small error on the road name. The road in question goes around the bull ring shopping centre and is four lanes, one way, divided in the middle by a barrier. The side of the barrier I was on is called, according to OS maps, Moor St Ringway, while the other side is simply called Moor Street. They put the wrong one, so I was able to inform them that I was NOT parked on the road they have claimed I was, on the date in question and that they would have to provide proof that I was!

It pays to read through the PCN very carefully indeed as any little error could work in your favour.

Posted by: holloway Mon, 9 Nov 2009 - 14:52
Post #413192

I'm so glad I can finally add to this post. Sued the landowners and clampers of a private road and won with costs.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46134

Posted by: togo Fri, 18 Dec 2009 - 18:37
Post #425413

QUOTE (Insider @ Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 00:51) *
As it says on the topic description - Parking Success Stories (Only for members here, not news stories!)

A new "Parking Success Stories" as suggested by Mista Pendle wink.gif


Warm glow and a smugg smile thanks to you all. DCC 0 Togo 3

Posted by: tripsyman Tue, 29 Dec 2009 - 21:19
Post #427776

My succes story - I was photographed from about 150 metres from a smart car on doubles. I appealed because I have a blue badge and it was impossible to see it from that distance - got the letter of apology this morning. £35 saved job done smile.gif

Posted by: justleavemealone Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 07:07
Post #429834

laugh.gif PCN Kensington & Chelsea Motorcycle in Residents Bay, PCN, but Temp sign unclear
See main thread for photo's

I WON!!!

First of all may I thank the parking attendant for taking such clear and accurate photo's (much better than mine) and for the Kensington and Chelsea legal team for doing such a bad "cut n paste" job on the paper work given to the Adjudicator. e.g. we wrote on the Mr xxx on the 6 April 2009...the parking offence didn't occur until the 17th August 2009!

Adjudicator's Reasons
The Appellant argues that the sign indicating the hours of the restrictions in the resisdents' parking bay was misleading. Having considered the photographic evidence before me, I find there to be some substance to his complaint. Temporary amendments had been made to the sign which partially deleted the "p" of the "pm". The said sign also contains details of a planned suspension of the bay. Given the plethora of information on the sign and it's unsatisfactory appearance, I am prepared to accept that the signage was unclear. The fact that the Enforcement Authority has subsequently replaced the sign supports the view that it was inadequate. I find that no contravention occurred.


****************************

thank you for common sense


BACKGROUND
Back in sunny August of this year I went to the residence of a famous Oz based female singer to look at repairing her A/C system.
Given the location parking is a real pain, so I took the Ducati. I found the place and carefully checked the signs, one actually being worked on by a council worker.

I later found out that they were covering up the existing signs with temporary ones in readiness for the Notting hill carnival.
I read the temporary sign as saying Residences Permit Parking Only and the times plate as saying

Mon-Fri
6:30am – 10am

Sat
8:30am – 1.30pm



This sign also suspended parking for the carnival days (some week or so in the future).
Unfortunately the sign underneath displays

Mon-Fri
6:30am – 10pm
Sat
8:30am – 1.30pm


Now I know this area has a famous market and is very close to some good commuter links, so I felt that I had correctly read the sign.

The reason I miss read the sign is two fold.
One the times on the temporary sign have a sticker modifying the Saturday times. This is an oversized White sticker, with Black text. It had been placed in such away as to cover up the bottom half of the “p” on “pm” on the week time times. Meaning that I read it as “10am” and not “10pm” as intended.

Further the temporary sign has four holes in it, through which a White cable tie is placed to attach it to the post. That cable tie runs right through the text displaying the permitted times.

I fully admit that I parked illegally, but maintain that it was incredibly easy to miss read the sign, as I genuinely did. I could have parked 30’ away in a motorcycle bay, but thought I was parking legally.

I explained all of this together with photographic evidence in four separate letters to Kensington and Chelsea councils parking department, only to have each and every rejection refer to the suspension dates. Having rejected my appeal on incorrect grounds the case is going to be heard at a Tribunal.

I have two concerns one is that I cannot find any grounds for appeal based on misleading signage and that without the temporary sign actually at the tribunal how will I prove my case.

To add insult to injury the penalty charge notice sheet sent to the tribunal (containing many factual errors) has this lovely line
…The council acknowledge that the “P” in the “PM” may have been slightly obscured by the white strap securing the temporary warning sign, however this could not have been interrelated to mean “AM”.
They finally admit that the strap is covering the text, however I think the use of capitals in their prosecution is disingenuous as the sign actually uses lower case “am” and “pm”, so it is very easy to miss read.

Posted by: Dig these feet Sat, 23 Jan 2010 - 18:23
Post #435621

Motorbike clamped in Camden.

Result: Full refund of clamp charge and PCN, plus small claims court fee and interest, from Parking Solutions Ltd. Obtained CCJs against clampers and landowners (Esso Petroleum Company). Threatened Esso with warrant of execution. Esso persuaded Parking Solutions Ltd to pay up.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=44055

Posted by: Memmybear Wed, 27 Jan 2010 - 15:12
Post #437013

SUCCESS... due to DVLA. I wrote to them asking for details of the Landowner, I also sent a copy of my receipt from Halfords on the Retail Park. DVLA contacted Central Ticketing and the ticket has been cancelled. My concern IS that the GENTLEMAN!!!!who issued the ticket stated that I walked off the Retail Park, which was very untrue, VERY NAUGHTY OF HIM. I will be alerting shoppers in Bury - via the Local Newspaper, and letter to Trading Standards.
Thanks for all your help

Memmybear

Posted by: indiechick Wed, 27 Jan 2010 - 16:11
Post #437031

I appealed against Sheffield City Council who gave me a ticket for parking in a loading bay with a disabled badge. They made me go to tribunal, where I won on the grounds that no offence had been committed. It helped that the Sheffield numpties included in their evidence a photo of my badge correctly displayed.

I wouldn't have even known about that law if I hadn't come on here for help, so thank you so much.

Posted by: markyp Thu, 4 Feb 2010 - 22:32
Post #440008

PCN and Towing Charge Appeal against Southwark successful - misaligned printing

Southwark council kindly towed me from a metered bay on Christmas eve when I overstayed the metered amount by 45 minutes. The PCN paper was misaligned so that the PCN number and registration were printed outside the white box and ontop of the Southwark Council pre-printed text. I appealed on the grounds on procedural issues stating that it was impossible to clearly make out the PCN and registration number of the vehicle. Appeal was accepted on grounds of:-

"However upon examining your case I find that not all the information pertinent to your appeal is available for examiniation. So therefore I am unable to make a full enquiry into the merits of your case. I have therefore instructed that this PCN be withdrawn and the monies you have paid (£240 in total) be returned to you forthwith.

So basically check that the enforcement agent loaded his machine correctly!

Hope this helps someone else biggrin.gif

Posted by: fuel__2001 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 - 18:06
Post #444613

Me V's London Borough of Hounslow - I won my PATAS hearing, but only with the help of this forum.  

For a better idea of what went on follow the linky

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47415&hl=hounslow





Posted by: MickyD Mon, 22 Feb 2010 - 00:17
Post #445779

After a PCN at Bolton Railway Station I wrote a NICE letter to the issuer. Politeness is the key. For details see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

Posted by: aquariangrrl Mon, 22 Feb 2010 - 15:02
Post #446000

In a follow up to this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=44451 originally posted last year, we appealed to PATAS against Haringey's rejection of our appeal and PATAS awarded in our favour for a for a full return of the towing charge and PCN. We were repaid by Haringey approximately a week after winning our appeal. Thanks to everyone on this forum who helped!

Posted by: london_loulou Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 01:28
Post #447264

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48524&hl=

All the info in the post above.
smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif)

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 10:12
Post #447321

^
|
|___ Particularly recommneded reading, since the result was to prise a full refund out of a clamper! occasion16.gif

Posted by: Pimpernel Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 17:57
Post #447479

A win in Brighton. Signs, lines and TRO. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=45734

Basically B&H were trying to claim that if they had multiple restrictions overlaying one another then the size and positions of the bay did not matter.

Posted by: electrolite Thu, 4 Mar 2010 - 21:24
Post #449320

I won against Tower Scamlets!!! My car got towed October 2009 - it took 6 months to get here but PATAS ruled in my favour! I still can't believe it!!

Full thread:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=45940&mode=threaded&pid=445738


Posted by: jrtxray456 Sun, 21 Mar 2010 - 20:34
Post #454032

Thread name: Clamping by Global Controlled, £275 clamping fee while car idling for 5 min in Flex Uxbridge Gym lot

Thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48933&st=0

Lessons Learned in the thread. Got back all of the money. Biggest thing is going after the Lot owners, the people who hire the clampers.

Posted by: jmcc Mon, 22 Mar 2010 - 18:52
Post #454290

I removed my clamped car to private car park (against clampers wishes, but with blessing of Police eventually), then had a colleague unpick the lock so we could return the clamp to a local police station. Story here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=49886

Good luck to anyone else who tries this - stand up to the scummy clampers.

Posted by: Discocrazy2 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 - 22:37
Post #455179

I was taken to Court by OPC or observices.
Due to the fact they could not prove I read the signs and also because they luckily lost the contract with land owner, they had no proof where the signs were. Thus the Judge threw their claim out.
He did tell them they could not claim disproportionate fees, fake solicitors fees or even the £25 to take me to court.
In his opinion the use of fake court papers was not a good idea.
If the judgement was to have gone in OPC's favour, all they could expect to get would be the original £50 on the ticket.
I questioned whether the ticket needed to show their registered address (which it doesn't). The judge advised that no the ticket doesn't have to, but there must be at least a reference to the sign, which must state the registered office.
This is a great site with all the right information. If it wasn't for Pepipoo and members like Bama I would of paid the fine/penalty what ever they want to call it.
From my experience, all I can say is don't pay it, let them waste their money. It is worth going to court to fight them!

Posted by: rockfort Fri, 26 Mar 2010 - 15:13
Post #455665

Beat a PCN from Ealing Council. Parked on a street on a Sunday - assumed no restrictions - the sign was hidden from view by hanging baskets. Rejected informal appeal, accepted formal NTO appeal! http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=45477


Cheers to everyone on PePiPoo who gave advice (even those who said it may be a weak case), much appreciated and gave me the fire to take on the bastards and win!

Would urge anyone who's been bitten due to obscured or hidden signs to appeal - the enforcers of the PCNs are scared of being forced to clearly display them...

Posted by: london_loulou Fri, 26 Mar 2010 - 17:25
Post #455708

QUOTE (Discocrazy2 @ Wed, 24 Mar 2010 - 22:37) *
I was taken to Court by OPC or observices.
Thus the Judge threw their claim out.
He did tell them they could not claim disproportionate fees, fake solicitors fees or even the £25 to take me to court.
In his opinion the use of fake court papers was not a good idea.


Well done - and i ESPECIALLY love the excerpt above!!!! Class!!

Posted by: radiohead319 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 - 18:04
Post #457235

NtO received but no PCN served. Liverpool City Council. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48195

Numerous mistakes including no photos, lying/misleading advice, PCN littered with spelling mistakes etc. Had to go to appeal which they decided not to contest for some reason!

Posted by: 93c Fri, 2 Apr 2010 - 17:54
Post #457750

Not sure if this is what I'm supposed to do, but the 'sticky' says to post a link to completed success stories:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47288&mode=threaded&pid=425054

Thanks to everyone who helped.

Further to the above, I got a letter from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal telling me the council had decided not to contest the appeal.

Posted by: J_Edgar Fri, 9 Apr 2010 - 16:26
Post #459457

Enfield instructed by PATAS to refund £250 for PCN and removal on a code 27 parked adjacent to a dropped footway. Full adjudication linked below.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=47832&view=findpost&p=459455

Posted by: Lion-O Wed, 14 Apr 2010 - 14:40
Post #460658

A fantastic win against a Clamp in Camden...

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47211

Thanks to all those that helped out!!!


Posted by: Mr Warren Wed, 21 Apr 2010 - 16:02
Post #462543

Success story against Edinburgh City Council.
Parked on Saturday night having purchased a ticket for an overnight stay right outside the Holiday Inn Express in town centre. Got PCN a few minutes before weekend free parking time started. Took this little video as proof of my good faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m1TUSB0ynY wrote a nice letter to ECC, sending them to this video link. Within a few days i received a letter confirming that lines were very confusing, PCN cancelled.
I would not have taken a video pointing out all the confusing issues had i not been a member of this forum. There are loads of very helpful people here, may they be thanked once more in this post.

Posted by: ed1000 Sat, 24 Apr 2010 - 23:20
Post #463448

2 informal appeals refused then wrote following NTO.  Accepted my challenge PCN should have been code 19 not 12.
The wrong code got me off the hook but they made me sweat for it.

Thanks again to everyone for help, info and support. 



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=49732





Posted by: rednblack Thu, 29 Apr 2010 - 17:26
Post #465003

Common sense from Rochdale Council! biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50298&st=0&gopid=465002&#entry465002


Posted by: Norm de Plume Wed, 5 May 2010 - 11:21
Post #466200

In November 2008 my wife received a ticket from Car Park Management UK Ltd for leaving a Johnsons Cleaners car park for 5 minutes to get a prescription for her 95 year old father. Her appeal was rejected. We then offered a cheque for £1 for compensation, which was returned. Rossendales Collect Debt Collectors then got involved. We told them to sue if they thought they had a case, otherwise we would sue them for harrassment, and report them to the police for demanding money with menaces. We heard no more.
I have reported CPMUK to the Companies Registry for breach of Companies Act Regulations and they are likely to be struck off. (They had also failed to file their accounts.) They now claim to trade as a "new company" - Car Park Management Ltd - albeit with the old company's number - a further breach of the Act, together with other breaches. I have reported these as well.
Hopefully they are now regretting not accepting our £1.

Posted by: bama Wed, 5 May 2010 - 15:55
Post #466338

if the number is the same it is the same company - the number is the legal entity so any pending actions are still pending IMO.

Posted by: Devil Child Wed, 12 May 2010 - 16:57
Post #468023

Success story against Brighton and Hove City Council.

In Janurary I was given a PCN by Brighton and Hove City Council for parking in a loading bay. This was a pavement mounted loading bay and it had 'Loading bay' written on the road clearly, however, the white lines on the carridgeway side of the bay were missing. I wrote them this letter:




To whomever it may concern,

RE: Penalty Charge Notice number: **********
Date of issue: 15/01/2010
Vehicle registration: **** ***
Address: ** ******************* *************

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

On 15/01/2010 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason of: Parking in a loading area during restricted hours.

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, my challenge is on the basis that this contravention did not occur, these are the reasons why:

As you know, for an area of the road to be classed as a loading area it has to comply with Schedule 6 of the Traffic signs regulations and General directions 2002. This area of road did not contain visible white road markings traveling lengthwise along the carriageway side of the bay. Subject to Schedule 6 of the Traffic signs regulations and General directions 2002 there are no permitted varients stated for alternative types of parking bays reserved for doctor permit holders (1028.4) and alternative types of bays reserved for disabled badge holders either at the edge or in the centre of the carriageway (1028.3) that omit the lengthwise road markings as opposed to the transverse road markings from the carriageway side of the footway mounted loading area. Therefore this area of road does not comply with these regulations meaning no such bay exists and no contravention has occured.

If Brighton and Hove City Council still maintain that this area in which I parked is a loading area then I would also like to refer to the Local Authority Traffic Order (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 where Regulation 18 (1) provides:

Where an order relating to a 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 as long as the order remains in force.

Although on the face of it this authorises the Local Authority to set up any type of sign in any position it pleases, it does not place the positioning of signs beyond the scope of consideration by an Adjudicator as to whether the information is in fact adequate; the Local Authority must, therefore, install and maintain signs and road markings which accord with the concept of fairness to the motorist and the need in unusual locations to ensure that the motorist is fully informed of the relevant traffic restrictions.

It is also a requirement under section 18 of the Local Authority Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 that all signs and lines are correct before a Traffic Regulation Order can come into force. Therefore, if a sign is missing or a bay is incorrectly marked then the Traffic Regulation Order cannot be in force until the restriction is correctly marked.

This means that not only have Brighton and Hove City Council failed in their duty to inform me of the relevant traffic restrictions, the Traffic Regulation Order itself cannot be enforced. Again, this means that no contravention has occured.

For these reasons I look forward to receiving notification within 28 days, that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Yours sincerely,

****** *******




Brighton and Hove City Council were kind enough to write back to me within 28 days confirming that my PCN was cancelled smile.gif

Posted by: d-evil Sat, 15 May 2010 - 15:39
Post #468840

Me vs Camden Council.

Parked on a yellow line and received a PCN.

I appealed on the grounds that there were no more spaces left to park (there genuinely wasnt) and that i had paid for a permit...this was the informal appeal on teir website.

They responded by post, usual response, i was in contravention.

I then appealed formally after receiving NTO, asking for numbers of spaces in the area vs the number of parking permits sold. They did not respond and sent me a charge certificate 28 days later.

I sent them recorded letter as this was PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIATRY as they ignore my request and ignore my appeal, threatened to take them to court if they did not respond within 14 days.

13 days later got a nice letter saying PCN cancelled, and not only that, received an apology for bad customer service i received and the procedural improprietry on their behalf.

biggrin.gif

Posted by: Norm de Plume Mon, 17 May 2010 - 08:53
Post #469160

QUOTE (Norm de Plume @ Wed, 5 May 2010 - 11:21) *
In November 2008 my wife received a ticket from Car Park Management UK Ltd for leaving a Johnsons Cleaners car park for 5 minutes to get a prescription for her 95 year old father. Her appeal was rejected. We then offered a cheque for £1 for compensation, which was returned. Rossendales Collect Debt Collectors then got involved. We told them to sue if they thought they had a case, otherwise we would sue them for harrassment, and report them to the police for demanding money with menaces. We heard no more.
I have reported CPMUK to the Companies Registry for breach of Companies Act Regulations and they are likely to be struck off. (They had also failed to file their accounts.) They now claim to trade as a "new company" - Car Park Management Ltd - albeit with the old company's number - a further breach of the Act, together with other breaches. I have reported these as well.
Hopefully they are now regretting not accepting our £1.


Car Park Management UK Ltd now dissolved. Result!

Posted by: strummin simon Thu, 20 May 2010 - 12:28
Post #470271

just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone on here who advised me and gave me encouragement when i needed it over a parking eye ticket.

i would also like to say a big SCREW YOU PARKING EYE!

Posted by: ispartacus75 Sat, 22 May 2010 - 20:27
Post #470864

Ipartacus75 vs Wirral Borough Council

PCN was issued for parking adjacent to a dropped kerbway. Initial appeal was on the grounds that the vehicle was not parked on the road and therefore not in contravention. This was ignored. Representation was made with the same point. This time representation was accepted and the PCN was cancelled but they have tried to tell me that the initial contravention INCLUDES the entire road including pavement.

Thanks to all for your help in getting this sorted.

1 more win for Pepipoo.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48134

Posted by: Mr Warren Mon, 24 May 2010 - 12:39
Post #471154

Mr Warren against Liverpool City Council. Authorised and unauthorised parking signage confusion near Anfield Stadium.

This link for the whole story.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46393&st=160&p=462717&#entry462717

Thank you Forum members.

Posted by: blackadder123 Thu, 27 May 2010 - 21:07
Post #472340

blackadder123 vs Wandsworth.

Thanks to all who advised me a few months ago, Wandsworth eventually wrote back that they had cancelled our PCN biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=49019&hl=

Posted by: Mr Warren Fri, 11 Jun 2010 - 15:27
Post #476078

Mr Warren v Liverpool City Council "Daughter in tears post".

Adjudicator letter finally received, copy attached:

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn49/frenchgold/Adjudicatorreply.jpg

Posted by: jobjoe Thu, 17 Jun 2010 - 08:44
Post #477666

canceled PCN issued by derby council for not displaying properly

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51928

thanks for the advice and help from this community
thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: muhammad Fri, 18 Jun 2010 - 22:57
Post #478277

18th June 2010

Car towed by ELV [Tower Hamlets Council] from an Estate in Feb 2010

All case tips taken from this forum

Grounds for appeal:-

(a) incorrect code used for offence
(b) lines unclear
© signs not clear.

Summary:-

Car parked in (unclear) visitors bay without permit and towed after 10 mins. Paid £200 for release at now shut down Leven’s Road Pound.

I appealed on the basis that the wrong offence was recorded by the tow team. I had no idea it was incorrect but when I called the company to confirm a few details as I was writing an appeal letter, I realised they had recorded the wrong code so tow was unlawful.
I also appealed on the basis that the lines and signs were not clear but these were not accepted/ignored.

Outcome:- Victory

Decision:-

All communications were initially through email and were initially very prompt. After first rejection of appeal however the emails stopped
.
Took advice from previous cases and issued a (very simple) NBA but via email so no response even after 2 weeks. Sent a paper copy of NBA after 4 weeks of initial NBA and miraculously got a reply the following day with apology for delay.

Appeal upheld and refund issued within 1 month.

ELV have lost their contract (or maybe its a phoenix...) and new policy of allowing 30minutes before a tow is now place. http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news/council_news/april/thirty_minutes_to_tow_the_line.aspx?StyleType=LargeFont&StyleClass=FontSize


Posted by: Tomsta Fri, 25 Jun 2010 - 12:03
Post #480058

Here's the link http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48803

As suspected BANES didn't contest my appeal against their totally flawed PCN, shambolic procedure in responding to my initial challenge and non-compliant (thus unenforceable) Bus Lane.

Many thanks to all who assisted me.

Posted by: J_Edgar Sat, 26 Jun 2010 - 14:07
Post #480338

Waltham Forest to refund £250 for PCN and removal, posible consideration of wider issues by adjudicator. Time will tell...


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=49448&st=0

Posted by: Michael 194 Fri, 2 Jul 2010 - 20:30
Post #482165

I helped a friend in an appeal to Wandsworth Council the details are

This lady parked in a bay that she thought was Pay and display but was permit holders only. she received a PCN, she emailed Wandsworth but asked for a reply by post. She didn't receive a reply because apparently it was sent by email not by post. She then got a NTO, but she was away for a few weeks so couldnt take it to PATAS. to cut a long story very short, the bailiffs got involved.

Today she emailed me:

When we last spoke, you advised me to pay the Bailiffs but to write on the letter 'without prejudice'. You said that I should then write to the Local Government Ombudsman and complain about the Council, how it acted unfairly towards me etc. I did both of what you advised. The LGO contacted me shortly after I wrote to them and they wanted all the details of the case. I didn't hear from them for a few weeks until last week they told me that Wandsworth still had not replied to them but that they had contacted Wandsworth by phone and expected a response within a week. Next thing I know I received a letter in the post today from Wandsworth Council with a cheque!!!!
Thank you for all your help and advice. It was a long haul, but worth it. You learn from this not to give up!

Another good result.

I hadn't heard of pepipoo at that time.

Posted by: M911 Wed, 7 Jul 2010 - 21:40
Post #483596

This is lambeth again but was my next door neighbour ticket i was fighting anyway they sent off the second appeal with help from here and never ever got a reply from lambeth so looks like a result thanks.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47830&hl=

Posted by: MissSmith Thu, 8 Jul 2010 - 09:14
Post #483673

A great success story against London Parking Control and the landowner!

I appealed because of lack of signage, they rejected it
I contacted the landowner, they refused to take my complaint
I filed a small claim against them, they disputed the amount in full
I went to court, they attended with a solicitor and representatives from both companies... I WON!!! laugh.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50911

THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO HELPED! dave o and bama... you guys are great!

Posted by: roythebus Sat, 10 Jul 2010 - 11:08
Post #484439

Another one here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50041

Shepway District Council-adjudicator accepted my representations , initially that the yellow lines were not compliant, but letters to Shepway alleging the TRO is defective. I'm now waiting for a written reply to the decision from the Tribunal.

Posted by: mark12345 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 - 11:00
Post #485622


PAGE 1 - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52453&st=0



PAGE 2 - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52453&st=20&gopid=485621&#entry485621


Success - we had our parking ticket cancelled today by local council.

The above link has the details and I really appreciate all the help provided here.

Mark

Posted by: bean0 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 - 13:49
Post #487904

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46391&hl=

PCN canceled (peculiarly) after challenge rejected, and (eventual) admission that the challenge was correct in that the bus lane was non-conformant, despite their initial claims that they had authorisation for the non-conformancies, DFT says otherwise, and they claim to have fixed the non-conformancies mere days after my PCN was issued ( to be investigated ).

Posted by: FrankP Thu, 22 Jul 2010 - 14:12
Post #488352

Just scored a win against Lambeth. Pitiful bunch. Now gonna chase them for costs. Thanks to all for their help on here!!!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50766

Posted by: PintOfKittens Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 12:25
Post #491001

"Win" (They left my appeal to nto and timed out) against Woking (Surrey) Council, for lack of signs, no TRO, and a bunch of other things. Have one more parking ticket, same spot, 5 months later, going down the same avenue.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48671

Posted by: nextfool Tue, 3 Aug 2010 - 11:43
Post #492385

rolleyes.gif Received Compensation - Thought I would share this with you all, I appealed PCN - usual story had to appeal all way to independent Adjudicator only for the enforcement authority to decide not to contest, rather than go to PATAS I wrote a letter of complaint to the enforcement authority stating the PCN was incorrectly issued by the CEO and in rejecting all my representations there had been procedural impropriety by their parking services that had resulted in financial loss through wasted time and effort and informing them I intended to pursue my complaint through the Local Government Ombudsman but first looked to them to accept responsibility and make an acceptable offer to compensate. Within a few weeks I had a letter of apology and an offer of compensation of £70 that I accepted. Result. laugh.gif

Posted by: apomyzitis Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 15:08
Post #493286

There you go!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=40121&hl=
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=40705&hl=
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=41674&hl=

Posted by: boggy0220 Mon, 16 Aug 2010 - 14:07
Post #497328

Me- 1
Shepway District Council/Kent County Council - 0

The matter went to adjudication this lunchtime where I was joined by "Roythebus" as an observing member of the public and the transport manager of Shepway District Council, who would appear to have no legal training or experience. The proceedings were tape recorded.
I was asked to present my case which I thought went OK, although I dried up a bit trying to explain my representations about part of the NtO but got round that by introducing other irregularities with the document. I raised my concerns about the validity of the TRO because it failed to define the action taken against those contravening the order and also the notes made by the CEO not being contemporaneous.
The SDC Transport Manager was asked to give their representations which were challenged by the Adjudicator and myself.
I was fairly confident that a win was going to be had with the non-compliance of the PCN and NtO but rather bizarrely the Adjudicator allowed it on the grounds that SDC had failed to supply evidence of where the alleged contravention took place in relation to the TRO. Although they evidenced the place as being outside a particular address the Adjudicator made mention of the fact that the TRO lists the road name 5 different times, each one in relation to distance from other road junctions, and they had not made it clear as to which one was relevent to this matter. He added that if a map had been produced with the TRO then it would have been clear as to which set of DYLs was relevent.
Further to this, he showed much concern over the content of the documents that SDC use (he questioned, in particular, the legality of the NoR) use and stated that he would be dealing with those matters in addition to the TRO and would be putting his findings into writing to me.

So, I'm a happy bunny and will now wait to get the full adjudication in writing so that you can all see that for future reference. In the mean time, thank you to all the Pepipoo participants. Don't give in, fight it!

EDIT:
Follow this link to see the written findings.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50883&st=40&gopid=498548&#entry498548

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 17 Aug 2010 - 07:51
Post #497616

Well done the bogsy, I too was surprised at the reason given by adjudicator, lack of maps; one to remember for future reference.

I too had a victory against Shepway, with my ticket being cancelled on the order of the adjudicator before a public hearing. i found the roads were not listed in the TRO!

So, if i can amend Bogsy's score, US 2, Shepway 0.

BTW, the tribunal clerk told me that all cases heard yesterday were successfully challenged. so, US lots, them Nil. don't give in and pay up, challenge them.

Posted by: nemo Thu, 19 Aug 2010 - 19:00
Post #498652

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=49114&view=findpost&p=445313

Parked off carriageway (on the footway) alongside zig-zags.

Dropped by Brighton & Hove despite their repeated assertions that the contravention was 'valid'..

Posted by: P Cam Wed, 25 Aug 2010 - 09:35
Post #500796

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52610&st=0

Clamp + Tow £260
Parked in a residents bay without showing a parking permit

Won at adjudicators as lambeth did not provide any evidence within the time limit.

Great stuff =)

Posted by: boggy0220 Thu, 26 Aug 2010 - 07:37
Post #501214

The Folkestone addition of the Kentish Express have done a front page story with a write up inside. The response from Shepway District Council is something down the line of "We are taking legal advice regarding the wording..." . I'll see if I can scan the article later today and post it up on here.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 26 Aug 2010 - 09:42
Post #501267

Splendid. Even the reporter can't get his head round NTO service dates!

And as for: "The independent adjudicator at the tribunal, John Parker, said: "The confusion is an irremediable defect. The recipient must know precisely how to work out when a response is due."

If so, what the hell is the Oldham adjudication about?

Is the application of the law now a post-code lottery?

HCA

Posted by: interlog Fri, 27 Aug 2010 - 20:19
Post #501972

Camden Council - PCN issued for alleged loading contravention. Appeal based on use of CCTV opposed to CEO enforcement. Appeal allowed by Council.

Another 7 appeals pending with numerous councils - will post outcomes as soon as received.

Me 1 - Councils - 0

Posted by: nikkietoni Sun, 29 Aug 2010 - 11:53
Post #502426

success! thanks to everyone 0n here!received refund £140 back from manchester city council for having a car towed away as unwittingly parked in a disabled bay(would never knowingly do that!) which appeared to be an ordinary parking bay(road markings worn away and parking meter on space and sign too high and not on space!).

Posted by: interlog Thu, 2 Sep 2010 - 11:59
Post #503628

Islington Council - PCN issued for alleged parking in contravention of the overnight lorry ban. Appeal based on no uniform by CEO, no evidence vehicle was issued with a ticket, lack of signs and no option to pay cash - appeal allowed by Council.

Another 6 appeals pending with numerous councils - will post outcomes as soon as received.

Me 2 - Councils - 0

Posted by: totalchunk Sat, 4 Sep 2010 - 07:45
Post #504141

Parked in a marked bay with no apparent signage indicating that street parking had been suspended. Won based on NCC's lack of adequate signage. Thanks to all who helped.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51318

Posted by: interlog Tue, 7 Sep 2010 - 14:35
Post #505199

Camden Council - PCN issued for footway parking. Appealed based on such parking allowed as the vehicle was unloading with the driver present at all times - appeal allowed by Council.

Another 5 appeals pending with numerous councils - will post outcomes as soon as received.

Me 3 - Councils - 0

Posted by: pab-LO Thu, 9 Sep 2010 - 21:16
Post #506036

To add completion to an old thread that I have just returned to:

The contravention was O10 'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (blue badge holder)'

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=42240&st=0

Lambeth folded by conceding that their use of the 'Atomic Clock' argument to sync CEO devices was flawed. Big thank you to KarenH for suggesting this response initially.

Posted by: EmmaGee Fri, 10 Sep 2010 - 11:08
Post #506164

It is with very deep regret that I have to announce that Shropshire has accepted my presentations against Notice to Owner. They have cancelled both the NtO and PCN.



Expletives deleted!!!!! I had SO hoped that I would have been able to take this to Adjudication and win not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of ALL disabled drivers who had been misled by the bay, and Shropshire Parking Service's shoddy system.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank everyone on the forum who helped, and taught me so much, especially DancingDad and philmorgan, who have supported me even when I panicked.

My case can be found http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=53010


Posted by: J_Edgar Mon, 13 Sep 2010 - 11:06
Post #506945

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18164376

One I did elsewhere.

Islington give up at the formal reps stage due to representations against an unlawful suspension sign placed in a bay a short distance up the road from where the appellant was parked, combined with a flawed NTO.

I have linked PePiPoo in the thread for future cases.




Posted by: verycross Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 15:10
Post #508329

Just got a letter from Tower Hamlets saying they are cancelling the PCN and have ordered the bailiffs to refund me, as the bailiffs confirmed that I did not receive a letter before their visit. Only took 10 days!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54516

Posted by: TallBloke Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 17:15
Post #508388

After five months and several letters and emails TfL cancelled the PCN in a cash generation area AKA red route loading bay with defective signage.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51960

Posted by: nikkietoni Tue, 21 Sep 2010 - 10:47
Post #509700

success! thankyou for all the help from this site-wonderful!!
refund from manchester city council of £140 as the council did not contest it! x
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52990

Posted by: ed1000 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 - 20:23
Post #512102

Just wanted to share a success with members.

Contravention "Failing to comply with a sign indicating prohibition on certain types of vehicle"

We argued the PCN was confusing and did not meet TfL guidelines to Local Govt on PCN requirements.

PATAS agreed on the first part directing Camden to cancel the penalty notice.

Have to say the clutter of signs at the start of the prohibition made it very easy to miss the main sign.

Not sure I agree with what the adjudicator says here about pictures but I've no cause to argue just pleased to be free of Camden clutches.

Transcript of adjudicator's reasons.


"The appellant argued that the Penalty Charge Notice was confusing in that it did not specify what types of vehicles
were prohibited. She referred to PATAS appeal No. 2060543587.

I think the appellant has a point. The sign at the location has the effect of indicating that all motor vehicles are prohibited
on the other side of it during certain times. The appellant has therefore on the face of it contravened the prohibition.

This however was not the issue here. The argument is that unless the motorist is informed by the PCN what vehicles
are prohibited, how is the motorist to assess whether a contravention has occurred and therefore arrive at the conclusion
as to what to do with the PCN?

The authority could have done one or two things. First they could have substituted "certain types of vehicles" with "motor vehicles".
This would leave no room for confusion. Alternatively if the PCN had contained a clear picture of the sign, I would have accepted
that the picture of the sign would have given information about what types of vehicles were prohibited.

The PCN lacked the required clarity and cannot be enforced. I am allowing the appeal."


Posted by: Cymrogwyllt Wed, 6 Oct 2010 - 18:06
Post #514969

I had left my car in a multi storey with the PAYG on the front screen. Hereford iirc. I was given a PCN for no ticket shown. I wrote a polite letter back stating that I had left two dogs (Labx so not small) in the car with two windows open and grilled in a level and location out of the sun. I explained that the dogs were very territorial and had in all probability got very agitated with the/or another person approaching the car and they dislodged the ticket from the screen as a result. I enclosed the rather crumpled ticket that I recovered from the footwell of the car.

I agreed that I was at fault as the ticket was not on display and asked that, given the circumstances the penalty could be waived. I also said that given the dog's reactions the attendant would certainy remember them if asked as the dogs normally curled up in the footwells and tended to react from 'out of sight', even to my approach until I calmed them. I hasten to add that normally the dogs were in the car for no more than an hour with two bowls of water available, they were used to car journeys of up to five hours and I knew them well enough to know when they wanted a comfort break despite a recent walk.

Letter back a week later saying cancelled. Either lucky or a very scared attendant.

Posted by: nikkietoni Wed, 6 Oct 2010 - 23:50
Post #515070

success re euro car parks- nothing further from euro car parks in the last few months after ignoring their letters thankyou again pepipoo x http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52562

success re another parking ticket issued in hounslow-heard nothing for months!!thankyou pepippoo
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51041gain pepipoo

Posted by: skiboy Fri, 8 Oct 2010 - 16:20
Post #515637

Devere Parking Services

Just had 6 months of court threats and litigation by these people. 14 days before the hearing, they withdrew their claim.
My advice to anyone who gets a demand from these people is read the other threads about Devere and their fellow PPC's and learn that these kind of charges are almost universally unfair and unenforcible. Do not be scared into paying them your money.

Posted by: Herr_Pea Tue, 12 Oct 2010 - 11:27
Post #516686

Me -v- Sheffield City Council
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48904
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55204

PCN - Contravention code 45 - Parked on a taxi rank

Background:- I parked in an on-street parking bay on Pinstone Street that had no road markings and no obvious sign. I returned to the car to find a PCN (above). I then checked a sign further down the street, which stated "No stopping At any time except taxis".

Grounds for appeal:-
(a) The contravention did not occur
(b) Procedural impropriety

Summary:- I argued that the contravention did not occur as there were no taxi rank road markings, or a broad yellow line to indicate the "no stopping" restriction. The alleged contravention occurred in a Restricted Zone, and the council did have authorisation to have "no waiting" restrictions without road markings, and permission to not use some prescribed parking bay markings. I got evidence from the DfT that the council did not, however, have permission to have "no stopping" restrictions without the prescibed road markings, and did not have permission to have an area for parking of taxis only without the prescribed road markings. I also argued that there were insufficient signs within the Restricted Zone to give adequate direction and information about the restrictions in force.

I made informal and then formal representations to the council using this argument. The council confirmed receipt of my formal representations, but then issued a Charge Certificate after two weeks, which they later cancelled. They then rejected my representations and served the Notice of Rejection too late (after 57 days, and not within the allowed time-scale of 56 days).

I therefore appealed to the tribunal on the original grounds that the contravention did not occur, and that there had been procedural impropriety in issuing the Charge Certificate after representations had been accepted, and serving the NoR too late.

The council did not contest this appeal and the PCN was cancelled.

I attribute the success of my case to the advice given on this forum and I thank everyone who contributed.

Posted by: boggy0220 Tue, 12 Oct 2010 - 16:09
Post #516734

Boggy0220 (2) - Shepway District Council (0).

PCN issued yesterday morning at 1136hrs by CEOs whilst I was at the Post Office sorting office collecting a parcel. Away from vehicle for less than 5 mins. Went home and checked TRO. TRO gives an exemption for the loading/unloading of goods which includes postal packages and equally fails to list the the DYLs on which I had parked. Email sent to Parking Services yesterday afternoon pointing out this and by 1600hrs today the ticket was cancelled!

SDC... better start getting your house in order hadn't you?

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 12 Oct 2010 - 21:51
Post #516816

Further to my previous posts, I have now had a letter from the Tribunal awarding me costs from Shepway District Council. In the 2 page judgement, the adjudicator says the Shepway really ought to know what is in their TRO's. If I can work out how to do it, I'll try and scan the letter.

Posted by: boggy0220 Wed, 13 Oct 2010 - 09:17
Post #516885

Get that scanner working Roy! More to add to the meeting with SDC!

Posted by: snowy1998 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 - 09:39
Post #517316

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51419

Same basic argument sent 3 times, informal, formal and finally cave at TPT appeal

Posted by: djdg Sun, 17 Oct 2010 - 18:24
Post #518324

Southwark Council (622) Parked with on or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway

Notice of Acceptance of Representations - Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 6) received so another success to attribute to pepipoo.

Posted by: alyxzandra Mon, 18 Oct 2010 - 22:27
Post #518781

I appealed a parking ticket against Dartford Council. I went over my time due to my son being very ill. He was given several prescriptions and I had to wait for them to be filled, which took a lot longer than originally told. They were vital medications including two asthma inhalers for my then 7 month old son (nevermind the antibiotics and all other stuff for him). He had been hospitalized before for breathing problems and he was under the care of the paediatric department at the local hospital for his breathing problems and severe eczema. Now, he is with Great Ormond Street.

As soon as I got the medication I administered it to a very cranky baby who also needed a nappy change due to related stomach problems (will not go into details). I appealed on extenuating circumstances, gave evidence to back it up and was told I should have taken my car to another location and/or not change my son's nappy despite the fact I made it clear his bowels were loose.

I took it to the adjudicator who was not sympathetic at first. But, I pointed out that my son had been in hospital since he was 3.5 weeks and is under the care of specialists. I also informed him that when a parent has a very sick baby on their hands they are not even considering the parking limit when all you want to do is to get them to breathe. I also explained that giving 2 asthma pumps with a mask to a 7 month old who is cranky is not an easy job.

Anyway, my argument was accepted and it was cancelled on compassionate grounds. biggrin.gif


Posted by: np2188 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 - 16:30
Post #520203

Success

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51382&st=60&start=60

http://img232.imageshack.us/i/41299485.jpg/

http://img135.imageshack.us/i/69173466.jpg/

Posted by: terminator x Fri, 29 Oct 2010 - 13:44
Post #522144

Success of sorts - I park in the same private car park every day (train parking) & never buy a ticket. Every now & then I get a PCN which I ignore. This is followed by 4 identical letters, again all ignored. I've now got about 35 sets of 4 letters:



Cheers, TX.

Posted by: mpesm Tue, 2 Nov 2010 - 18:31
Post #523484

I have a success story to share! London Borough of Redbridge, Clements Lane, Route restricted to certain Vehicles.

Redbridge refused my appeal so I took it to PATAS but Redbridge cancelled the PCN before the hearing date. A big thanks to all who posted on http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52376&st=0 with a very special thanks to Scaramouche and J_Edgar for all their help in creating my winning letter below:



Dear Sir or Madam

Case number: xxxxxxxxx
PCN:xxxxxxx

I formally do make this appeal to PATAS in respect of the above PCN and do include all relevant documentation and correspondence in support of my application to have this PCN cancelled.

At this moment in time, my appeal basically involves two grounds i.e. signage and procedural impropriety as follows:

SIGNAGE

1. There are no warning signs whatever in advance of the restriction.

2. There are no road legends in place, which should accompany the blue roundel 953 and 953.2 signs. I rely on the following sources:

From the DfT traffic signs manual chapter 5 paragraph 17.18;

17.18 Where streets are reserved for the use of buses only, or buses and trams, or buses and cycles, the entry should be marked with diagram 1048.3 BUS ONLY, 1048.2 TRAM & BUS ONLY or 1048.4 BUS AND (cycle symbol) ONLY as appropriate.

Also this:

From Chapter 3:

15.32 The appropriate road markings for bus-only streets and bus gates are diagrams 1048.3 BUS ONLY and 1048.4 BUS AND (cycle symbol) ONLY. The latter may be varied to BUS AND TAXI ONLY or BUS TAXI (cycle symbol) ONLY. “

And this: TSRGD, Schedule 5 P.144

Therefore, in my opinion, the correct signage was not in place.

3. I also refer to the following cases in Harrow, involving Camrose Avenue:

Case No 2070041654; Case No 2060500165; Case No 2070152950.

With regard to the last two, the same adjudicator heard both, I believe. Anyway, no matter which contravention occurred, the adjudicator held in all three that the lane was unenforceable because the road markings were incorrect to the sign used.

PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY

1. The PCN states: "if you think one of these applies, please indicate which one by ticking the box”. The Law, however, states otherwise and this amounts to fettering of my right to make a proper representation, thereby rendering the PCN both non-compliant and unenforceable.

2. I think it also reasonable to argue that the PCN fails to comply with regulation 4(8)(a)(viii) of the LLA&TfL Act 2003;

(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a) state—
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act
The PCN advises you can make representations but it fails to advise the underlined section above which a PCN must also contain.
3. There is also a problem with the period of time given for issue of the charge certificate and I rely upon the following in this regard from Stubbs v Westminster:

I am not satisfied that the information given on the PCN as to the time period that the enforcement authority is legally entitled to serve a Charge Certificate is correct in law as stated on the PCN. The lawful period is given by, Paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 as quoted below:

"London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

SCHEDULE 1

Charge certificate
5
(1)
Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)
The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)
where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(b)
where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires; or
©
where there has been an unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with the date on which notice of the adjudicator’s decision is served on the appellant.
(3)
Where an appeal against a notice of rejection is made but is withdrawn before the decision of the adjudicator is made the relevant period in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the appeal is withdrawn."

The PCN in this case refers only to the "28 period" and this can only be interpreted as referring to the period given for the payment period as stated on the PCN. I therefore found shortening the time period in which issue of a Charge Certificate can be made. The penalty charge is therefore neither lawful nor enforceable. I cite PATAS case Graham William Stubbs v Westminster, in support of this point. For your own references according to my statement I include any relevant documents.



Stubbs v Westminster

The important point is the payment period under LLATLA 2003 begins with the date of notice.

But both the reps period and hence the CC period begin with the date of service of the notice.
The notice of rejection incorrectly informs me of the time available to make an appeal to the adjudicator.

Point 1

It states 'This must be done not later than 28 days of this letter being served."

Not later than one day of today is tomorrow, which is a period of two days.

Thus not later than 28 days of this letter being served is a period of 29 days.

Point 2

It states 'This must be done not later than 28 days of this letter being served."

The law says:
QUOTE
Adjudication by traffic adjudicator

4(1)Where an enforcing authority serve a notice of rejection, the person who made the representations under paragraph 1 above in respect of which that notice was served may, before—
(a)the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or
(b)such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow,

appeal to a traffic adjudicator against the decision of the enforcing authority.

(2)On an appeal under this paragraph, the traffic adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1(4) above and may give the enforcing authority such directions as he considers appropriate.

(3)It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2) above to comply with it forthwith.


This misstates my true legal position and is thus prejudicial as it fetters my statutory right to submit an appeal to the adjudicator after the 28 day period has expired.

Finally, in view of this considerable procedural impropriety, I do also rely on two often-quoted cases i.e.:

(i): Moses and Barnet where the High Court Judge specifically states that the time period must be clear, that councils must act according to statute and prejudice should not occur. I quote directly from paragraph 23:

'I also consider the nature and extent of parking control as an activity. It is a necessary one of considerable importance that affects the daily lives of millions of motorists. PCNs are issued in their thousands every day; over 4 million every year. Only about 1 per cent gets as far as an appeal before a Parking Adjudicator. In relation to such a routine, everyday, prolific activity it is highly undesirable for non -compliant PCNs to be served in large numbers. My decision should in my view provide every encouragement to local authorities to ensure that the PCNs they serve are compliant with the statutory requirements as to their content. This is not the first occasion this issue has come before a Parking Adjudicator. In the case of Moulder v Sutton LBC (PATAS Case No 1940113243, 24 May 1995), an Adjudicator found the PCN in that case to be a nullity because it omitted the statement required by section 66(3)(e). Yet it seems that invalid PCNs are still being issued, as both this case and Sutton v London Borough of Camden show. The drafting of a compliant PCN is a simple drafting task and it is difficult to understand why these difficulties have arisen and continue to do so. These sentiments apply to every stage of the enforcement process, not just the issue of a valid PCN. The Parking Adjudicators have had cause in their annual report on more than one occasion to comment on procedural irregularities that have come to their attention in appeals. The motoring public deserves nothing less than that the public authorities exercising penal powers understand the importance of their complying with the conditions attached to their powers and are scrupulous about having in place administrative processes that do so. It is imperative that the public can have confidence in the fairness and propriety of the enforcement of parking controls.'
It is up to local councils to ensure their PCNs are drafted in compliance with the Statute. These appeals show only too clearly that the findings and concerns of the Adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration.
I conclude that Mr Thorne was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."

(ii): Al's Bar v Wamdsworth, where the Judge at the Judicial Review ruled that, not only was the PCN substantially non-compliant, but also found it to be null and void, and, therefore, unenforceable. I quote as follows:

My decision should in my view provide every encouragement to Local Authorities to ensure that the PCNs they serve are compliant with the statutory requirements as to their content.

This is not the first occasion this issue has come before a Parking Adjudicator. In the case of Moulder v Sutton LBC (PATAS Case No. 1940113243 24 May 1995) an Adjudicator found the PCN in that case to be a nullity because it omitted the statement required by section 66(3)(e). Yet it seems that invalid PCNs are still being issued, as both this case and Sutton v London Borough of Camden show. The drafting of a compliant PCN is a simple drafting task and it is difficult to understand why these difficulties have arisen and continue to do so.

These sentiments apply to every stage of the enforcement process, not just the issue of a valid PCN. The Parking Adjudicators have had cause in their annual report on more than one occasion to comment on procedural irregularities that have come to their attention in appeals.

The motoring public deserves nothing less than that the public authorities exercising penal powers understand the importance of their complying with the conditions attached to their powers and are scrupulous about having in place administrative processes that do so. It is imperative that the public can have confidence in the fairness and propriety of the enforcement of parking controls.

It is also relevant that the penalties for parking contraventions are relatively low. It is very undesirable in those circumstances for the imposition of those penalties to be attended by uncertainties about its legality for procedural reasons. What is required is simplicity, clarity and certainty. That aim is not assisted by a less than rigorous approach to procedures by Local Authorities.

I also take into account the fact that the PCN in this case was non-compliant in a considerable number of respects. This is not a case of a single, minor error. I am afraid that the Council has played rather fast and loose with the carefully drafted requirements of the Act, no doubt inadvertently, but it is none the less serious for that.

All these factors taken together in my view point strongly towards the interests of parking control being best served by my finding the PCN to be a nullity irrespective of whether the non-compliance caused prejudice in this case.

But what factors are there pointing the other way? Apart from the non-prejudice point in this particular case, Mr Pitt-Payne put forward two arguments. First, that there was no danger of prejudice or confusion on any likely facts. That is a matter of speculation. In any event, it is not acceptable for the Council to say, in effect, that it may not have complied with the statutory requirements but it really does not matter. The statutory requirements are as they are for very good reasons, they are mandatory and the Council should comply with them.

4. The Penalty Charge does not adequately convey to the motorist what vehicles are restricted and I rely upon the following:

"The appellant argued that the Penalty Charge Notice was confusing in that it did not specify what types of vehicles were prohibited. She referred to PATAS appeal No. 2060543587.

I think the appellant has a point. The sign at the location has the effect of indicating that all motor vehicles are prohibited on the other side of it during certain times. The appellant has therefore on the face of it contravened the prohibition.

This however was not the issue here. The argument is that unless the motorist is informed by the PCN what vehicles are prohibited, how is the motorist to assess whether a contravention has occurred and therefore arrive at the conclusion as to what to do with the PCN?

The authority could have done one or two things. First they could have substituted "certain types of vehicles" with "motor vehicles”. This would leave no room for confusion. Alternatively if the PCN had contained a clear picture of the sign, I would have accepted that the picture of the sign would have given information about what types of vehicles were prohibited.

The PCN lacked the required clarity and cannot be enforced. I am allowing the appeal."

Finally, in view of the above arguments, and the clear fact that a prejudice has been created by the Council, and that, according to my perception, it is acting ultra vires in terms of the established tests pertaining to Administrative Law, particularly vis a vis its present (and past) collection of unjust enrichment through the issue of flawed Penalty Charge Notices, I ask that the adjudicator do allow my appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours faithfully

Posted by: CEO H Wed, 3 Nov 2010 - 09:19
Post #523701

Section 62 parked with 1 or more wheels on the pavement or verge in Hillingdon.

Many thanks for the advice and for the forum as a whole.

Heard today no further action to be taken.

Keep smiling

H smile.gif

Posted by: terminator x Wed, 3 Nov 2010 - 12:50
Post #523788

mpesm - what a nightmare though in that so much effort is involved to avoid a fairly small fine sad.gif

TX.

Posted by: matt2 Sat, 6 Nov 2010 - 12:37
Post #524735

Camden pulled out a week before my PATAS hearing over a towing from a yellow line.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52372&st=60

Initial appeal based on Bogsy's argument about being denied the right to appeal the PCN informally and having to pay it at the car pound, plus some other technical arguments. This seemed to confuse Camden enough so that they responded with the NoR outside of the 56 day period.

Massive thanks to everyone who helped! It was a long, slow process but got there in the end.
biggrin.gif


Posted by: interlog Sun, 14 Nov 2010 - 12:54
Post #527747

Another positive result at the PATAS yesterday morning. Appeal allowed for footway parking whilst unloading. Adjudicator agreed that waiting for the gates to be opened was part of the unloading process.

Posted by: nikkietoni Mon, 15 Nov 2010 - 12:23
Post #528023

thankyou to everyone on here! again success!so grateful thankyou! link is here
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=51041

Posted by: J_Edgar Tue, 16 Nov 2010 - 13:59
Post #528403

Grandpa v Rotherham

Rotherham Council make attempt at mugging a senior citizen for his pension.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52338

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=52338&view=findpost&p=528390

In a decision more perverse than a kiddie fiddler's convention, PePiPoo win the day.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 16 Nov 2010 - 16:24
Post #528476

QUOTE (J_Edgar @ Tue, 16 Nov 2010 - 13:59) *
Grandpa v Rotherham

Rotherham Council make attempt at mugging a senior citizen for his pension.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52338

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=52338&view=findpost&p=528390

In a decision more perverse than a kiddie fiddler's convention, PePiPoo win the day.


GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!

Well done to you Sir!

Posted by: Wattsie2006 Sun, 21 Nov 2010 - 22:10
Post #530665

Had a pen pusher leave some yellow on my windscreen at the beginning of the month, as per my thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56232&st=0&gopid=530663&#entry530663

Thanks to PePiPoo, Swansea Council lost out on my £35 and I got a lovely official telling off to boot biggrin.gif

Dear Sir/Madam

Thankyou for your enquiry which was recieved on the 16th November in respect of this PCN.

Having visited the site, I agree that the signage is not as required and for this reason, I have cancelled the PCN. I would however like to remind you of rule 243 of the Highway Code which states "do not park at or near a bus stop". Doing so not only causes a danger and inconvenience to passengers but also in the case of Bernard Street, an obstruction which is an offence which carries penalty points in addition to a fine.

In future, please ensure that you park your vehicle in accordance with parking restrictions.

Yours Sincerely,
Parking Bloke

Posted by: pab-LO Tue, 23 Nov 2010 - 17:47
Post #531442

Success with a CODE 27 (dropped kerb) against Southwark Council.

Thread, and great advice http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52303&st=0

Donation sent: Thank you PePiPoo

Posted by: Southener Wed, 24 Nov 2010 - 18:26
Post #531895

Success against Hounslow Council. First ever appeal.

Copied a lot of stuff from J. Edgar and Bogsy posts and sent to them.

PCN Cancelled!

THANK YOU ALL!!!

Posted by: mashkiach Sun, 28 Nov 2010 - 12:14
Post #533250

Won but makes me sick. I have left the case number for reference and if anybody would like to complain.




Posted by: MrCarrot Fri, 3 Dec 2010 - 21:41
Post #535652

Could they have made many more grammatical and spelling errors in that document if they tried? How do people get employment writing this stuff without a basic grasp of English?

Posted by: mashkiach Sun, 5 Dec 2010 - 19:08
Post #536191

Just had a win due to red route bay markings out.

Posted by: X-treem Tue, 7 Dec 2010 - 11:59
Post #536980

Success Against Richard Rippon...

Think many people on this forum and in this country will already know about this one, especially as it was in two national newspapers.

Richard Rippon of Redroute (and now Patrol Plus Limited) was sued by me for an extortionate clamping fee and I got back money back after serving court papers at his property and ended up in a fracas with him!...

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52346

Also appeared in the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323967/Motorist-thrown-floor-confronting-clamper-tried-impound-car.html

Posted by: mashkiach Wed, 8 Dec 2010 - 19:44
Post #537666

I have won it but could easily have slipped. It is therefore imperative to keep envelopes.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=57321&view=findpost&p=537662


Posted by: X-treem Wed, 8 Dec 2010 - 22:46
Post #537752

PCN paid by hire car company (Budget franchisee) without my authorisation and charged my credit card. After much to'ing and fro'ing with Budget and Lambeth Council, both passing the buck to each other, Budget eventually caved in after I wrote to the EMEA General Manager, and they stumped up the full amount owed (£120 PCN + £80 "admin" charge).

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52346

Posted by: PeteJC21 Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 14:05
Post #537956

Hi all, just had my first victory against a PCN from London Borough of Bexley... PCN Code 47J stopped in Bus Lane.

Original thread here... http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56439

I wrote a strong appeal letter and a few weeks later I recieved a letter from PATAS stating that Bexley had chosen not to contest it!

I appealed on 2 grounds of "contravention did not occur" (poor quality evidence, poorly positioned CPZ sign), 4 grounds of "procedural impropriety" (paperwork errors, incorrectly informing me of legal rights etc..) and 2 grounds for "other considerations" (the alleged contravention was trivial matter and shouldnt never have resulted in a PCN to start with).

Thanks very much to everyone who helped me with advice!

Posted by: interlog Tue, 14 Dec 2010 - 17:21
Post #539607

Another win this morning at the PATAS. This time Newham Council for footway parking. Appeal raised on the fact that vehicle was unloading (vague ruling on this), CCTV rather than CEO enforcement (ruled against), Council ignoring part of representations and Council not submitting identical evidence to PATAS and Appellant.

Posted by: TOM1987 Thu, 16 Dec 2010 - 11:09
Post #540130

December 2010

vs Coventry City Council

PCN issued at Cromwell Lane, Tile Hill Railway Station for being 'parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours'

Grounds for appeal

1) Vehicle was parked on Alan Higgs Way, not Cromwell Lane as per PCN
2) NTO non compliant with regs - does not state treatment of appeals received outside the payment period but not disregarded.
3) Notice of Rejection issued outside of the 56 days period
4) Notice of Rejection states a charge certificate 'will' be issued - regs state 'may'
5) Notice of Rejection fails to state when the 28 days to appeal or make payment begins
6) No TRO is held stating there are any waiting restrictions for either Cromwell Lane or Allan Higgs Way

Adjudicators verdic - appeal upheld! biggrin.gif
Reason: Council failed to submit any documentation to prove the contravention occured

Link to the topic can be found below
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52336

Incidentally I also had a ticket issued in exactly the same place overturned as did a friend of mine based on the same grounds. I've now had yet another one which I will appeal - I wonder when they will learn!!

Thanks for everyone's help.

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 23 Dec 2010 - 11:24
Post #542069

Paid £60 for a moving traffic contravention and it was deemed to be slightly late by City of Westminster and demanded a further £120! They even instructed bailiffs!

Wrote letters claiming that I sent the payment within time of the discount period quoting a PATAS case and other supporting evidence and this was accepted.

Full thread on this here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57202

Posted by: cpt_proton Mon, 27 Dec 2010 - 23:32
Post #542665

Wolverhampton council issued a PCN for failing to pay the parking charge. Despite displaying blue badge and signs not saying if badge holders had to pay and display.

Argued about poor sign-age

4 weeks later PCN scrapped due to mitigating circumstance and parking signs to be reviewed.

Orginal post here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56090

Posted by: interlog Tue, 28 Dec 2010 - 09:50
Post #542688

Had a personal hearing week before Christmas and Adjudicator could not make an immediate ruling. Was for a box junction offence with points of appeal being numerous improprieties by Tfl, contravention did not occur and claiming of cost due to Tfl not responding to representations, sending Charge Certificate then ignoring futher correspondence and sending Order for Recovery resulting in Stat Dec to be completed at cost.

Adjudicator has made the written decision and allowed the appeal (didn't make a decision or commented on the contravention itself) but agreed on the numerous improprieties by the Council. Did not allow for cost as "the treshold of wholly unreasonable is very high and on this occasion this treshold has not been reached".


Posted by: sputnik365 Tue, 28 Dec 2010 - 11:40
Post #542697

QUOTE
but agreed on the numerous improprieties by the Council. Did not allow for cost as "the threshold of wholly unreasonable is very high and on this occasion this threshold has not been reached"


QUOTE
Tfl not responding to representations, sending Charge Certificate then ignoring further correspondence and sending Order for Recovery


EA acting unlawfully is certainly wholly unreasonable.
Does anyone know if it is possible to get the decision on costs reviewed?

Posted by: interlog Wed, 5 Jan 2011 - 16:02
Post #544529

Another day at the PATAS and a win - Camden Council and a yellow box junction PCN that had a location defect as per Adamou -v- Harringey. The same Adjudicator that made the ruling on Adamou was hearing this appeal.

Posted by: interlog Fri, 7 Jan 2011 - 11:55
Post #545221

Receivd a call from the PATAS advising that Camden Council has withdrawn from a hearing this Tuesday. Appeal was based on not properly responding to representations made (basically totally ignoring them) twice at the informal and formal process. As cost were claimed via the appeal statement, will pursue this seperately.

Posted by: Fuzz Wed, 12 Jan 2011 - 09:43
Post #546795

Victory over Bristol Council!! PCN cancelled...read here....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56912&st=20

Posted by: delphinium Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 16:13
Post #547931

I just won my appeal against a VALPY STREET parking ticket (code 16 PCN - 'parking without a valid permit'). The council rejected the first 2 appeals, but the independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the last stage you go to, upheld my appeal, the council didn't even contest it.

I got the ticket in September 2010, so it does take a while, but stick with it. Thanks to PePiPoo, I knew another VALPY STREET code 16 PCN had been appealed and upheld by the adjudicator in July 2010, so had the confidence to go for it.

The VALPY STREET signs really are misleading and contravene the regulations for signs (info below), but it's most council's standard practice to reject the first 2 appeals in the hope that you'll go away and pay the money, so if you get a code 16 Parking Charge Notice on VALPY STREET, and feel like you want to appeal, do the first 2 appeals ("informal" & "formal"), don't worry that they reject them, carry on and go to the 3rd appeal stage as it's independent.

The first point I made is that it's not clear that the 2 signs mounted on the same pole refer to different directions within the bay as there are no arrows on the signs. (I included a photo of the signs in all my appeals - thumbnail is at the bottom of this post).The signs can easily lead you to believe that if you don't have a permit you can park anywhere in the bay for an hour, and between 6.30pm & 8am you can park for as long as you like. The second point is to quote the regulations:

(Be sure to write this in all 3 appeals):

"I would like to quote paragraph 7.51 from the DfT published Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3:

7.51 Where two different parking bays are side
by side (e.g. a loading bay adjacent to a disabled
badge holder bay), consideration should be given to
mounting two signs side by side, preferably on a grey
backing board, at the changeover point. Each sign
should include an arrow pointing in the direction of
the respective bay. This should minimise the risk of
drivers parking in the wrong bay by mistake and
incurring a penalty.

I would also like to quote Annex E1 and E2 from the DfT "Operational Guidance to Local Authorities":

E1 All local authorities are responsible for the accuracy and condition of the traffic
signs and road markings that identify parking restrictions in their area. The traffic
signs and road markings must conform strictly to the relevant regulations
(currently the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 – TSRGD –
and subsequent amendments) or have special authorisation from DfT. They
should also conform to the guidance set out in Chapters 3 and 5 of the Traffic
Signs Manual.

E2 PCNs may not be valid if they are issued where traffic signs and road markings
are incorrect or in poor condition. Representations demonstrating this should be
accepted. "


You can mention that you know of at least two VALPY STREET code 16 PCN appeals, based on the signs being ambiguous & unclear, upheld by the adjudicator, one in July 2010 & one in January 2011 (one not even contested by the council) and question why the council are continuing to enforce the signs with no changes made to them.

Valpy Street parking signs are misleading, and the regulations are on the motorists' side on this one (thanks to PePiPoo's contributor Bogsy for knowing that!).

If you do decide to appeal, you are appealing on the basis that "the alleged contravention did not occur". You have to tick a box on the appeals form and it can be a bit confusing what you're appealing on the basis of, but this option covers anything to do with unclear signs.

Good luck if you decide to go for it.







 

Posted by: Isa Tue, 18 Jan 2011 - 23:03
Post #549625

Last Thursday 13th January 2011 we went to PATAS for a personal hearing for costs against Ealing Council and we were awarded just under £120 for costs incurred in successfully appealing a PCN.

This is for the alleged offence of parking in a suspended resident bay almost 10 months ago in March 2010. Our principal argument was that Ealing had not given proper notice of suspension- we certainly didn't spot any sign on the dark night when we parked. We also argued that the sign was misleading and non-compliant and that there had been inadequte notice and inadequate signage. The council refused to tell us when the sign or warnings were put up and refused to consider any appeal on the adequacy of the signage. Their rejection of appeal letter also made a crucial error; they told us we could appeal to PATAS but made an error in the notice telling us that the PATAS appeal had to be lodged by the date of the council's rejection of appeal, which was obviously nonsensical. When we pointed this out, they ignored all our letters and proceeded to issue a charge certificate, which we also had to challenge with yet more letters.

We appealed to PATAS and the council decided not to contest the case only 2 days before the scheduled personal hearing, which was really inconvenient to us as we'd already had to make arrangements to attend. Ealing gave us no reason why they had not contested the case and just sent a standard letter of minimal apology.

We found it incredibly frustrating dealing with this PCN as Ealing Council simply ignored all our letters and phone calls and made us wait until the very last minute before the hearing to drop their case, even though we had pointed out at least 2 months earlier that their case was fatally flawed. We decided not to let it drop, and made a request for a personal hearing for costs. We found the adjudicator very thorough and measured, though she was clearly irritated that Ealing had not provided the required paper work for the hearing and had not given any proper reasons why they should not pay our costs. The result was in our favour, and we asked additionally on the day for the costs of attending the hearing, which she was quite happy to add on.

Thanks for everyone's help. I've spent more than £120 worth of time and effort, but getting costs awarded was a huge moral victory!

Posted by: David Webster Thu, 20 Jan 2011 - 13:08
Post #550311

Just wanted to say a HUGE thanks to all who responded to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56527&hl=.

I received a PCN for parking outside my house on the pedestrian pavement - a pavement which ends 2 meters from where I parked in a dead-end as I live at the end of a traffic-less/pedestrian-less close.

The officer literally sneaked into the close on a dark evening and issued 2/3 notices before neighbours spotted her and she ran off before she could be questioned (as to exactly what hazard is posed by our parking habits).

Anyway, after 2 days of reading stories on this site, I decided to fight the PCN (won't bore all with my argument or details here). I received some advice (some positive, others telling me I'm wasting my time even trying to appeal), I read a lot of similar stories and decided that it certainly can't hurt to clearly and rationally state my case.

1 month later, I received a notice saying that the ticket would cancelled (although this was not precedence setting and I would be ticketed again if I parked in a similar fashion).

I'm now going to petition the council to treat the close (or at least my end of it) as exempt from such parking infractions ... again, spurred on by success stories on this site.

Thanks again,

Dave

Posted by: interlog Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 17:36
Post #550894

Another day, another win at the PATAS. This time against Camden Council who totally ignored point of appeal. Adjudicator agreed but didn't agree to claim for cost as in his opinion the Council was merely "sloppy" and not wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

Posted by: Isa Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 11:18
Post #553189

[quote name='Isa' date='Tue, 18 Jan 2011 - 23:03' post='549625']
Last Thursday 13th January 2011 we went to PATAS for a personal hearing for costs against Ealing Council and we were awarded just under £120 for costs incurred in successfully appealing a PCN.

This is for the alleged offence of parking in a suspended resident bay almost 10 months ago in March 2010. Our principal argument was that Ealing had not given proper notice of suspension- we certainly didn't spot any sign on the dark night when we parked. We also argued that the sign was misleading and non-compliant and that there had been inadequte notice and inadequate signage. The council refused to tell us when the sign or warnings were put up and refused to consider any appeal on the adequacy of the signage. Their rejection of appeal letter also made a crucial error; they told us we could appeal to PATAS but made an error in the notice telling us that the PATAS appeal had to be lodged by the date of the council's rejection of appeal, which was obviously nonsensical. When we pointed this out, they ignored all our letters and proceeded to issue a charge certificate, which we also had to challenge with yet more letters.

We appealed to PATAS and the council decided not to contest the case only 2 days before the scheduled personal hearing, which was really inconvenient to us as we'd already had to make arrangements to attend. Ealing gave us no reason why they had not contested the case and just sent a standard letter of minimal apology.

We found it incredibly frustrating dealing with this PCN as Ealing Council simply ignored all our letters and phone calls and made us wait until the very last minute before the hearing to drop their case, even though we had pointed out at least 2 months earlier that their case was fatally flawed. We decided not to let it drop, and made a request for a personal hearing for costs. We found the adjudicator very thorough and measured, though she was clearly irritated that Ealing had not provided the required paper work for the hearing and had not given any proper reasons why they should not pay our costs. The result was in our favour, and we asked additionally on the day for the costs of attending the hearing, which she was quite happy to add on.

Thanks for everyone's help. I've spent more than £120 worth of time and effort, but getting costs awarded was a huge moral victory!

STOP PRESS: I had naively assumed that this was decision was cut and dried and that the cheque was on its way. How wrong could I be?
It now looks like Ealing Council have somehow interpreted 'The Adjudicator orders the London Borough of Ealing to pay the Appellant the sum of £116.55 forthwith' to mean that PATAS have upheld our appeal against the original PCN and they have magnanimously told us we no longer owe them any money. Total incompetence? Or a deliberate move to be as unhelpful as possible? The saga continues...

Posted by: Trampilot Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 11:45
Post #553206

Been reading this website for many months. What a fantastic resource it is.

Anyway I managed to get off my last ticket due to poor signage. Outside of my house there are parking bays with pay/display or resident permit only. One is a disabled bay with a lamp post adjacent to it. I usually park in front of it, right outside my house.

One day a council operative tied a hand written sign to the lamppost declaring; "This bay will be suspended between .... dates". Now they have done this before but instead put the house numbers it would affect. As the lamppost and sign were within the boundary of the disabled space it seemed to mean "this" bay. Note the singular "this bay". I left my car parked as normal, next to the disabled bay and went out for the weekend - however I had a feeling that I'd get a ticket.

Upon my return I was faced with seeing my car being towed off - just moved not clamped or anything and a parking officer giving me a ticket. Luckily the officer was very reasonable and I made her take a picture of the sign and its placement in relation to the disabled bay and its wording of "bay". I wished her well and prepared my multi paged letter and many many photos.

I appealled on the basis that the council's definition of "bay" and the double white lines ending the disabled bay, coupled with the sign using the word "bay" was not clear. I also pointed out that on previous occasions the council wished to do some work on the bay lines or repairs that the signs had stated which houses would be affected - I stated this was clear to everyone. Had the sign in this case been strictly adhered to then every car in the street would had to be ticketed also.

Anyway I was over joyed by the response letter. Lots of paragraphs quoting the regs and then one line stating the pcn had been cancelled.

Since reading this site there was a whole host of other things I could have pulled them up about. I also had a previous ticket given to me for "altering/defacing" the date of my permit. In reality my pen had run out so I had to use a different one to over-write the date. Alas this was pre-pepipoo as I'm pretty sure I could have over turned it with your help!

The council in question for both instances was Newham.

I almost now want to get ticketed again just to have a go!

Posted by: TallBloke Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 17:30
Post #553388

On behalf of a family friend I contested a photo PCN for a no right turn that almost went to adjudication. Signage is non-compliant and we've yet to see proof that the LA jumped through the necessary legal hoops prior to the installation of the signs. The LA provided no evidence so a default win without having to attend.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55337

Posted by: mark12345 Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 12:37
Post #555058

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54747&st=60#entry555054


The details are shown in above link

The PCN was dismissed by PATAS on appeal.

Thanks for all the help received.


Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 2 Feb 2011 - 22:53
Post #555736

I don't think we've had a clamping refund success recently and the OP of this thread, jss31, asked for it to be linked here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55434&st=40&start=40

It was a Flex Fitness clamping by Global Parking who look to be about to phoenix.


QUOTE jss31

It's almost a fortnight since the cheque was paid in and the money is still there in the account - so yes, I guess the cheque did clear! Thanks again, one and all. Companies House replied to my email, which requested they delay the dissolution of GPUK, but will now carry on with it. I wonder if GPUK will cease business (I'd like to think so) or just re-brand themselves. Hopefully the Gov will soon do something about clampers.
I haven't posted this up as a 'Parking Success Story' on this site - not sure I know how to do that - but if anyone wants to, please feel free. If there's anything else you feel I should do to help others in similar predicament please let me know (jss31).
QUOTE

Posted by: Chris Pritchard Fri, 4 Feb 2011 - 11:32
Post #556226

I received a PCN from Enfield council on the 26th Jan for parking on a single yellow line during prescribed hours (in a CPZ) - the yellow line was missing a T bar on one end, near where I was parked, and was slightly faded. I wrote this in a letter and sent it to them (informal appeal), not expecting to get anywhere but on Wednesday I received a letter from them stating that my appeal was being upheld and the PCN was cancelled!

Posted by: Southener Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 17:46
Post #558426

Another win!

This time against Kensington and Chelsea.

See thread here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57731

Posted by: interlog Wed, 16 Feb 2011 - 17:28
Post #561171

Another day at the PATAS yesterday and another win. This time based on CCTV usage at a location where it shouldn't be used. A lengthy reassoning by the Adudicator which I will post in a seperate topic.

Edit: post here -> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59210

Posted by: interlog Thu, 17 Feb 2011 - 09:50
Post #561414

An early PATAS hearing this morning and another win. Yellow Box Junction from Transport for London at Kew Road/Strand on the Green. Appeal allowed as camera angle didn't show entrance to the box and the box itself was in a poor state of repair (as at 29/11 which was the date of contravention). PATAS ref 2110018174

Posted by: Dent Sat, 19 Feb 2011 - 12:23
Post #562265

Case number ER 05006E (Traffic Penalty Tribunal)

Adjudicator allowed the appeal on the basis that the PCN did not provide for payment in person, although the TRO permits payment in person at several offices.

Posted by: pacman86 Mon, 21 Feb 2011 - 18:55
Post #563113

Won PATAS appeal against LB Hackney - allowed on grounds that the contravention did not occur (wrong contravention code used).


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=53591&st=80

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 26 Feb 2011 - 14:40
Post #565254

A PATAS win against Lewisham Council based on a number of factors: I was unloading (the PCN did not state continuous observation), the repeater sign was badly defaced and illegible (proven by Google Maps Street View to have been the case for two years before the PCN!!), another repeater sign was obscured by a protruding hedge (which the Council tried hoodwink the Adjudicator by sending in a photo dated 9 months later with the hedge removed!!). And the Council get a telling off in the http://repository.x-treem.net/Misc%20Pictures/PePiPoo/PCN%2015.05.10%20-%20Adjudicator's%20Decision.jpg.

Full topic, in particular the post regarding the Adjudicator's Decision, here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57096&view=findpost&p=565248

PATAS reference: 210060637A

Posted by: pacman86 Mon, 7 Mar 2011 - 12:50
Post #568616

Just thought I would share the following links to PATAS documents and case number for my win!

http://img718.imageshack.us/i/pataswin0001.jpg/

http://img222.imageshack.us/i/pataswin0002.jpg/

Good luck everyone!!

Posted by: J_Edgar Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 07:12
Post #569757

CoL withdraw one week before PATAS hearing for technical reasons unrelated to my appeal lol.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55492&st=0

They were bang to rights with an unlawful PCN.

Posted by: passat Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 20:21
Post #572914

Joined this forum to get some help regarding parking fine I have recieved, it become my first sucssess story, thanks to members of this forum...

here it is: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59304

Posted by: bottleredhead Fri, 18 Mar 2011 - 10:07
Post #573067

Have received a letter this morning from Gravesham council cancelling a PCN

Basically boss put pay n display ticket on dash, wind blew it over, he got ticket.

On ticket the contravention code was stated as "see attached", which, after searching on here, I argued is in contravention of the general parking regulations 2007 as the contravention must be written on the ticket

The cheek of the letter is they say "As it was the first time this has happened to the vehicle the council has taken a sympathetic approach" followed by a list of instructions on how to display the ticket in future! How kind! lol

Thanks again to this forum, another success!

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 20 Mar 2011 - 17:47
Post #573805

Brent Council issued me with a PCN for parking on a double yellow line. Observation time was 2 minutes only. Claimed I was unloading at the time and even sent a signed note from a resident on the street to confirm this. Challenge was rejected, but formal representations were made after the NtO was received. Heard nothing for a long time, then a letter stating that they were "unable to pursue the charge on technical grounds." Seems like a curveball to me - failure of admission of non-compliance - but a favourable result for me nonetheless!

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57199

Posted by: terryturbojr Tue, 29 Mar 2011 - 13:48
Post #576752

I had a success story recently so thought I should to the blog rather than just taking advice from here.

I parked a few months back on a road near my house and was surprised to turn up a few days later and find my car wasn't there. Seems it was a suspended bay but someone had moved the barriers to use it on a Sunday and I hadn't noticed the sign so happily parked in the space they'd freed not realising it was suspended. For some reason instead of impounding my car they'd moved it around the corned and dumped it in a spot, so luckily I didn't have to pay to get it back and could appeal the PCN instead.

I looked on the parking suspension sign and it said something along the lines of 'The bays outside house numbers 22 - 28 are suspended for...' but looking around the road only went up as far as 22 because they'd demolished 24-28 to build a block of flats. I wrote a letter saying that the road numbers only went up to 22 and it was clear from my photograph I wasn't parked outside house numbers 22 (or 24-28) so the contravention did not occur.

I received a letter back saying the appeal was accepted because they couldn't find the evidence of my wrongdoing. Going back to parking bay I found that along with accepting my appeal they had changed the sign to read 'The bays from number 22 onwards are suspended...'.


Posted by: zorba2 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 - 20:02
Post #576912

A new [i]"Parking Success Stories" PCM Ltd
I have just won a county court case (0GU00---)against PCM Ltd ( Car clamping Company). They unbelievable believed that they had the right to clamp a car on private property without the owner’s permission!!! You may think this was a mistake on their behalf, but not only did they try and fight the case they tried to concoct a story that they had a system in place that local residents could opt in or out only giving 7 days notice. Opting in or out of parking control is just dreamt up by PCM ltd to convince resident associations that they can implement parking control. The only person to give authority is the owner of the land.

Posted by: moggers Fri, 1 Apr 2011 - 10:04
Post #577879

Hi just had my appeal allowed through by the adjudicator vs Lambeth in London on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. It was for PCN where I had parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.

forum link and reasons for decision are here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56052


THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!

Posted by: interlog Mon, 4 Apr 2011 - 16:22
Post #579101

Two more wins - two times Tfl. PATAS hearing date was 28th June 2011 for two PCNs issued by Tfl and were contested on:

1/ Wrong VRM on PCN on 1st PCN
2/ Camera enforcement when conventional CEO enforcement should be done for 2nd PCN

Tfl is not contesting both of these appeals.

Posted by: LastForecast Mon, 25 Apr 2011 - 16:51
Post #585277

I had recent success getting a PCN cancelled. It was issued for parking in a lay-by that had zigs crossing partially in front of the parking area. I argued that the parking restriction applied to the carriageway only, and that the zigzags were incorrectly marked.

The alleged violation was "Stopped on a pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked by zigzags (99)"

Thanks to contributors to these forums for their advice and guidance- I attach a summary of the case in the hope that it helps others.

Cheers all!



 ZigZags_Cancelled_sm3.pdf ( 627.57K ) : 987
 

Posted by: sena.1994 Wed, 11 May 2011 - 22:38
Post #589890

Manchester PCN cancelled at informal reps.

Ticket was issued due to overstay. I argued that a protest at the Vodafone store delayed me. Was intially rejected, but accepted upon confirmation of protest and police attendance by Vodafone.

here

Posted by: Katy Mon, 16 May 2011 - 12:56
Post #591056

I am happy to join in the Success stories as well. Thanks to everyone here the council decided to refund my £200 tow away charge smile.gif

Link to the post
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60389

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 26 May 2011 - 00:31
Post #594105

Parked in a shared use parking bay (loading and resident permit holders depending on the time) on Monmouth Street in London Borough of Camden. I parked there when it was a resident permit holders bay. However, I claimed that the signage and road markings were inconsistent with the TSRGD 2002 as the bay required a LOADING ONLY legend if it is used as a loading bay, and this legend was missing. Only if special authorisation was obtained from the DfT could they have a shared use bay without this legend. It turned out this had been obtained, but there were some issues raised about that also, which were refuted by Camden Council.

However, my point that was accepted was the use of an incorrect contravention code on the PCN. The CEO used 12R (which is for a residents bay only). Apparently, there is a more appropriate suffix for shared use bays.

Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57201.

Posted by: fuel__2001 Thu, 9 Jun 2011 - 21:50
Post #598028

Thought i better stick this one in here as it been a while since I last posted a success

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60131&st=0

Usual sCamden shenanigans

Posted by: J_Edgar Sat, 11 Jun 2011 - 12:06
Post #598466

Balcomm v CoW, won by my good self on the Phillip's enforcement letter, full thread and adjudicator's decision here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=57531



Posted by: in foro veritas Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 08:40
Post #598670

I was sued by Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust...and won!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56947


Posted by: scholsey Fri, 17 Jun 2011 - 17:49
Post #600665

TOOK ME 8 MONTHS BUT WITH THE HELP OF THE GUYS ON THIS FORUM FINALLY BEAT THE COUNCIL AT APPEAL AND GOT MY MONEY BACK SO BIG SPECIAL THANKS TO DANCING DAD FOR ALL HIS HELP AND EVERYONE SHOULD FOLLOW THESE GUYS THEY KNOW THEIR STUFF

Posted by: nemo Wed, 29 Jun 2011 - 06:53
Post #603866

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61147&hl=.

Appeal allowed against alleged 'car club' parking contravention at Southampton Central Station.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 29 Jun 2011 - 07:04
Post #603871

You stuck at it, well done.

biggrin.gif

HCA

Posted by: headhunter52 Sun, 3 Jul 2011 - 20:51
Post #605181

Link to succesful challenge to Mid Sussex District Council. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61376&pid=605177&mode=threaded&start=#entry605177

Basically using their website to lodge representations was found to be in conflict with their instructions printed on their NTO.

Proceural Impropriety!!!!

Posted by: pastaman Fri, 8 Jul 2011 - 13:31
Post #606496

Thanks for all the help Pepipoo and all that I've learned (And been able to pass on) over the past year or so.

Just had Adjudicator awarding in my favour on one ticket (Contested as hybrid bay but was won on the grounds of proceedural impropriety: no response in rejections to representations made) and Lambeth subsequently chickened out of the other.

Shame they didn't award costs as this was pretty frivolous, especially the inch think evidence folder they sent through)

Details are here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62001&st=0&gopid=606494&#entry606494

Thanks again,

Ed

Posted by: lollipop11 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 - 17:14
Post #607812

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL PCN - Contravention 16

Thanks to all from Pepipoo who helped me. I am so very grateful that you guys supported me through a case that was really stressful and required a lot of persistence thanks to Reading Borough Council's absolute refusal to budge.

The thread for the case is here - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59439&st=100&p=607805&#entry607805

In brief:

I was given a PCN Code 16 - parked in a permit holders only bay. I argued that the contravention didn't occur as there were inadequate road markings, the only road markings that were there were illegal, and there was a conflicting sign stating 2 hours, no return for 2 hours. The adjudicator found in my favour based on inadequate road markings and declined to comment on my other points.

You can view the adjudicator's decision below:


Posted by: X-treem Sun, 17 Jul 2011 - 19:16
Post #609098

A PCN cancelled from the informal challenge stage in Paddington. Parked in a Pay by Phone bay in the end bay, and the end line was completely missing due to being tarmacked over.

Full topic here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62856

Posted by: akidroid Tue, 19 Jul 2011 - 16:01
Post #609681

PCN 47 Won my Case smile.gif

Below is a link to a PCN that I challenged and won thanks to the people on this forum. Hope the info in the thread is useful to others fighting a PCN.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63045

Posted by: bean0 Thu, 4 Aug 2011 - 17:42
Post #613975

Milton Keynes PCN cancelled at challenge stage for parking in a bay (not) marked for electric vehicles only.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63430&st=0&gopid=613973&#entry613973

Posted by: volvic Sat, 6 Aug 2011 - 09:59
Post #614417

Me v London Borough of Camden

Bus Lane Fine on Southampton Row WC1

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60592

Summary:

The camera did not pick up the point I crossed the bus lane to make a legal left turn. Also I cut across only a few meters too early.

Appeal upheld and PCN cancelled.

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 7 Aug 2011 - 12:43
Post #614672

Car was towed away by Brent Council after breaking down and leaving the car in a resident permit holders parking bay for recovery by the RAC the next morning. RAC ended up having to go to Brent Car Pound to pick up the vehicle!

Challenged the PCN and requested removal charges (£255) to be refunded, which was accepted.

Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62464.

blob10.gif blob9.gif blob7.gif blob6.gif blob5.gif blob3.gif

Posted by: Tamisia Sun, 7 Aug 2011 - 13:19
Post #614683

QUOTE (Silver City Tim @ Mon, 20 Nov 2006 - 18:27) *
Glasgow City Council have backed out of a fight over a PCN I recieved in April. They stood up to all appeals until I took them to SPAS. Word was that Glasgow was the only council seeking adjournments on appeals quoting the Jackson rulling. All the other DPE councils in Scotland were capitulating. I got word today Glasgow have cancelled my ticket before the appeal took place. biggrin.gif Maybe it was because I had sent SPAS the evidence to get them on 7 different failings. Only the evidence was submited because the grounds were listed on a seperate sheet. The wrong document was printed off so the only grounds for appeal on the form sent in was Jackson's ruling.



I love how you said that haha laugh.gif

Posted by: Listysti Fri, 12 Aug 2011 - 18:10
Post #616293

I won my appeal at PATAS regarding a ticket issued by Lambeth at the notorious Clapham Park Road bus lane. Long story short, the ticket showed the time at 0612hrs but the evidence showed my vehicle at 0613hrs. A full review showed the ticket was one second out but that one second was enough. Full details here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60416

Posted by: philco Wed, 17 Aug 2011 - 00:36
Post #617399

Success against Westminster Council over a misheard Pay By Phone 'registration plate':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61371&st=0

Posted by: J_Edgar Mon, 22 Aug 2011 - 12:00
Post #618787

I appealed a CoL PCN for a friend some time back but did not create a thread at the time. The appeal was based on the unlawful NtO stating that grounds for appeal can be found in the general regs. amongst other issues.

Usual story of CoL forcing the appelant to PATAS and the hearing was due this coming Saturday 27/08/2011. The appealent has now received a DNC notice from CoL and I as appealents representative have confirmed this by phone today with PATAS.

Thread relating to application for costs here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64253

Posted by: J_Edgar Mon, 22 Aug 2011 - 18:45
Post #618883

Ok, second one today and also for a friend, another that did not have a thread...

Ealing have cancelled a CCTV PCN for parked in a loading bay without loading. Appealed on the grounds that a CEO had issued on street for the same contravention some 5 minutes previously. The Reg 9 PCN was visible in the CCTV images lol.

The Reg 9 has been informally challenged on the grounds that loading was taking place and the challenge rejected. NtO has just arrived so formal appeal will be sent shortly...

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 27 Aug 2011 - 16:39
Post #620206

A double victory at PATAS today!! icon_pidu.gif

Turned up for two hearings this morning to find that both of them had been cancelled due to no contest by the enforcement authorities (City of Westminster and Transport for London). On top of that, my hometown Wigan won two games today in football and rugby: Wigan Athletic beat Queens Park Ranger 2-0, and Wigan Warriors beat Leeds Rhinos 28-18 to win the Challenge Cup!!

So, a fantastic result all round!! wav.gif

One PATAS win was against Transport for London (caught on CCTV) for parking in a red route parking bay where I challenged that the bay markings were the wrong colour and also a procedural impropriety ground. Full topic can be found http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62659.

The other PATAS win was for a very complicated case against City of Westminster where I parked in a suspended bay, but the wording on the suspension sign was misleading, and the resident bay markings and signage were non-compliant. Added to that numerous procedural impropriety grounds, I think City of Westminster offered no contest because... there was no contest really. Full topic can be found http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59420.

Posted by: Puppet Master Fri, 9 Sep 2011 - 10:49
Post #623578

CODE 62 Hillingdon- WIN!

Thanks to the council messing up while rejecting my appeal.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59986

I'm glad I fought it rather then paying! Wooh!

Posted by: Charlie16 Fri, 9 Sep 2011 - 19:28
Post #623724

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62821&st=60&start=60

thankyou everyone on here for your help especially hc anderson.

I won!

biggrin.gif

Posted by: matttheladd Sat, 17 Sep 2011 - 14:15
Post #625817

I have recently help a friend make formal reps against a PCN issued by Swale Borough Council (Kent) and argued on the grounds that the TRO was incorrectly written and therefore the contravention did not occur. My friend has just heard that they have accepted the reps and cancelled the PCN. Now we just need to write to them and tell that the other 6 PCNs issued since the Order came into force should now be cancelled too - whether they will is another matter but it'll be a nice little dig at SBC when it hits the local papers!

Posted by: X-treem Tue, 20 Sep 2011 - 01:25
Post #626475

Three successes to report today, one against Tower Hamlets Council, two against City of Westminster Council.

The Tower Hamlets one involved my car being towed away and I appealed on the grounds that the CPZ was invalid due to the street I was in not having CPZ signs at the entrance to the zone. This went all the way to PATAS before the Council backed out just before the hearing date. See the full topic here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61387

The other two with City of Westminster were fairly easy - both cancelled at the informal challenge stage - I claimed I was loading in both cases and one was cancelled on that basis alone; the other was cancelled because the yellow lines were faded and therefore difficult to see in the dark. See the full topics here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63911
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64222

A triple victory (not to mention all my other recent successes). That is now 10 wins in the space of just over two months (between 14th July and 15th September), three of those clamped by a PPC (in the same street!), the other seven all Council PCNs. Just three more to go and I'll be PCN-free finally! (Assuming I don't get any more wink.gif)

Posted by: mondeotd Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 19:54
Post #627608

Sandwell council just could not be a%%%d.

Case won - timed out on 56day reply rule on NTO appeal.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59859

Thanks for all the help!!!

Posted by: kulitam25 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 - 13:39
Post #628268

PCN and towing. Wrote to Appeal at the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. Council decided not to contest case, so fine to be refunded.

Full info here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63968&st=0&gopid=628265&#entry628265

(and my first post on the topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63160)

Posted by: matttheladd Wed, 28 Sep 2011 - 20:57
Post #628987

A PCN was issued to my friend by CoW for allegedly not paying for parking using the PBP system. Informals were submitted and despite admitting, in writing, that they had recieved the required sum but as the VRM was different on the account to the actual vehicle they refused to cancel the PCN. Various other informals were submitted but despite the threat to serve a NtO they have failed to do so and the 6 month point has since passed. I think we can claim a win on that, although I was looking forward to an oral hearing at PATAS do raise the various issues raised regarding their PBP scheme.

Posted by: Coyltonian Thu, 29 Sep 2011 - 16:07
Post #629223

Yet another victory - still not lost one! I got a notice of cancellation this morning after sending a second challenge (despite the fact they said they wouldn't consider further reps before NtO - or perhaps because of...).

Liverpool served a PNC for me for parking on school entrance markings on a sunday, where there were big no parking M-F 0800-1900 signs in a CPZ. Later found out they had cheeckily added a SYL behind the entrance markings. They didn't tell me which of the 5 grounds I gave they cancelled on, though I suspect it may be because I asked to see the TRO adding the SYL behind the markings and no such document exists. Might look into that at a later date...

Still got one in play, think it might be trickier though smile.gif

Posted by: maryhillgirl Tue, 4 Oct 2011 - 16:42
Post #630725


Glasgow City Parking rolled over and gave in to my informal appeals, barely put up a fight as all their Pay and Display signage is obsolete, non-compliant, missing or vandalised.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64818&st=0&gopid=630722&#entry630722

Thanks to all the good folk on this forum who helped me with this. Wouldn't have known where to start without all the advice.

Posted by: imsprung Fri, 7 Oct 2011 - 17:10
Post #631676

Went brighton few yrs ago couldn't find anywhere to park except for this one spot where everyone seem to be. Avoiding. Anyway I park in the spot an waited for a traffic warden to come by. I asked him if its ok parking here he said yes.
I then took his name an badge number. Few hrs later I saw a ticket on my car so I took few fotos as there was no markings or digns.
Wen I got home o printed and state my case I writing and send it to Brighton council .... Fine canceled ..

I have more to post ...

Posted by: RonSoles Sun, 16 Oct 2011 - 14:15
Post #634417

West Sussex County Council (WSCC) / Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) - Contravention of a temporary parking restriction in Church Road, Haywards Heath. PCN cancelled at stage 2 of the appeal process (Representations in response to the Notice to Owner). http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63523

I claimed 3 grounds...

1. Temporary Parking suspension signs not shown to be authorised (no evidence provided when requested)

In my informal appeal I'd requested that I be supplied with evidence that WSCC had authorisation from the DfT for their temporary signage. This wasn't provided and the refusal of the appeal stated that WSCC's temporary signage was treated "as if authorised".
I requested this evidence again at this appeal and stated that I inferred from the phrase "as if authorised" that authorisation had not actually been given and the sign was, therefore, unenforceable.

2. Not parked in the area specified by the temporary parking suspension sign.
Although the temporary sign was intended to indicate the limit of the part suspension of a parking bay it failed to do so. The sign referred to suspended parking for "8 spaces" in a bay that had no spaces marked. It also stated that these spaces were "outside church", a church which was 10 metres away from where I was parked.
I said that, as the bay contained no marked spaces, the suspension of "8 spaces" was misleading and meaningless and motorists had, therefore, to rely on the only other location information on the sign which was "outside church". I supplied photos to show that I wasn't parked "outside church".

3. MSDC Enforcement Officer failed to follow the WSCC Parking Enforcement Manual.
I found WSCC's Parking Enforcement Manual online and it clearly stated that their temporary signs should state the "exact" location of the suspension and that if they didn't the CEO should not issue a PCN.
I repeated my point about the misleading nature of the wording of the sign (see 2. above) and said that, if the wording on the sign was "exact" then I was not parked in contravention of it OR if the sign was intended to cover the place I was parked in, then the location stated was not "exact". In either of these cases, a PCN shouldn't have been issued.
--------------------------------------------------

The reply to my representations stated...
"Upon reviewing the case, I can see that the vehicle in question was located outside the area that was suspended. For this reason the Council cannot pursue this penalty.

If this vehicle is seen in a suspended bay in the future, it could receive a Penalty Charge Notice, which will not be cancelled under our procedures."


I suspect they know that their temporary signage is not authorized and so allowed my appeal on the other grounds I claimed rather than admit to lack of authorization and risk me going to the press to warn all the others who got tickets there.
I found the second part of that part of the reply strange ('though unsurprising). It sounds like they're threatening that if, in future, the exact same circumstances occur then they wouldn't allow the appeal under any circumstances.


Many thanks for the advice offered, and for the vital information that the forum contains.

Posted by: cmc Sun, 16 Oct 2011 - 21:17
Post #634534

Liverpool City Council cancelled bus lane PCN:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65017&st=20

Posted by: Exiled Yorkshireman Tue, 18 Oct 2011 - 19:44
Post #635127

Newham car park non-display of ticket cancelled by order of PATAS: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56862

Posted by: interlog Fri, 21 Oct 2011 - 17:35
Post #636058

Update since April. All these are at PATAS stage:

26/06 -> Cost of £40 allowed for Tfl not cancelling PCN when vehicle registration was clearly wrong and they were notiified of this
12/07 -> Camden Council and not responding to representations stating CCTV should not be used for parking contraventions
04/10 -> Tfl going all the way to Recovery Order, despite acknowdleged receipt of representations that they ignored and instead served a charge certificate. Cost of £64.75 allowed
05/09 -> Hariningey Council ignoring points of representation

Other than the 1st one. these were all personal hearings.

In addition to that another 5 not contested by various Councils.

One hearing on Adjournement.

Another 9 appeals scheduled for personal hearings within the next couple of months.

(These are all Company vehicles incidentally!)

Posted by: interlog Tue, 25 Oct 2011 - 17:13
Post #637167

Another PATAS hearing, another win.

Tfl wrong wording on PCN.

Posted by: interlog Wed, 26 Oct 2011 - 16:05
Post #637525

Another win at the PATAS.

H&F using wording incompatible with legislation on Notice of Rejection following a yellow box junction contravention.

Posted by: Molf Wed, 26 Oct 2011 - 19:45
Post #637611

Full account (and piccies!) here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62982

I parked in a free bay on a Council owned road. At some point over night, my car was hit by another vehicle and moved partially out of the bay. I didn't return to my car until a day later by which time I had myself 2 PCNs.

I submitted a joint informal challenge for both; rejected (actually they didn't even recognise it as a joint challenge and went straight to the NtO stage with one ticket!!). I submitted formal representations to both once I received the NtOs; one was rejected, the other not replied to and hung in limbo for 55 days. I appealed to PATAS for the one ticket that I had received a Notice of Rejection for on the same statutory ground of "the car had been permitted to remain at rest by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner" as my formal reps. I had also mentioned a procedural impropriety based on a technicality with the Notice of Rejection, though in the end this wasn't needed...

The Adjudicator allowed the appeal on my principle ground. A couple of weeks later (the day before the 56 day deadline) the Council accepted the formal representation for the other ticket.

Posted by: JoSeLon Sat, 29 Oct 2011 - 18:29
Post #638465

Box Junction Chelsea Embankment Royal Hosptial Road

I have been successful in my appeal to PATAS - link to thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62104&pid=638464&mode=threaded&start=#entry638464

PATAS Case Number: 2110335439

The wording of TfL's PCN. The adjudictor referred to R (Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator (2006 EWHC 2357 (Admin) - Mr Justice Jackson.

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 5 Nov 2011 - 03:06
Post #640471

PATAS victory for parking in a suspended parking bay (outside Paddington Hospital) that I didn't notice was suspended and I actually paid for parking using the Pay By Phone system.

I argued quite a few grounds in my representations and appeal including procedural impropriety and other technicalities, but the main issue was that I argued that it was unclear as to where exactly the suspended parking sign applied - confounded by the roadworks on a nearby parking bay. These roadworks were completely separate, but due to their proximity and the wording on the suspended parking sign, it was unclear as to where the parking suspension applied.

Full topic is http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59670.

wav.gif

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 5 Nov 2011 - 03:37
Post #640473

An easy win against City of Westminster where they issued a PCN literally one minute after I paid for parking using the Pay By Phone system.

Challenge was accepted without so much as a fight. Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65638.

Posted by: Jimboat Sat, 5 Nov 2011 - 17:44
Post #640595

Thank you for your help (especially SRM)

Just got this email today:



Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

The PCN was issued because your vehicle was parked in a residents bay without displaying a valid permit.

I have noted your comments regarding the signage, however, I can confirm that information on when the next match day occurs is shown on adjustable signs at all entry points to, and throughout, the match day zone (a map of the location of these signs is enclosed for your reference). Unless parking restrictions at a specific location differ from the restrictions quoted on the entry signs, there is no requirement for this information to be repeated in individual streets. These signs, as well as as the time plates in parking bays, are approved by the department for transport, and this includes the wording on them It is your responsibility to determine whether restrictions apply to the place you are parking in and to comply with them.

I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place in the area to advise drivers that it was a match day on 16 October 2011.

However, I note that the contravention description did not print out completely on the PCN and on this basis, I have decided to cancel the PCN.

As the ticket has now been cancelled, there is no need for you to take any further action.

Please note that appeals against penalty charges are considered on a case by case basis and therefore, any PCNs issued for contraventions committed of a similar nature in the future may be enforced.

Posted by: uncontrolled Sun, 6 Nov 2011 - 14:43
Post #640758

My case was won on appeal last week. Thanks to this forum. I shall make a donation, as it's the third time I've been saved money/injustice.

Thanks everyone.



... and this case from some time back, was dropped because of a cock-up by the council concerned.

Posted by: openshac Mon, 7 Nov 2011 - 14:38
Post #641124

I parked in a suspended bay and my car was impounded.

The original representations were based on the following around the following points:
1. Location of vehicle insufficiently identified on PCN
2. The Parking Bay Suspension Sign is not lawful
3. Suspension Sign not erected with correct warning
4. Incorrect details provided for the Placement of Suspension Sign
5. Forced Payment of PCN
6. Insufficient Photographic Evidence
7. The Parking Bay Suspension Sign is not a lawful variant of any diagram from the TSRGD 2002

Camden initially rejected my representations but caved in a few days before the appeal and decided not to contest.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63407&st=0&gopid=641118&#entry641118

Thanks for all the help guys.

Posted by: bagga212 Mon, 7 Nov 2011 - 19:34
Post #641285

Havering Borough

Contravention 622 (two Times)

Wrong location stated on PCN...... i think the mobile camera CAR didn't get a proper lock on the street via GPS. hence wrong street name.

full details below

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64390

Havering borough accept 1st representations via email.


BIG thanks for everyone who posted!!!!

Posted by: dnalevy Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 01:39
Post #643853

Oh Ive lost count of the bays ive invalidated in barnet due to incorrect line markings. Particularly the gap between the transverse lines making up the width of the bay. Theyre usually way too small.

Also an easy informal rep win against Camden council for printing the wrong road on the PCN and unclear signage.

Numerous tickets cancelled on the grounds of loading, including P&D, resident bays, single and double yellow lines. If they're gonna instruct their CEOs to observe for 1 minute I'm gonna claim loading.

2x Dropped kerb code 27 tickets cancelled-challenged the council to prove why it was dropped. lol
Theres more I think.......

Posted by: ossidiana Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 13:31
Post #643967

I was parked in a P&D bay and when I went back to my car I saw an officer processing a parking ticket. According to my watch, I was alright with time. She did not even have taken the pictures yet.. . The PCN showed that I was only 2 minutes late.

I appealed and the appeal was rejected.

So - thanks to SchoolrunMum, I wrote again asking for more evidence (above all, proof that the officer's handheld was synchronized with the P&D machine) and the fine was cancelled due to "a procedural error of the officer who issued the PCN"
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=13479

A huge thanks to all who helped me! Evviva!!! smile.gif


Posted by: Tshirt Thu, 17 Nov 2011 - 17:55
Post #644784

Newham PCN no contest just before PATAS hearing. No PCN served or recieved before receving a NtO

With the help of the newham specialists and others, who knew this was a slam dunk i avoided £130.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64624




Posted by: tasty_snacks Mon, 21 Nov 2011 - 17:13
Post #645932

Cases won against Southwark Council, for tickets issued for being parked on a yellow line within a parking control zone; in this case zone B.

There are three points of entry incorrectly signed around the edge of the zone, including on the main Peckham Rye road, where there is only one sign by the roadside, which is greatly obscured by trees.

Posted by: interlog Wed, 23 Nov 2011 - 04:28
Post #646572

PATAS hearing yesterday. Appeal allowed. Camden Council. Contravention did not occur as vehicle was stood in start/stop traffic rather than stood for the purpose of waiting/parking.

Posted by: clarebear Fri, 25 Nov 2011 - 08:30
Post #647337

I won the appeal against my PCN - finally more than a year after it was issued! Appeal adj accepted that the contravention did not occur...



if you are bored more details here!
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56001&st=140#entry647331

Posted by: Phil_Barker Tue, 29 Nov 2011 - 11:27
Post #648357

Just had 4 bus lane tickets appealed recently with help from here. Many thanks. Will be keeping you informed of any further results. Good or bad.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66099

Posted by: sizle Wed, 7 Dec 2011 - 23:38
Post #650817

Hackney Estates PCN, code 85 (Off street contravention):

Received a letter from PATAS informing me Hackney will no longer contest the appeal. A letter came through the post today from Hackney stating they will not be contesting the case due to a technical error, and this cancellation should not be taken as a precedent for future cases.

I sent PATAS:

- Formal challenge (Copy somewhere in thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62899)
- Extracts of their TMO (the relevant pages) and highlighted the parts
- Photos of location and sign
- Print out website allowing only one representation
- Copies of PCN and NTO highlighting no email address present to make representation
- Relevant RTA 1984 highlighting definitions

Posted by: interlog Mon, 12 Dec 2011 - 10:15
Post #651877

Another day at PATAS and another appeal allowed. Camden Council again who had not had regard to SoS Guidance as per s87 of the TMA2004.

Posted by: general_piffle Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 17:41
Post #652794

A win against Wandsworth:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66833

Thanks to the kind and informative people on this forum!

Posted by: loverboy4alluk Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 09:47
Post #652944

here is my success story sgainst walthamsforest council

LEYTON HIGH ROAD OUT SIDE NOOLURISLAM MOSQUE


http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/19464102.jpg/



http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/217/52282262.jpg/

one more sucess story agaisnt redbridge council as i put the parking ticket on dash but fall down and they issue the ticket after send mt ticket they accpet the appeal

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/20111216092117.jpg/

Posted by: interlog Tue, 20 Dec 2011 - 15:59
Post #653832

Yet another day in the PATAS and another win. This time against Tfl where the Adjudicator found the wording on the PCN not to be compatable with legislation (moving traffic contravention).

Posted by: interlog Thu, 22 Dec 2011 - 11:41
Post #654307

Last hearing of the year today at the PATAS and another win against Tfl. This time they ignored representations made against a moving traffic contravention and issued a Charge Certificate and Recovery Order that both had to be set aside.

Posted by: openshac Thu, 22 Dec 2011 - 20:22
Post #654412

Win vs Camden

Filled in Visitors Parking permit incorrectly....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66799&pid=654410&mode=threaded&start=#entry654410

Posted by: X-treem Fri, 23 Dec 2011 - 01:27
Post #654494

Quite a simple win this one really. Westminster Council - was issued with a PCN in the West End for parking during restricted hours, but had mitigating circumstances in that I was hospitalised before I could move my car. This was readily accepted and the PCN cancelled. Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66807.

Posted by: Daz Clayton Wed, 4 Jan 2012 - 18:35
Post #656922

Big Thanks to the Pepipoo members for my PCN being overturned regarding Blue Badge time clock not being displayed.

Spent my hard earned money the forum saved me on full membership, i would rather you guys have it than the council wink.gif


Full Details Here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=58718

Thanks Guys

Posted by: derekos82 Thu, 5 Jan 2012 - 08:57
Post #657095

a win against Richmond

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65533

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 5 Jan 2012 - 21:54
Post #657396

Received a PCN specifying a contravention time blatantly outside of the restricted times shown on the nearby sign. Took Brent a while to reply, but they accepted the informal challenge on the basis of a CEO "administration error". Whatever! laugh.gif

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65059

Posted by: meeann Wed, 11 Jan 2012 - 17:57
Post #659348

Rice lane liverpool PCN overturned! success. Just had letter today confirming that they have cancelled my PCN. Thanks

Posted by: roythebus Thu, 12 Jan 2012 - 17:55
Post #659655

Shepway Council-another lose for them.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60485&st=60&start=60

PCN challenged initially on uniform issues, but found that the offence was not committed; my car was being used for loading and unloading goods as permitted under the TRO.

Posted by: Exiled Yorkshireman Tue, 17 Jan 2012 - 18:20
Post #661308

Got a Reg 10 postal PCN for parking in a loading bay without loading. Took the case to adjudication and the council elected not to contest.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64980

Posted by: badshah Wed, 18 Jan 2012 - 17:28
Post #661706

I thought I add my mine as well - thank you all for your support :-)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64698

Posted by: koalabravo Sat, 21 Jan 2012 - 21:15
Post #662943

Just won against Hull City Council.

http://bit.ly/z5gUu7

Posted by: interlog Wed, 25 Jan 2012 - 15:34
Post #664194

Another visit to the PATAS, another win. This time against Newham Council because the contravention did not occur.

Posted by: Christian_d Wed, 25 Jan 2012 - 21:22
Post #664341

Won at Tribunal against Warrington Borough Council for taking up two bays in off street Car Park.....and very nearly got them to pay £18.00 compensation

Thanks to everyones help on pepipoo I was guided through the whole process.

I thought I had a few procedural impropriety's to go on but won in the end on a technicality. The numbnuts sent me a Charge Cert after knowing we had a tribunal date set.


More info here and thanks again.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62519

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 28 Jan 2012 - 17:12
Post #665425

A PCN received in Camden on Christmas Eve just been cancelled at informal challenge stage. Appears Camden have a little Christmas spirit after all. Got caught out by a yellow timeplate sign in a CPZ that had more onerous restrictions than the CPZ. However, the single yellow line was poorly maintained and Camden accepted this.

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67383

Posted by: interlog Fri, 3 Feb 2012 - 14:56
Post #667387

Another visit to the PATAS earlier this week and the Adjudicator has allowed the appeal. This time against Haringey Council that made a crucial error in their letter of rejection following a regulation 10 PCN where it stated that if no payment or Appeal were made, the charge would increase to £110 when the charge already sat at £110.

Posted by: interlog Mon, 6 Feb 2012 - 16:29
Post #668241

Yet another day at the PATAS and another allowed Appeal. This time against Barking and Dagenham. Contravention could not be proven to have occurred.

Posted by: pcnogo Sat, 25 Feb 2012 - 18:44
Post #674535

CCTV PCN in Morris Place, Islington - signage not adequate, appealed and they offered a discretionary cancellation.

Topic link - PCN cancelled before appeal date

I am so grateful for the generous, helpful and friendly expertise that you have all shown me, especially schoolrunmum (over 3000 posts in the forum!) and zolarolla who went as far as to post photos of the crime scene - outstanding!
I'll try to repay it by helping someone in my area of expertise (probably on another forum somewhere).
Thanks very much.

Posted by: interlog Sun, 4 Mar 2012 - 00:20
Post #676812

Haven't been to any hearings recently but have another 8 coming up in the next few months.

However, have been awarded cost of £64.75 for a recent case that I won against Tfl.

Posted by: pcnogo Sun, 4 Mar 2012 - 13:11
Post #676880

>>been awarded cost of £64.75
Good news! Did it cover the costs of the time you put in or just your expenses?
C.

Posted by: interlog Sun, 4 Mar 2012 - 13:55
Post #676890

QUOTE (pcnogo @ Sun, 4 Mar 2012 - 13:11) *
>>been awarded cost of £64.75
Good news! Did it cover the costs of the time you put in or just your expenses?
C.


It was 7 hours at £9.25 for preparing all the documents including having to go a County Court to get the statutory declaration counter-signed.

Posted by: Amiz87 Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 09:58
Post #677341

i won i won i won

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65020

Thanks to everyone for your help.... biggrin.gif

Posted by: jamsss12 Tue, 6 Mar 2012 - 17:25
Post #677508

Thx to Pepipoo Forumites... You guys rock.

I got a ticket cancelled (thread below).

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68575

biggrin.gif

Posted by: interlog Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 19:01
Post #679826

Yet another win: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68108

Posted by: Fermatr1x Thu, 15 Mar 2012 - 22:55
Post #680159

Won against Croydon through PATAS

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67929

Procedural Impropriety in the end. CC issued before NOR.

Posted by: interlog Mon, 19 Mar 2012 - 13:05
Post #681180

Following a hearing this morning at the PATAS, Camden Council has been ordered to cancel a Yellow Box Junction PCN as the CCTV didn't show how the alleged contravening vehicle came to a stop within the markings of the junction.

Posted by: d-evil Mon, 26 Mar 2012 - 21:02
Post #683162

Camden - Not parked within the markings of the bay.
Won at adjudication.
Argued that it didnt say anywhere how i should be parked and the adjudicator agreed.

Heres the thread, only 2 pages so easy reading.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65909&st=20&start=20

Posted by: marctt Wed, 28 Mar 2012 - 11:11
Post #683680

Camden - Bloomsbury Way - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles - Contra flow bus lane

Won at PATAS appeal due to inadequate signage

Case reference number is 2110714186 - you can look it up on the PATAS website

The adjudicator decided that:

"The Appellant contends that the lane is not properly signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual 2008. In particular the entrance to the contra flow lane is not signed either with signs conforming with diagram 960 or 616. In addition the words 'BUS LANE' have been painted on the road outside the end of the lane but facing oncoming traffic indicating that this is a with flow bus lane. Other confusing signage has also been referred to in this appeal. In addition the Appellant has supplied photographs of other signs in the lane.

The Authority relies on CCTV evidence in both cases in which the Appellant's vehicle is recorded clearly being driven in the bus lane. The Authority ..... states that the signage is compliant and has provided a detailed Map/Site Report indicating the position and nature of the signs.

With regard to the signage however I refer to the Traffic Signs Manual 2008. Paragraph 15-7 which illustrates the signage recommended for a contra-flow bus lane. Diagram 960 signs should be positioned at the entrance to the lane 'located at the beginning of the road and after every junction'. The diagram 15-7 indicates 2 signs, one on the left hand side and the other on the central refuge. It is difficult to distinguish between diagram 15-7 and the design of the junction in this case. There is a Diagram 960 sign on the left hand side but that is some distance beyond the entrance to the road.

Although compliance with the Signs Manual is not compulsory it is made clear (paragraph 1.1) that failure may lead to enforcement difficulties. I am satisfied in this case that the signage referred to above is not adequate and in those circumstances this Penalty Charge Notice was not properly issued. These appeals are therefore allowed without further consideration of the points made by the Appellant in relation to the Traffic Management Order."

I also established that Camden did not have a valid certification for the camera - however, the adjudicator did not consider this fatal to Camdens case.



Posted by: interlog Wed, 4 Apr 2012 - 17:48
Post #685964

Hearing at the PATAS today and Adjudicator decided to allow the Appeal against Camden Council as the contravention did not occur.

Back at the office had two letters sitting on the desk advising two do not contests at the PATAS, one by Newham and one by Camden Council.

A productive day.

Posted by: JMMM Thu, 5 Apr 2012 - 10:36
Post #686200

***The PCN was issued on 8 November 2011 Two Saints Car Park, Ormskirk, for being parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock, despite only staying for 24 mins within a 1 hour free parking period.***

Without the help and advice of the professionals on this website, I would not have had the confidence to continue the appeal process.
So, in giving up their time and providing expert help and assistance, it encouraged me to continue with the appeal process and thus, the case to be won on a procedural impropriety.

It was due to the council's administrators sending out a 'charge certificate', whilst a TPT appeal was in progress.

Many thanks.

Here is the link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68154&st=0&start=0

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 5 Apr 2012 - 22:33
Post #686435

PCN received in London Street, Paddington after my P&D ticket expired by 22 minutes. Challenged on the grounds that the PCN specified "mobile phone parking" and parking could be paid for using any other Internet-enabled device, not just a mobile phone. Challenge rejected, NtO received, then added to formal representations a ground that there are variations to the non-TSRGD-prescribed sign that are not authorised by the DfT authorisation document, namely omission of the words “or Pay at machine” and “Display ticket” and “Max stay”.

Formal representations accepted!

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67561

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sat, 7 Apr 2012 - 10:37
Post #686757

Just posting a case by JMMM where an adjudication was won based on a Charge Cert being issued when there was already an adjudicator appeal lodged:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68154&st=40&start=40

Case was won on that alone, procedural impropriety, even though no P&D ticket was paid nor displayed so the contravention had occurred.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 11 Apr 2012 - 22:39
Post #688485

And adding Unimexsol's successful case where the wrong code was used (12s):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63983&st=20&gopid=688479&#entry688479

It wasn't a Residents bay, it was a Permit Holders bay.

Waltham Forest - also there was doubt about whether the TMO was actually valid as the schedules that LBWF had sent to PATAS differed significantly to the schedules they'd sent the OP, and no explanation was given to PATAS for this.

Posted by: gazza-leeds Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 21:02
Post #694485

Today I won at a tribunal based on no exit signs and incomplete evidence. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65974&st=40

hope this is the right way to post it, and to say thank you.

Posted by: pcnogo Thu, 10 May 2012 - 12:32
Post #698465

HARINGEY PCN parking in inner zone - Wood Green - WON ON PROCEDURAL ERROR
--------------------------------------
I have proof from them that I emailed them to ask for details on which I could informally appeal within the time limit.
They issued the Notice to Owner anyway, ignoring my email request, probably by not being 'joined-up' in their communications system.

I presume they realised that I would win as they had made this procedural error but left it until three working days before the hearing to let me know they were withdrawing.
This gives them the most chance I'd give up, scared, I guess, and maximises applicants stress.

Details: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=69577
Thanks so much to everyone in this marvellous forum, notably http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showuser=53821- a monarch amongst expert posters!
wav.gif

Posted by: X-treem Sat, 12 May 2012 - 03:42
Post #699040

Chapel Street near Edgware Road in West London now has a whole set of free parking spaces available. Received an NtO and made two formal representations against it - the first received an NoR, the second an NoA. The TMO showed that the marked parking bays extended 9.7m, but they actually were much further than that, by several times! Council confirmed this with a site survey and cancelled the PCN.

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67595

Posted by: N3WB0Y Mon, 25 Jun 2012 - 20:22
Post #712242

Feb/2012
Parking charge issued by Durham City Council for parking in an electric vehicle space.
I was in a Lexus CT-200h that is an electric (hybrid) vehicle.
Contravention was something like "incorrect classification of vehicle for space".

Stated on appeal that the sign did not state that the charging point had to be plugged in /being used (unlike signage in neighbouring Sunderland and Newcastle cities), and that my vehicle was indeed classified as an electric vehicle on my V5 [electric hybrid].

Apology issued, charge cancelled.

Felt sorry for the Mazda MX5 who was parked in EV space beside me - doubtful he had same defence!

Posted by: roythebus Thu, 28 Jun 2012 - 19:15
Post #713161

Ha, I'll have to remember that with my Toyota Auris Hybrid!

Posted by: X-treem Tue, 3 Jul 2012 - 00:43
Post #714216

A beautiful win at a PATAS hearing against London Borough of Camden after I parked in a disabled parking space where loading was permitted. Although my grounds included the fact that the contravention stated on the PCN did not state that I wasn't loading (just that I was parking without a disabled badge), the main ground that I won this on was due to the confusing signage and road markings due to the use of an authorised non-prescribed combination sign and no legend on the parking space ('LOADING ONLY' or 'DISABLED') which the DfT Traffic Signs Manual itself says may cause enforcement difficulties.

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63289

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 23 Aug 2012 - 02:35
Post #728417

Got a postal PCN for stopping briefly on a red route when I was in fact executing a manoeuvre while driving that required me to stop briefly. I was definitely not parked. However, I made representations by letter and this was never responded to, and I received a charge certificate followed by an order for recovery. Filed a statement of truth together with proof of delivery from Royal Mail and the charge certificate was cancelled by the TEC at Northampton County Court.

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70985

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 16 Sep 2012 - 05:30
Post #735053

Parked on the main road in Camden (Chalk Farm Road) within a CPZ during the restricted times, but found the CPZ signs at one of the entrances to the CPZ twisted round and severely damaged. Appealed to Camden, but the hire car company eventually paid the fine without my authorisation, despite there being an ongoing dispute with Camden.

Sent a letter to the hire car company highlighting their own failure to avail themselves of the statutory relief as given in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regulation/4/made.

It has been over eight months now, so I guess it is safe to say that it has been forgotten about. Camden got their money. I didn't pay any fine. Albany took the hit through their own stupidity. Result!

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64232

Posted by: interlog Tue, 25 Sep 2012 - 20:18
Post #738021

Since my last update back in April, 4 cases won at the PATAS, 2 cases not contested at PATAs stage, zero cases lost at PATAS stage and 1 award for £70 cost.

Posted by: Doodledoo Fri, 12 Oct 2012 - 14:43
Post #743260

Me vs Access Self Storage and parkwright, parkright Mohammed Farooq

My case is here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68938&view=findpost&p=743249

Case was decided on inadequate signage.
Take your camera phone everywhere with you and use it!
They erected signs after I left and said they were present when I parked their on their sworn statements. Naughty!

Here's to justice and all the great contributors on here - thank you.

Posted by: dccantona Tue, 16 Oct 2012 - 00:12
Post #744290

LB of Richmond CPZ
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,165




Reduced 91%
Attached Image
1081 x 493 (95.73K)
27/5/12 Received a PCN - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

Another matchday @ Twickenham but this was on a Sunday. Surrounding roads had cones but nothing on this street . No CPZ signs at either end of the street. Made informal complaint to LB of RUT who sent back a map of all CPZ signs in the area. From my route there was 1 sign clocked at 0.8 miles from the PCN.

Therefore the question is how far does a sign need to be to inform of restrictions. Does each particular road need to have such signs. If the offence took place in a direction away from the stadium does there need to be CPZ End signs as well .

I will post PCN et al including map.



Notice number:
help
By Officer:
help
Contravention description: 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
help
Vehicle observed from:
help
Contravention date and time:
Location: NELSON RD WHITTON (CPZ R)
help
Zone: TWICKENHAM EVENT CPZ ®
help
Registration No:
Make: BMW
help
Colour: BLACK
help
Tax Disc:
help
Tax Expiry: 31/03/13
help
Current Balance: £130
help
Discount expiry date: 30/06/12


Photographic Evidence

Just managed to go past again Also took photos as well as G Maps

For what I have read the signs need to be on opposite sides of the street . Why else put them there.

So if 1 of the signs are completely obscured therefore they would render it obsolete. I will go through with this

Anyone anything on distances ?



This post has been edited by dccantona: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 - 13:55
Attached thumbnail(s)
Reduced 89%
Attached Image
877 x 504 (152.83K)


Attached File(s)
Attached File zoneRsigns__3_.pdf ( 264.27K ) Number of downloads: 14

Go to the top of the pageReport Post


Post to Del.icio.usPost to DiggPost to FacebookPost to GooglePost to RedditPost to StumbleUponPost to TwitterWhat's this?
+Quote Post

Start new topic
Replies
dccantona

post Today, 01:03
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,165




FAir and able to see through the BS Though concerned that my evidence was not available Lucky I brought it with me which is a useful tip Would help to have hard copy in hearing Also as its offficial post the facts

Case Reference:
Appellant:
Authority: Richmond Upon Thames
VRM:
PCN:
Contravention Date: 27 May 2012
Contravention Time: 12:17
Contravention Location:
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Parked in a restricted street
Decision Date: 15 Oct 2012
Adjudicator: Joanne Oxlade
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The issue in the case is whether the signage was adequate.

The local authority case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours, and so a Penalty Charge Notice was issued.

The local authority rely on the parking attendant's notes and photographs.

The Appellant says that there was inadequate signage at the location. He points out that the local authority rely on CPZ signage on Hall Road, which is some 0.8 miles from where his vehicle was parked, but that the CPZ signage was inadequate: firstly the sign located on the right hand side is located behind a tree and so obscured when the tree is in leaf; secondly, the signage is more than 12 streets away, which does not comply with the Department of Transport guidance.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced.

The Appellant has raised an issue as to the adequacy of signage and so the burden rests on the local authority to show that it is adequate. The Appellant's points have considerable merit, and are supported by photographic evidence. The local authority have not discharged the burden of proof in satisfying me that the signage is adequate. I therefore allow the appeal.

Posted by: Eoin Wed, 28 Nov 2012 - 18:31
Post #758412

Hi guys - posting to pass on a success story.

The full story is here (http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t73590.html) but in essence it involved a succesful challenge against a PCN for parking in a suspended bay in RBKC. We went to adjudication, following which we were notified by letter that our appeal had been successful on the 'non prescribed/authorised sign' argument, seemingly on the basis that the Council had failed to prove that a sign had been correctly authorised when requested so to do in our Appeal.

Posted by: interlog Tue, 8 Jan 2013 - 23:42
Post #770938

Another win at the PATAS this morning against Camden. Bus lane contravention. Use of "within" and "will" instead of "may" in rejection letter to Enforcement Notice - case ref. 212058885A

Posted by: interlog Mon, 25 Feb 2013 - 11:36
Post #790066

Another win at the PATAS this morning against Newham Council. Contravention did not occur. Reference 213004150A.

Posted by: interlog Wed, 20 Mar 2013 - 12:43
Post #799402

Two wins this week. One DNC by London Councils and one Appeal allowed at the PATAS because contravention could not be proven (2130055344)

Posted by: bathroomsoflondon Sat, 30 Mar 2013 - 17:39
Post #802897

Great victory against Bromley council. Defeated them before it even got to PATAS.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77341&st=20&gopid=802891&#entry802891


Posted by: interlog Tue, 30 Apr 2013 - 22:31
Post #814718

Further 4 x DNC by Councils plus one win (missing mandatory wording by Newham Council on PCN - 2130149029.

One more hearing next week and that'll be that - no more PATAS hearings to attend.

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 19 May 2013 - 14:31
Post #821958

It was a little fight with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea - they seemed initially to have quite competent staff rejecting my challenge with good arguments citing legislation and the Traffic Signs Manual. But then they buggered up on the process sending me an NoR in response to a challenge letter (not formal reps) which I sent to them before I received an NtO therefore it could not have been considered formal reps in any way whatsoever, even if they wanted to.

I sent a letter pointing out their mistake and threatening procedural impropriety and they cancelled the PCN.

Full topic here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77666

Posted by: Bedfont Hounslow Wed, 29 May 2013 - 18:13
Post #825644

Got ticket on 2 cars in Temporarily suspended parking in residential area from slough council, for 1st they did not contest for second an Appeal was allowed


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78630
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t74585.html

thanks All for the help,,,

Posted by: geoff 3683 Tue, 25 Jun 2013 - 19:49
Post #837836

UKPC
Parking charge cancelled.letter stated that in their opinion the charge was justified but accepted that the p&d ticket was present albeit upside down.
Thanks to all ESP. School Run Mum.
Savings spent on 12 months membership.

Posted by: ichayan Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 10:49
Post #840799

Hi All,
I have won the appeal for
PCN - Ripple Roard, Barking. Barking & Dagenham, vehichle entering a predestrian zone code 53J

Thanks to the members EDW, SchoolRunMum, Hippocrates, Incandescent

the case can be found here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78080

There are similar case in the past, I am adding it here for quick reference in similar situations

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78080


Case Reference: 2130255591
Appellant: Mr Mathew Abraham
Authority: Barking and Dagenham

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2130255591


Case Reference: 2120192043
Appellant: Mr Mohammad Rafiul Hossain
Authority: Barking and Dagenham

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2120192043

Case Reference: 2120463297
Appellant: Mr K S G C Amouzou Akue
Authority: Barking and Dagenham

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2120463297


Case Reference: 2130145119
Appellant: Mrs Amanda Monk
Authority: Barking and Dagenham

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2130145119

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 28 Jul 2013 - 19:00
Post #850848

Win against Newham Council by Adjudicator's decision at PATAS without me having to attend due to no evidence provided by Newham. It was a simple double yellow line contravention where I was unloading luggage, but Newham don't seem to have the balls or the competence to oppose anything beyond their own remit. Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73147.

Posted by: X-treem Wed, 4 Sep 2013 - 00:49
Post #865281

A win at PATAS against Newham for unloading shopping into a 5th floor flat. 3-minute observation time based on an incorrect interpretation of the TMO by Newham led to me winning this one quite easily. Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77664&view=findpost&p=865280.

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 29 Sep 2013 - 01:07
Post #874484

I received three parking tickets in the exact same bay in the space of 10 days last October. I originally contested them all on the ground that the traffic order was wrong. However, this was never even addressed by Newham Council, but they ended up tripping up with procedural improprieties left, right and centre throughout the entire appeal process. They were relentless in trying to beat me into submission with charge certificates, court orders for recovery, etc. But, I deflected every blow using the law as my guide and companion, something they seemed to have little regard for, and it took me getting the Chief Executive of Newham Council involved to put the final nail in the coffin for these PCNs. That is now five out of six parking tickets I've received from Newham in less than one year since I moved into the area that I have beaten. They're the worst council I've ever dealt with in terms of competence, but that just makes it easier for me to fight their PCNs.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73701 for the three PCNs last October, all now cancelled.

Posted by: X-treem Mon, 11 Nov 2013 - 23:31
Post #891855

Parked on a single yellow line in Tower Hamlets within a CPZ that had already been earmarked for removal by the Council and one of the entrances to the CPZ had no signs. On top of that, Tower Hamlets failed to reply to my challenge letter which was used as PI in the formal reps. NoA subsequently received.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83048

Posted by: X-treem Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 03:00
Post #933953

Parked on an SYL in New Year's Day in Camden. Appealed citing a few issues surrounding TSRGD 2002 including the lack of a timeplate at regular intervals, an inadequate sign at the loading restrictions changeover point, and the use of double kerb marks on an SYL. NoA received. Not sure what points they agreed with, though.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87599

Posted by: Rob232 Wed, 12 Mar 2014 - 12:36
Post #936510

Had PCN cancelled after informal representation, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88252 , they got the code wrong.
This makes 2 out of 2 for me on pepipoo, first was here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74806
Thanks to all who helped, and thank you pepipoo.
biggrin.gif

Posted by: pcnogo Fri, 11 Apr 2014 - 13:48
Post #948971

vs Islington Council - I drove through the big gap in the road, not through the small one the signs said I had to.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=87103&view=findpost&p=948968.
The appeal was allowed because the adjudicator thought the footage proved I was avoiding danger.

Thanks again to Hippocrates, SchoolRunMum and EDW - their support was superb and really helped me.


Posted by: X-treem Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 05:35
Post #952031

Received a PCN from APCOA at London Victoria train station after the P&D ticket fell off the dashboard. Sent them a copy of the P&D ticket together with the card receipt, and quoted POFA and POPLA. Took them about a month to reply, but they cancelled the PCN due to "technical reasons".

Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88256.

Posted by: cmc Sun, 11 May 2014 - 08:35
Post #959389

Successful appeal against Sefton Council:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88294

Posted by: X-treem Mon, 9 Jun 2014 - 01:52
Post #969447

Successful appeal against RBKC after parking on Basil Street near Harrods on a Saturday evening (30 November 2013). It appears that they erected temporary signs overnight which caused my vehicle to become illegally parked the next day when it otherwise would not have been. I was also not in control of my vehicle as the police were in possession of the keys (don't ask). Went to PATAS, but RBKC offered no contest before the hearing.

Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88254.

Posted by: TallBloke Wed, 16 Jul 2014 - 19:34
Post #982634

Me 1 Parking Eye 0

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91970

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 23:49
Post #989689

Reading Borough Council NTO, presumably for parking od DYL. Lines almost non existent. Other potential issues. Representations accepted. Details http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92498

Posted by: daviddaviddavid Fri, 5 Sep 2014 - 13:01
Post #999166

Me against Birmingham City Council

I am disabled and parked in a prominently displayed Disabled space without noticing the restriction on a plate facing the wrong way.

After checking on this site I asked for sight of the Traffic Regulation Order.

It transpired that there was no TRO - but they were applying for one.

After my informal query the bay was repainted.

They still issued an NTO making me make a formal reply.

They further issued a charge certificate raising the charge to £105 - this is totally against the rules.

My appeal was on a number of grounds but they haven't said on which grounds they have cancelled the charge.

This has been a real pain dealing with an inefficient and incompetent organization - but well worth the trouble.

Posted by: manor1921 Mon, 8 Sep 2014 - 14:09
Post #999950

Win against Newham Council for parking in a loading bay.

Full topic http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91943:

Posted by: Vike Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:37
Post #1166668

PCN from City of London for allegedly parking in a suspended bay beaten with help from Pepipoo:

The adjudicator's ruling: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v778ko59yghxryq/London%20Tribunals%20Ruling002.pdf?dl=0&quot;]https://www.dropbox.com/s/v778ko59yghxryq/L...ing002.pdf?dl=0

The full thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101865

Posted by: Brimo Fri, 15 Apr 2016 - 09:23
Post #1167788

APPEAL AGAINST PARKING EYE IN MORECAMBE SUCCESSFUL

We won our appeal against parking eye on grounds of landowner authority. See full thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103577&st=60#entry1167650

Posted by: Sylji Tue, 10 May 2016 - 15:25
Post #1174804

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103556

case reference - 216014351A

Reasons - The appellant appeared before me today.

The allegation in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked in a permit holder/pay and display bay without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.

There was no dispute that there was a visitor parking permit on display in the vehicle.

It was however on the council's case invalid it being for use in zone 'L the vehicle being parked in zone 'S'.

The relevant zone was indicated by a punch mark on the permit.

The appellant complained that nowhere in the permit's terms and conditions provided on the back thereof was there any reference to a punch marking indicating the permit's applicable zone he in accordance with condition 3 thereof believing that the permit could be used in any of the zones stated thereon.

I agreed with the appellant that information on this permit as to in which zone it could be used was not clear and I found for that reason that the contravention had not been proved.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.
**************************************************

you can find the background to my case on the above link. I cannot thank the guys on this forum enough for helping me throughout the case.

Posted by: bibek Tue, 28 Jun 2016 - 14:31
Post #1188621

Cancellation of 2 PCNs from NSGL - Ealing , London biggrin.gif

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106770&st=0&gopid=1188620&#entry1188620

Posted by: quondras Mon, 23 Jan 2017 - 09:41
Post #1251660

Parking Charge Notice for 5 min wait in loading bay in Bristol successfully fought on grace period grounds, though signage is arguably illegal for parking enforcement as no offer is made.

POPLA avoided ruling on that issue. Thanks for all who supported this fight!

Link to forum:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110221

Posted by: TheEngineer Thu, 30 Mar 2017 - 15:37
Post #1273727

Parking Eye court case defended on the grounds that the Mayflower Cruise Terminal Car Park is not relevant land and therefore POFA does not apply;

Thread here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105849

Thanks to those that helped.

Posted by: jedboy1997 Tue, 4 Apr 2017 - 17:28
Post #1275136

Case won over car parked on yellow hatched lines on college car park.

Claim Dismissed because of:
- no evidence of signage
- inconsistent penalty charges

I received £50 under CPR27.14(g) for a missed day at work.

See thread where I received much help: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109626&st=60&gopid=1275133&#entry1275133

Posted by: Dónall Wed, 16 Aug 2017 - 16:23
Post #1308977

PARKING EYE - overstay in Rheidol Retail Park, Aberystwyth.

2h17 stay in free-for-2hrs car park, without facility to pay for longer.

Appeal to PE rejected; took it to POPLA 26/07 on grounds that (1) Parking Eye provided no contractual evidence of their authority to issue PCNs (contract never been seen for the site, although POPLA recently accepted post-dated witness statement; I reqd the former); (2) Grace period of 15 mins at end (BPA Code of Practice) should logically include similar period at start, since more operations to complete, and ANPR records time of entering and leaving car park with notorious bottleneck on exit, not time parked; (3) misleading signage - some from another operator, references to closing at night while shops still open, and ref to machines and parent-and-toddler bays absent from this site; (4) failure to consider my representations.

Email today from POPLA:

QUOTE
Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.


See full summary http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114600.

Posted by: EvilPCNs Fri, 27 Oct 2017 - 17:48
Post #1327073

Won bus lane contravention against Merton Council who said:

We note your comments and have reviewed your case. The signs at this location are not considered correctly lit and therefore the council will not be proceeding with this case and the charge has been cancelled.
On behalf of Merton Council, I apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused by issuing this PCN.

Link to topic/thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=113467&view=findpost&p=1283871

Posted by: Louisa Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 17:26
Post #1333803

'Im not sure about where this post is going but it is meant for Successful outcomes section.

I am disabled and had a medical emergency meaning that I had to stop my car and park somewhere safe asap. I was on double yellows but managed to put my Blue card on the dashboard.
VCS felt fit to fine me and I promptly appealed explaining, graphically why I had to stop. I was basically told 'tough pay the fine'. I appealed again thinking that they had not understood the urgency and explained my dilemma but even more graphically this time. Again, I was told to pay up or else. With the group's help I wrote to the Debt management team quoting my rights and certain 'Acts' and copied the Chief Director of Doncaster and Robin Hood Airport in.
Three days later I received a letter of apology.

I certainly could not have done this by myself as I did not realize my rights in this area and I have certain members of the group to thank for that. Indeed, I did not even know of the existence of this group until my colleague advised me.

Again, thank you from the bottom of my heart xx

Posted by: Mike_S Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 10:32
Post #1387346

Parking Eye ANPR charge withdrawn following appeal submitted to POPLA.

Unfortunately due to work and family commitments I didn't have time to put my appeal together until the 11th hour, so I didn't get to share my appeal for review on the forum. Thankfully however, I was able to make use of a lot of resources and feedback from other appeals on this forum and MSE forum that enabled my to build a comprehensive appeal.

PE chose not to contest my appeal to POPLA, and withdrew the charge.

Thread link: http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t119450.html

I've also attached a pdf copy of the appeal I submitted to POPLA to this post in the hope that it can be of use to others with similar PCNs.

 Parking_Eye_ANPR_POPLA_appeal.pdf ( 284.19K ) : 978
 

Posted by: AFC_85 Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 08:43
Post #1399624

July 2018
Successful appeal at tribunal vs Kingston upon Thames council.
Contravention 62g
Link to forum thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119093

Huge help received on here to fight back against an incorrect PCN.

😁

Posted by: Haka66 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 15:55
Post #1552865

Dear All. The keeper of the vehicle has just received the following response:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

Britannia Parking Group - EW have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team


Thank you for your unstinting support and kindness. It was a completely disproportionate charge. The keeper provided the following evidence for a successful appeal:

1. Length of time to inform the keeper for any transfer of liability (16 days) therefore not POFA compliant (which did not stop Britannia Parking rejecting the appeal to them)
2. The time taken to code in the numberplate required multiple attempts which was much longer than the discretionary period given
3. Britannia Parking must have known the machine was malfunctioning
4. Britannia Parking should be able to provide evidence of the amount of monies put in to obtain a ticket as multiple attempts with many different coins needed
5. Britannia Parking have a duty to confirm the machine was operating correctly and excess monies were not in the machine
6. The position of the signs were too high and the condition of the instructions on the machine was in a poor state

Once again. Many thanks. Keep up the good work. And it really is worth while submitting an appeal to POPLA and to take the advice from the moderators. They know what they are talking about! Go to Haka 66 to get the whole story.

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