Meter destroyed? |
Meter destroyed? |
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 12:16
Post
#1
|
||||
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 7 Jun 2016 Member No.: 84,804 |
Birmingham CC
Parked in Granville Street overnight, got a ticket 11.41am next day, 27/12/17. (Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher) There are 12 parking bays in a line, around 75 meters in total. At one end of the bays is a sign with arrow pointing right 'Pay at meter, Display Ticket'. At the other end is a sign with the arrow pointing left with the same message. In the middle is a what looks like it could be a destroyed meter but could actually be anything. There are no indications anywhere in sight of the days or times when parking restrictions apply. I have since found out it is 8am to 6pm and free outwith these times and also on Sundays/Bank Holidays Saw the CEO writing me a ticket. I asked him where I was meant to pay and he shrugged and pointed to another street, around the corner. So what should one do here? Worth an appeal? Cheers for any advice This post has been edited by misteral: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 12:20 |
|||
|
||||
Advertisement |
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 12:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 12:51
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
75 Meters or 75 Metres ???
This post has been edited by StuartBu: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 14:50 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 12:55
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
If you were unable to pay then should you have parked elsewhere?
-------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 13:08
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Well it was a meter:-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4756457,-...3312!8i6656 Problem is there is another meter in Granville Street but a fair distance away however read hca's advice here:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1322311 Then read this case and see if it gives you leverage:- Case Reference: 2100346960 Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons: A contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked in an on-street pay and display bay during controlled hours, without clearly displaying a valid pay and display voucher. There is no dispute that Mr Prendi's vehicle was at this location in Linden Gardens or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority. Mr Prendi says that he went to the pay and display machine but it was not working out of order and so he went to look for another machine but there was no other one near. Mr Prendi adds that the next one is over a mile away. Mr Prendi says that he left a note to this effect in the vehicle. The civil enforcement officer has not recorded details of any note but the images appear to confirm one may have been there. The Enforcement Authority do not appear to dispute that the pay and display was not working and have produced no maintenance records in this regard. The Enforcement Authority do refer to the signage on the machine, advising the motorist that if 'not working use another machine'. Whether there is another machine within a reasonable distance will depend on the circumstances and each case will turn on its own facts. However, the Enforcement Authority cannot expect motorists to tramp the streets of their borough trying to find a machine in working order. Going too far away from the parking place may indeed involving entering a different parking zone where, restrictions and charges could differ. Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. ------------------------------------------------------- Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 13:11 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 13:14
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Think you have a good case here - I can't see another meter in the bays by Broad Street only arrows pointing to the destroyed meter. You'd have to then walk all the way back to the third row of bays, which is beyond the call of duty in my view. There is also oen in Tennant Street but again quite a way away.
|
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 13:38
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Council do not have argument on pay by phone alternative as often in Brum, all the details are on the payment machine casing.
Which seems to be missing. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 - 17:30
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
There are only 2 options here:
1. By virtue of there not being a machine as directed by the signs, then the motorist should park elsewhere; 2. As above, the motorist is permitted to park and not traipse the streets looking for a machine. I'm of the second school. But when you challenge, your argument is not just that the machine had been vandalised, it is that by virtue of the traffic signs regulating the parking place you were required to use the machine whose carcass can be seen in the photos. This was not only clearly inoperative, and had been known by the authority for some time, it did not convey any alternative instructions to motorists on where to obtain a ticket. Consequently, you were unable to pay and the PCN must be cancelled. If the authority reject this challenge then in addition to their reasons they are required to state: 1. For how long the machine has been inoperable; 2. Why the council chose to not alter the traffic signs or otherwise put notices on the carcass to indicate how a motorise should pay the tariff. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 - 00:29
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 720 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,615 |
Surely the arrows at either end preclude the motorist from traipsing the streets? To me, the signage indicates they can only pay at a machine located between the two signs.
As the risk of muddying the waters, I see a third option: 3. The motorist found the only machine in the indicated area and complied fully with every payment instruction on that machine. If, due to lack of maintenance, the signs on that machine did not fully convey the restriction, that's the council's fault, not the motorist's. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 - 00:42
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I would agree with that line because it is the CEO's duty to ensure all traffic signs are compliant and he/she is supposed to undertake a time check on each parking meter with an HHD. Perhaps therefore an abuse of process has occurred with a PCN being served in that parking place in these circumstances.
The CEO's notes will make interesting reading. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 1 Jan 2018 - 13:30
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Perhaps the wrong contravention has been given. In the circumstances it really should have been a Code 8 "Parked at an out-of-order meter during controlled hours".
This gives more weight to peterguk's contention although I believe the Prendi case is sustainable here. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 1 Jan 2018 - 18:10
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Perhaps the wrong contravention has been given. In the circumstances it really should have been a Code 8 "Parked at an out-of-order meter during controlled hours". This gives more weight to peterguk's contention although I believe the Prendi case is sustainable here. Mick Although it would hard to identify the object in the picture as an "out-of-order meter"... I would think that contravention would refer to an old-style individual parking space meter. Otherwise, the entire road would be off-limits! The OP's case is similar to the situation I had asked about some time ago (in which the ticket machine indicated by the signage had been completely removed--presumably--by the council). Which still hasn't been replaced, but enough people know the score now, so I can rarely snag a spot there anymore... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 1 Jan 2018 - 18:17
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
There is a side note to Code 08 that it only relates to electronic meters whatever that means.
Mick |
|
|
Mon, 1 Jan 2018 - 21:40
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
@MMV, it's not a meter, it is a pay and display machine. Chalk and cheese, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Wed, 3 Jan 2018 - 16:01
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 7 Jun 2016 Member No.: 84,804 |
Thanks for your help. I'm working on my appeal and I've got this far.
I arrived and parked in Granville Street early evening of 26th December. It was dark. As can be seen from the attached photos, drivers are requested to ‘pay at machine and display ticket’ in the parking bays between the two signs with arrows pointing right and left. The third photo shows what I believe to be a destroyed parking meter which is situated between the two signs. There were no instructions anywhere of what to do if the parking meter was not working. Furthermore, there was no notification of any times/days that BCC parking restriction/rules apply. The next morning my friend informed me a CEO was writing a PCN for my car. I went out and asked him where, when and how I was meant to pay. He simply shrugged his shoulders and pointed to another street (Tennant Street). Writing a PCN in these circumstances is arguably an abuse of process by the CEO It is the responsibility of BCC and its CEOs to ensure that parking meters are working and contain sufficient information for those who may wish to park in the area indicated and, in cases where machines are faulty in some way, to ensure that adequate instructions are available for drivers to use an alternative method of payment and moreover to inform drivers when and where parking restrictions apply. As you can see from the photos there are no instructions whatsoever regarding any of the abovementioned. It cannot be just and fair for a driver to be penalised in this situation and I ask you to use your discretion and cancel this PCN Feedback and suggestions are most welcome. |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jan 2018 - 17:08
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,159 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
A sign with no times has times - 24/7! So I'd forget the line regarding the parking place timings.
However, the traffic signs refer to the hours during which the parking place is restricted which may or may not be the chargeable hours. In fact when an on-street parking place is 24/7 it is very, very, unusual to have 24/7 pay and display restrictions. So your line is NOT that the traffic signs themselves did not state the chargeable hours, it is that these were not stated on the machine and therefore a motorist could not know whether a charge was payable or not, which is a different and superior argument to the machine not working because if you were not required to pay then there being or not being a working machine is immaterial. |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jan 2018 - 17:49
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 720 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,615 |
I'd add that there were no other machines you could pay at between the two signs, and that the CEO was pointing to somewhere not between the two signs.
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 13:35
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 7 Jun 2016 Member No.: 84,804 |
Thanks again for your input. I've edited my appeal and highlighted some more points and will send it in soon. Also should I mention that I parked in one of maybe two empty bays and that I looked in a couple of cars and no parking tickets were displayed in them? Feedback and comments most welcome.
Appeal Letter I live in Glasgow and visited a friend in Birmingham on 26th December 2017. I arrived in Birmingham in the early evening and parked in Granville Street in a parking area of about 12 parking bays. As can be seen from the attached photos (A and B), drivers at this location are requested to ‘pay at machine and display ticket’ in the parking bays between the two signs with arrows pointing right and left. The third photo © shows what I believe to be a destroyed parking meter which is situated between the two signs. There were no instructions anywhere of what to do if the parking meter was not working or didn’t exist. Furthermore, there was no notification of any times/days that BCC parking restriction/rules apply on the remains of the ‘machine’ or anywhere else within the signs directing you to the parking bays. The next morning my friend informed me a CEO was writing a PCN for my car. I went out and asked the CEO, when, where and how I was meant to pay. He simply shrugged his shoulders and pointed to another street (Tennant Street), out with the parking bay area in question. Even if a motorist went to Tennant Street, which is what I would describe as beyond the call of duty, how would he/she know if the parking fees/restriction that apply in Tennant Street applied to another parking zone area or indeed if the charges were the same? Issuing a PCN in these circumstances, where there is no indication whether a charge is payable or not at that time in that place, is arguably an abuse of process by the CEO. It is the duty of BCC and its CEOs to ensure that parking meters are working and contain sufficient information for those who may wish to park in the area indicated and for CEOs to report on meters not working. I expect BCC has a maintenance record of what I assume is a destroyed meter in the parking area in question. It is also the duty of BCC in cases where machines are faulty in some way to ensure that adequate instructions are available for drivers to use an alternative method of payment and moreover to inform drivers when and where parking restrictions apply. As you can see from the photos, taken moments after the PCN was issued, there are no visible instructions or information regarding any of the abovementioned. It cannot be just and fair for a motorist to be penalised in the circumstances where the local authority has failed in its duty to provide adequate payment facilities and any information regarding alternative options or advice for motorists at this parking area. I ask that you use your discretion and cancel this PCN This post has been edited by misteral: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 17:16 |
|
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:45
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 7 Jun 2016 Member No.: 84,804 |
Hi again
This is the finl appeal letter I sent to BCC. I live in Glasgow and visited a friend in Birmingham on 26th December 2017. I arrived in Birmingham in the early evening and parked in Granville Street in a parking area with about 12 parking bays. As can be seen from the attached photos (A and B), drivers at this location are requested to ‘pay at machine and display ticket’ in the parking bays between the two signs with arrows pointing right and left. The third photo © shows what I believe to be a destroyed parking meter which is situated between the two signs. There were no instructions anywhere of what to do if the parking meter was not working or didn’t exist. Furthermore, there was no notification of any times/days that BCC parking restriction/rules apply on the remains of the ‘machine’ or anywhere else within the signs directing you to the parking bays. The next morning my friend informed me a CEO was writing a PCN for my car. I went out and asked the CEO, when, where and how I was meant to pay. He simply shrugged his shoulders and pointed to another street (Tennant Street), out with the parking bay area in question. Even if a motorist went to Tennant Street, which is what I would describe as beyond the call of duty, how would he/she know if the parking fees/restriction that apply in Tennant Street applied to another parking zone area or indeed if the charges were the same? Issuing a PCN in these circumstances, where there is no indication whether a charge is payable or not at that time in that place, is arguably an abuse of process by the CEO. It is the duty of BCC and its CEOs to ensure that parking meters are working and contain sufficient information for those who may wish to park in the area indicated and for CEOs to report on meters not working. I expect BCC has a maintenance record of what I assume is a destroyed meter in the parking area in question. It is also the duty of BCC in cases where machines are faulty in some way to ensure that adequate instructions are available for drivers to use an alternative method of payment and moreover to inform drivers when and where parking restrictions apply. As you can see from the photos, taken moments after the PCN was issued, there are no visible instructions or information regarding any of the abovementioned. All we have are two signs that both state ‘Pay at machine’ and ‘Display Ticket’ with no information as to how to pay or any information regarding the times or days that payment is required in order to park in that parking area. It cannot be just and fair for a motorist to be penalised in the circumstances where the local authority has failed in its duty to provide adequate payment facilities and any information regarding alternative options or advice for motorists at this parking area. I ask that you use your discretion and cancel this PCN I received this response (attached) The thrust of my argument is that there was only a destroyed machine and no instructions regarding times/days when restrictions apply or instructions as to what to do in the case of a faulty machine or alternative methods of payment between the two signs situated at either end of the parking area. See OP for photos of signs and machine. If I don't pay the £25 by 01/02/18 what happens next? How do I appeal? Does anyone think I have a case?
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:54
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 15:47
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
"In light of the above, no further consideration will be given and I must request payment is forwarded in settlement of the matter"
So The regulations require that they consider any and all challenges, They are not obliged to respond but they are required to consider. Also as worded What about formal representations and appeal -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:25 |