Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Perrmit Zone...no entry warning signs?

Posted by: aspar Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post #1326423

Parked up on a street....no yellow lines.

Didn't notice 'Permit Only' sign on a post nearby.

Was new to area and had no idea permits were in operation.

Question is....I seem to recollect that any 'parking permit zones' had to have signs up as you enter the zone [since there are no road markings to indicate]....is this right/binding?? [This is how it is where I live...but this was a different council area]

I ask as I can drive into the streets concerned without seeing any warning signs ...other than the small ones on a post in the street.

I have a feeling that the 'small post signs' trump the need for 'entry warning signs'....would welcome your opinions.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:52
Post #1326427

To give an opinion we need some detail. Post the PCN all of it except personals council photos and a GSV of the location

Posted by: aspar Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:05
Post #1326428

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:52) *
To give an opinion we need some detail. Post the PCN all of it except personals council photos and a GSV of the location


Ok...it'll take me a day or so to sort that....

ps...what's a GSV??

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:05
Post #1326429

When we see the PCN we would hope to see the contravention as parked in a parking place or zone ...

So taking these in turn:
1. Parking place
This would require road markings. No road markings = no contrvention, unless..

2. Parking zone
This would require gateway signs, not necessarily but normally at the entrnce to the road in question, to the effect that only permit holders may park. Road markings are not required.

So contrary to your inclinations and in the circumstances of your case (no road markings) the smaller signs are secondary and are advisory, not mandatory, within a zone.

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:15
Post #1326432

GSV = Google Street View. The location.

Posted by: aspar Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 13:25
Post #1326470

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 11:05) *
When we see the PCN we would hope to see the contravention as parked in a parking place or zone ...

So takimg these in turn:
1. Parking place
This would require road markings. No road markings = no contrvention, unless..

2. Parking zone
This would require gateway signs, not necessarily but normally at the entrnce to the road in question, to the effect that only permit holders may park. Road markings are not required.


Looking toi upload PCN as requested, but the text reads as follows....

Parked in residents' or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge [I'm sure that they could be doing with a comma or two in there somewhere!!! lol]

Contravention Code 12

Pics to follow...

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 13:46
Post #1326479

In which case 'permit holders' only does not apply.

But this is all speculation in the absence of evidence, so photos and GSV pl.

Posted by: aspar Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:03
Post #1326480

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:46) *
In which case 'permit holders' only does not apply.

But this is all speculation in the absence of evidence, so photos and GSV pl.


Here is GSV. I parked behind the H-bar. just in front of that sign. Looking now there is a long road marking for the bays....I guess I didn't clock them at the time. Notice says Permit Holders Only.

I spoke to the council and they initially said 'it's a parking bay' and when I explained the two options [palce or zone] options they plumped for 'parking place'.

Whats the best way to load photos on here [sorry to be such a luddite]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.0179139,-1.4279619,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBg6l3UBaiBHTHwGGA_UT7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:44
Post #1326491

Use a site such as Flickr for pics and post the links (selecting the BBCode option embeds the pics here).

From GSV it just looks to me that some bays in the area are permit only but as HCA says code 12 is the wrong one although council won't admit it probably. Also, maybe the bay markings are degraded now - need your and council pics.

Posted by: DJ Lexy Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:09
Post #1326506

That's not a residents bay - that's a permit bay. To ordinary people, they're essentially the same thing (you either have a permit and can park there, or you don't and can't). But they have two separate contravention codes. The contravention should be 16, not 12.

Technically you didn't commit the contravention alleged on the PCN, which could get it cancelled even though you committed an identical contravention in a slightly different type of bay. In practice, I'm not sure this is enough to win an appeal. The answer might involve trawling through Traffic Restriction Orders and finding out who is eligible for a permit. If only residents can get a TM1 permit, the the council could assert that all permits are resident permits, so contraventions 12 and 16 are interchangeable. I know that Gateshead assert this.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:17
Post #1326507

QUOTE (DJ Lexy @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:09) *
That's not a residents bay - that's a permit bay. To ordinary people, they're essentially the same thing (you either have a permit and can park there, or you don't and can't). But they have two separate contravention codes. The contravention should be 16, not 12.

Technically you didn't commit the contravention alleged on the PCN, which could get it cancelled even though you committed an identical contravention in a slightly different type of bay. In practice, I'm not sure this is enough to win an appeal. The answer might involve trawling through Traffic Restriction Orders and finding out who is eligible for a permit. If only residents can get a TM1 permit, the the council could assert that all permits are resident permits, so contraventions 12 and 16 are interchangeable. I know that Gateshead assert this.



I don't think so code 12 is residents or shared use. I do not read this as being one or the other, rather that the bay can be used by residents or other specified user, normally P&D

Code 16 on the other hand is purely for permit holders

Posted by: DJ Lexy Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:29
Post #1326514

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 12 is for residents only bay or shared use bays (as you say, residents or P&D). 16 is for permit holders (which may not necessarily be residents (e.g. market trader permits, business permits).

The crux of the question is this: if the sign says "Permit holders only", does that make it a "residents" bay?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:14
Post #1326524

QUOTE (DJ Lexy @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:29) *
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 12 is for residents only bay or shared use bays (as you say, residents or P&D). 16 is for permit holders (which may not necessarily be residents (e.g. market trader permits, business permits).

The crux of the question is this: if the sign says "Permit holders only", does that make it a "residents" bay?


I would always argue not

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:49
Post #1326532

No it doesn't. Resident's is one of the range of permits which are also issued to butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, carers, businesses etc..... and if you had any one of the latter then you would be denied making reps on this basis because it's not a resident's permit.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 18:21
Post #1326545

Pages 86/87 here:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/North%20Tyneside/NH25.pdf

Permit holders in marked bays.

Mick


Posted by: aspar Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 13:48
Post #1326788

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 19:21) *
Pages 86/87 here:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/North%20Tyneside/NH25.pdf

Permit holders in marked bays.

Mick

Reading that, it would seem to be more than residents can get permits so makes it a code 16 contravention??

So appeal and see what happens??

I've got more than a week so will deffo post pics before I do anything!!!

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 15:40
Post #1326808

Where's the PCN?

OP, over to you, and leave in everything that's not personal including dates, times and road names.

Posted by: aspar Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 13:56
Post #1347566

I made the 'informal appeal'....And I've heard nothing from them since so I assume the 56 day rule means its done with??


As an aside they seem to be issuing Code 12 when they should be issung Code 16......perhaps they are worried that a PATAS [as was] case might cost them hundreds of thousands??

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:49
Post #1347620

QUOTE (aspar @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 13:56) *
I made the 'informal appeal'....And I've heard nothing from them since so I assume the 56 day rule means its done with??


As an aside they seem to be issuing Code 12 when they should be issung Code 16......perhaps they are worried that a PATAS [as was] case might cost them hundreds of thousands??



No 56 days for informal challenge, they have six months to issue NTO but it can be argued as unfair after about 3

Posted by: aspar Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:23
Post #1347670

I'm sure I read appeals at PATAS [as was] that said if they didn't reply to the informal appeal within 56 days, it was assumed to have been accepted and the PCN cancelled???

But I'm always happy to bow to superior knowledge, thanks


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:28
Post #1347675

QUOTE (aspar @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:23) *
I'm sure I read appeals at PATAS [as was] that said if they didn't reply to the informal appeal within 56 days, it was assumed to have been accepted and the PCN cancelled???

But I'm always happy to bow to superior knowledge, thanks



56 days is for formal representation against a NTO

Posted by: aspar Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 07:51
Post #1370432

My partner's car has her father down as the RK [but she definitely owns the car]....

He's a major "panicker" and will happily roll over and let the council and private parking scammers shaft him......

So we got a council PCN and made informal appeal online...rejected. He's now had the NTO and is 'worried sick' and wants to pay it.....

There's an option as one of the specified grounds for appeal that is 'I had ceased to be the owner before the date on which the contravention had occurred'...

Can he reply and name her [there's a space to do so] as the 'buyer'...., and the council will then presumably chase her??

Then I'm happy that we can sort out the PCN under appeal [see my previous posting for it being a code 12 issued when the signage says 'Permit holders only which is a code 16...but I digress...]


Posted by: aspar Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:02
Post #1370433

Update:
I can appeal online and there's an option where I select if I am keeper/driver/keeper and driver..... so hopefully that means that by me giving my details as driver they will start to chase me.....

Be a bit annoyed if I appeal and they then chase him if rejected.......

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:05
Post #1370434

Tell him the NTO is for the full amount and there's nothing more to pay if it is appealed further. The RK is liable to respond to the NTO as they are presumed to be the owner, who is liable. You can transfer it but I can't see the point when it's in the family as you can write the appeal for him.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:35
Post #1370439

Who the driver was is irrelevant in terms of liability.
And only the RK has the right to challenge the NTO, they can ignore from anyone else unless the RK confirms that whoever is acting for them.

Posted by: aspar Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:45
Post #1370440

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 09:05) *
Tell him the NTO is for the full amount and there's nothing more to pay if it is appealed further. The RK is liable to respond to the NTO as they are presumed to be the owner, who is liable. You can transfer it but I can't see the point when it's in the family as you can write the appeal for him.


There's really no point talking to him...he's a total soft touch who believes he'll lose his house and go to prison if he doesn't pay it now....he's one of these people who only wants to whinge about stuff and isn't actually interested in listening to what to do to sort it out.....lol.

The council web appeal has the option to name myself as the driver and to make the 'formal appeal'.....I've asked them to communicate only with me [different address to him so hopefully he'll stop bleating every time a a letter arrives from the council....]


Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:46
Post #1370441

The 'owner' is defined as follows:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/92

And why would a car which is neither owned by him nor which he appears to 'keep' ('my partner's car') be registered to him? Or maybe it's better not to ask?

In any event, as the penalty is for the full amount (although common practice is for the discount to be re-offered after unsuccessful reps) and all correspondence may be conducted by another nominated person AND he can be reassured that he would remain the ultimate decision-maker (I would if it were me) then IMO there is no need to go into other matters which have no bearing on the substantive contravention.

Posted by: aspar Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:57
Post #1370442

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 09:35) *
Who the driver was is irrelevant in terms of liability.
And only the RK has the right to challenge the NTO, they can ignore from anyone else unless the RK confirms that whoever is acting for them.


As I said ...the web appeal lets me name myself as the driver and make the appeal.....

I'm not sure on the legal standing of that ...eg by allowing that option has the fuill liability transferred to me as the driver [which is exactly what I want] or if they reject it, do they then go back to him for enforcement or are they forced to chase me as the 'offender'.....need to hear opinions ion this...

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 09:46) *
The 'owner' is defined as follows:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/92

And why would a car which is neither owned by him nor which he appears to 'keep' ('my partner's car') be registered to him? Or maybe it's better not to ask?

In any event, as the penalty is for the full amount (although common practice is for the discount to be re-offered after unsuccessful reps) and all correspondence may be conducted by another nominated person AND he can be reassured that he would remain the ultimate decision-maker (I would if it were me) then IMO there is no need to go into other matters which have no bearing on the substantive contravention.


owner: owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

I'm guessing that a letter saying 'I am the owner and happy to take the PCN on' suffices for the bit in bold above [should it come to it]??

Ref owner/rk...why etc....no idea, I wasn't around at the time they did it...was bought new so might be a credit thing.....can't be arsed delving into it unless essential...lol!!

Great that I can get 'nominated'....I'll use that if necessary..but hopefully see my posts above about me doing the formal rep online etc.

thanks again



Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 09:26
Post #1370452

You are in danger of going down a road that will lead to Dad getting hammered.

The NTO must be answered by the RK, the driver has no standing.
Doesn't matter what the website says, if you challenge and identify yourself as the driver, at best they reply to Dad, at worst they ignore.
And are allowed to.
You can challenge but Dad must agree and best if signs a note saying that he does.
You can nominate address to use but again, Dad has to agree.

If he is panicking about an NTO, what will he do when a Charge Certificate lands ?

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:19
Post #1370462

+1

Is there more to this than meets the eye ..

we haven't seen the 'council PCN', the challenge or response;

the response would probably have included the discount option which would have to lapse before a NTO could be served therefore a period of at least 6 weeks would have elapsed since the PCN and at least 2 weeks since the rejection;

therefore 'father' would have been prepared for the NTO unless they had not been kept in the loop....



or is this just my early morning paranoia (or a duplicte thread)?

And we haven't seen the NTO and don't know deadlines, all while the OP pursues a different course during which the clock ticks on relentlessly.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:45
Post #1370474

The law is quite simple as regards a NTO. "Representations against notice to owner

4.—(1) The recipient may make representations against a notice to owner to the enforcement authority which served the notice on him.

So only FiL can make reps.. Could he make them to the effect that he was not the owner? yes providing you sign to accept that you are, though a council may well reject this

the only sure way is to make reps in his name with his permission, or just pay it

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 15:22
Post #1370567

QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:57) *
As I said ...the web appeal lets me name myself as the driver and make the appeal.....

Which tells me you're reading in the wrong portal. Finding something to suit your theory.
Anyone can challenge a PCN at the initial informal stage, which you are well beyond.

What would we know? You've neither shown nor mentioned anything that facilitates us checking the above for you.

Posted by: lashes1984 Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 15:41
Post #1370570

I believe the OP has brought up Owner/Registered Keeper issue before

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116000

And PCN relates to this post:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116547&st=0&start=0

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 17:32
Post #1370601

QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 15:41) *
I believe the OP has brought up Owner/Registered Keeper issue before

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116000

And PCN relates to this post:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116547&st=0&start=0

One starts to understand why FiL is worried.

Posted by: aspar Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 07:56
Post #1370685

QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 16:22) *
QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:57) *
As I said ...the web appeal lets me name myself as the driver and make the appeal.....

Which tells me you're reading in the wrong portal. Finding something to suit your theory.
Anyone can challenge a PCN at the initial informal stage, which you are well beyond.

What would we know? You've neither shown nor mentioned anything that facilitates us checking the above for you.


I know the difference between the informal and the formal stage I did the informal and the ticket was then marked as 'informal rep underway'...when informal rep was rejected the ticket 'opened up' and the 'formal rep screen' was available [different screen totally] ...the council has now admitted that the webpage should not have let me make a 'formal appeal online' as the driver and 'that needs fixing asap'....


Thanks for your comments, which have been noted.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 08:03
Post #1370689

QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:51) *
My partner's car has her father down as the RK [but she definitely owns the car]..


Why doesn't she register car in her name - it would certainly save all this aggro in the future?

Insurance cos. don't like privately owned cars being owned/registerd by someone other that the policy holder, assuming she has her own policy and has declared she is not the RK.

Posted by: aspar Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 10:09
Post #1370721

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 09:03) *
QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 08:51) *
My partner's car has her father down as the RK [but she definitely owns the car]..


Why doesn't she register car in her name - it would certainly save all this aggro in the future?

Insurance cos. don't like privately owned cars being owned/registerd by someone other that the policy holder, assuming she has her own policy and has declared she is not the RK.


You're preaching to the converted here mate!!!! lol





Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 12:32
Post #1370745

But this is not dealing with the issue.

Whether you could or couldn't go online is not the point, you're not the recipient of a NTO and therefore unless and until authorised in writing by the recipient, in this case the father, your observations are noted but cannot be grounds for any appeal or reps because there are none for you to make as you have no standing.

So, where does this leave the father?

Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 13:51
Post #1370768

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 29 Mar 2018 - 13:32) *
So, where does this leave the father?


He has to leave the NTO to his heirs in his will.


Posted by: aspar Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 15:19
Post #1371827

UPDATE:
FIL sent email saying daughter was owner, daughter sent another confirming she was owner.

Council has replied saying it won't accept these two emails and say he and she must comply with

S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S
2000 No. 2546
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000

This refers to fixed penalties etc.....

Is it not the case that local council enforced parking has been de-criminalised....???

Would love to tell the council they are wrong....!!!

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:37
Post #1371902

QUOTE (aspar @ Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 16:19) *
UPDATE:
FIL sent email saying daughter was owner, daughter sent another confirming she was owner.

Council has replied saying it won't accept these two emails and say he and she must comply with

S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S
2000 No. 2546
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000

This refers to fixed penalties etc.....

Is it not the case that local council enforced parking has been de-criminalised....???

Would love to tell the council they are wrong....!!!


They are, but will never get it. The liability for the penalty lies with the owner. For practicalities sake this is presumed to be the RK. For obvious reasons the council cannot be expected to accept the word of every one who says their not the owner it was some one else. But the burden of proof is on the balance of probability. If a person states that someone is the owner, then that person say's Hey I'm the owner. The probability is high. Some one will point you to the relevant regs I haven't got time ATM

Posted by: aspar Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 10:38
Post #1372023

thanks foir the reply...

Yeah I think the 'proper' legislation is mentioned above... TMA

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 11:00
Post #1372033

I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.

Posted by: aspar Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 13:08
Post #1372073

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 12:00) *
I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.


I am more minded to take this all the way to the Appeals Service [not sure of exact name] as I'm keen to get a ruling on the Code 12 versus Code 16.....there are thousands of tickets affected if they are found to be using the wrong code...oops!

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 01:06
Post #1372256

QUOTE (aspar @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 12:00) *
I think you could now additionally argue that if the council is referencing the wrong regulations, and in particular regulations relevant to criminal procedure, the council has misdirected itself in law. Thus a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.


I am more minded to take this all the way to the Appeals Service [not sure of exact name] as I'm keen to get a ruling on the Code 12 versus Code 16.....there are thousands of tickets affected if they are found to be using the wrong code...oops!

Oh don't worry, procedural improprieties are almost always rejected as the council don't want to admit they've done anything wrong. Unfortunately even if this goes to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, a decision in your case doesn't affect the validity of any other PCNs.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 07:04
Post #1372273

Still no PCN, NTO, reps of any sort or correspondence.

We don't know whether the authority's reply was a Notice of Rejection or request for further info. If the former, then the appeals registration clock is ticking. If the latter, what do they want?

IMO, the only knows here is the nose by which the OP continues to lead us in the absence of following established forum procedure regarding posting documents and I am concerned that advice is being given when we know so little.

Early morning paranoia again.

As regards the regs, as we don't know the details of the context then we cannot know their relevance. I can see a purpose as regards the authority because the Schedules to the regs contain prescribed formats for making declarations regarding ownership with, of course, the accompanying warning regarding the criminal liability for lying.

Poor old FIL, possibly soon to become even poorer.

And as regards who is liable, it is the RK unless the contrary can be proved.

Contrary to what?

Contrary to the presumption that the RK is the person by whom the vehicle is kept which in principle has nothing to do with who has title to (i.e. actually owns) the vehicle.

owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

Nowt to do with title.

Posted by: aspar Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:38
Post #1372313

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 08:04) *
Still no PCN, NTO, reps of any sort or correspondence.


It's asking for a url....so won't load pics from my PC...I assume I need to use some sort of photosharing site???

Whats the preferred choice on here...??

Or do I cut and paste into the thread?? [haven't tried that yet'''']

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:41
Post #1372316

QUOTE (aspar @ Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 10:38) *
It's asking for a url....so won't load pics from my PC...I assume I need to use some sort of photosharing site???

imgur and tinypic both seem to be popular on here.

Posted by: aspar Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 12:14
Post #1372977

thanks...I;'m away for four weeks and I'll upload when I return....unless I get the chncne before I go


Posted by: aspar Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:34
Post #1387392

UPDATE:

Council recently sent a letter saying 'Cancelled due to 'procedural impropriety'

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:52
Post #1387397

QUOTE (aspar @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 13:34) *
UPDATE:

Council recently sent a letter saying 'Cancelled due to 'procedural impropriety'


can you post it please. that is very unusual

Posted by: aspar Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 09:31
Post #1389389

Apologies.....the letter actually says...Although your Penalty Notice Charge was correctly given, we have cancelled it on this occasion due to a technical fault within the system.

Should I write and ask for an explanation of this said 'technical fault??' [wonder if the same fault could result in hundreds of other people getting a refund??? I'm sure the council wopuld welcome that.....


Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:51
Post #1389569

I would write back asking exactly what the technical fault is. You made representations and received a decision, you are therefore entitled to an explanation of the reasons for that decision. The fact that the decision happened to be in your favour doesn't change that.

Posted by: aspar Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:53
Post #1390386

Done and got an answer...

The technical fault to which we refer was due the system generating a duplicate Notice to Owner.



I've subsequently asked if they have cancelled ALL PCNs that this happened to.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:07
Post #1390456

Did you ever receive the duplicate NtO?

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