NO PCN affixed, received NTO, rejected representation Options

[Hypaspist]

Hello to everyone,

I would like to have your opinion on whether I should appeal to the independent adjudicator or not.

One day I received an NTO (attached) in mail out of the blue. It was about my failure to pay the PCN that was issued 1 month ago for parking in a marked bay area on a street in Bristol without paying and displaying a ticket. I indeed had parked there, after 21:00 but was under the impression that parking was free after 18:00. Regardless, my first surprise was the fact that there was no PCN affixed to my car at the time, which explains why I haven't attempted to pay it.

Now the NTO says that because I haven't paid in the first 14 days, the penalty is £50. Naturally, I appealed formally. In my appeal I stated that:

1. The photo presented by the parking warden shows a blurry and distorted image of the front windscreen with a piece of paper under the right wiper. I assume this piece of paper to be the PCN, but regardless of this, nothing was attached on the windscreen as expected when I entered the vehicle.
2. Anyone could have taken the piece of paper, it could have been blown away by the strong wind of that night or simply be a fake as the picture shown as evidence doesn't prove that it was a legit PCN
3. The parking sign is not clearly visible. There is a parking sign that promts to check the ticket machine further than 10m away, deep within evergreen hedge that is private property.
4. No other cars where parked next to mine or behind mine, all parking places where empty, includingthe side of the road with single yellow line behind my car. I could have parked there.

Explanation why I appealed to these points:
Point 1) The picture is so blurry that I dont even know if it is a legit PCN or not. If it wasn't, that would explain why the traffic warden didn't want to leave it and never actually did
Point 2) The picture shows this piece of paper left under my wiper. Not stuck on the windscreen as usual for Bristol but just left there. Either someone took it just for fun or actually it is their policy to never leave it in order for citizens to have to pay the increased penalty and therefore make more money.
Point 3) They follow up in the notice of rejection by saying that the signage of entering a CPZ was 5m away. No it is not. It is more like 10m away, 5 car widths, right next to hedges which have overgrown their space and therefore hiding it. There is a HUGE sign about new road layout in the middle of the pavement yet they opted to put the more important parking sign at the edge of the parking area, next to an evergreen hedge.
Point 4) I must be really stupid to park in a park and display zone illegally since I was the only car around and there are single yellow lines 10m away where I could have parked legally and free. This argues that their sign is not visible on a poorly lit street in the middle of the night!

I have received their rejection and a few points seem a bit over the line.

1. They mention it is my responsibility to locate the signage. How? Take a pair of clippers and clip the hell out of someone's hedge? Following the NTO, I made a formal complain to the council to do something about the issue. They replied that it is a matter for the parking services. I replied that it is NOT, it is a matter of the quality and state of the road, to which they replied that " it is up to the landlord to maintain their vegetation. Notwithstanding, we have forwarded your service request to the neighbourhood enforcement team. They may contact you in due course." I never head back from that.
2. Following my comments, they now allow me to pay the reduced rate, whereas previously they demanded the full rate. HOWEVER, if I dare apply to the adjudicator, my case will be examined with the full penalty! I consider this to be somewhat blackmailing.
3. They mention that the "charging hours are displayed on road signs located on all entry points to the CPZ. The sign was approximately 5 m the rear of where the vehicle was parked" Firstly, there are no signs in the entry points to the CPZ. The only sign 5m away from where I parked says "Pay at machine", no hours. And what does the "rear of the vehicle" mean? There are no signs behind or infront of the parking area!

I am attaching all the pictures I can. I apologise for the lack of information but Im trying to be as discreet as possible.
I would like to know your opinion on pushing further with this and where should I focus my attention to. Do I have a case or do I count my loses and succumb to the reduced penalty?

Thank you in advance














This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 20:34

[Advertisement]

[hcandersen]

OP, we still need to see all the authority's photos clearly separated from GSV snapshots and yours.

[Hypaspist]

OP, we still need to see all the authority's photos clearly separated from GSV snapshots and yours.

Here you go. 11 photos that the warden has provided. I only removed the licence plate. In most of them you can tell the number so there's no point arguing this is not the car. Hope you don't mind I uploaded it as a zip file. I had issues lately with tinypic

Attached File(s)

 New_folder.zip ( 754.19K ) Number of downloads: 35

 

[cp8759]

Having read your appeal, I agree with everything hcandersen has said. Redraft your appeal along the lines he suggests and post a new draft.

[Hypaspist]

Having read your appeal, I agree with everything hcandersen has said. Redraft your appeal along the lines he suggests and post a new draft.

I have removed a lot of stuff (mainly references to statutes etc so as to not to appear aggressive yet unqualified), included the points from @hcandersen and @Mad Mick V and this is the 2nd draft

I need to revisit the photo references though, to make sure they match up

Attached File(s)

 adj_blind_v2.pdf ( 109.82K ) Number of downloads: 28

 

[cp8759]

There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.

[Hypaspist]

There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.

I can send the editable copy early this evening.

What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly. I thought that messing up someone's name is enough to render the documents invalid. I even saw some cases in this forum where the title is Mr instead of Ms. And actually my name, without the 2nd first name, is fairly common.

Im starting to get the vibe that the adjudicators are not exactly as neutral as they are supposed to be. Basically any small detail that I can pick up as wrong will annoy him whereas the CEO not even being able to get a decent photo evidence is fine by him?

This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 13:47

[cp8759]

What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly.

The adjudicators are impartial but will only consider substantive issues as having merit. If your name were spelt wrong to such an extent as you could be in genuine doubt as to whether the paperwork was directed at you, you'd have a strong case. As you know you're the intended recipient, arguing over your middle name (or second first name or whatever) will be seen as nothing more than just trying it on, indeed if you were to appeal on that ground alone you would be risking an adverse order for costs.

The adjudicators are impartial, it makes no difference to them whether you win or lose so they have no reason not to be.

[Hypaspist]

What do you mean without merit? I have 2 first names and they didn't include the 2nd one. They didn't write my name correctly. I always write my full legal name in official paperwork. Shouldn't I report this? What kind of person is the adjudicator that can be annoyed by the fact that they mess up my name? If anything it shows that they don't even know how to fill in paperwork correctly.

The adjudicators are impartial but will only consider substantive issues as having merit. If your name were spelt wrong to such an extent as you could be in genuine doubt as to whether the paperwork was directed at you, you'd have a strong case. As you know you're the intended recipient, arguing over your middle name (or second first name or whatever) will be seen as nothing more than just trying it on, indeed if you were to appeal on that ground alone you would be risking an adverse order for costs.

The adjudicators are impartial, it makes no difference to them whether you win or lose so they have no reason not to be.

Is there a case where this can actually happen?
If someone is called Anne-Marie Smith and the letter is addressed to someone named Anne Smith and you know there are Anne Smiths in general but no-one has obviously the same car, licence plate and live in the same address as you, when would this have merit? Obviously, they got your car in photo evidence, then from the licence plate found your details. So if they wrote the name wrong then surely the fault is with the DVLA or the parking services.

I'm not asking as to argue for putting this in the appeal but to get a sense on how are arguments graded for merit. Would you argue for example that you're not the person the NTO is addressed to if there was nothing else to base your appeal on?

[cp8759]

Would you argue for example that you're not the person the NTO is addressed to if there was nothing else to base your appeal on?

If that were the only basis of appeal, I would recommend paying the discount.

[Hypaspist]

There's still some stuff without merit, like “XXX ZZZZ” and not “XXXX YYYY ZZZZ” which is only likely to annoy the adjudicator. The technical points are valid but need to be argued correctly. If you can send me an editable copy I can tidy this up for you.

Here's the 2nd draft in docx format
I removed the wrong name part as suggested.

This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 19:41

Attached File(s)

 adj_blind_v2.zip ( 17.81K ) Number of downloads: 29

 

[Hypaspist]

.

This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 19:40

[Hypaspist]

bump

[hcandersen]

Can't access on my ipad, I'm afraid.

[PASTMYBEST]

bump

Not got time to reread the thread just now. What is the date of the notice of rejection of the representations against the NTO

[Hypaspist]

The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 17:13

[Hypaspist]

A few more pieces of evidence to support my case:

The sign as it was a few moments ago:


The closest place that has a single yellow line. Knowing that the place I parked was under ticket control, I would have parked here. It is literally on the other side of the road. Even from this angle, the sign is still not visible.


This is a ticket issued to a car that parked on an adjacent road. As you can see, the CEO who issued the ticket didn't bother sticking it to the windscreen and just placed it under the wiper. I could have very easily taken it and the driver wouldn't know. I wouldn't call this "affixed", unless the local council gives a different meaning to affixed other than e.g. what the Cambridge dictionary has. I guess it is the same CEO (maybe they have a dedicated patrolling area, I don't know) or they are all given the instruction to put it under the wiper.


Which makes me wonder. What if someone makes the argument that by placing the ticket under the wiper, the CEO caused damage to it? Indeed, the driver could very easily present receipt for parts and labour on replacing the wiper arm, probably completely unrelated yet the argument should stand.

[cp8759]

The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

I think the photos you've provided have the potential to be very helpful, however we need to get things into proportion here:

1) The Notice of Rejection is dated 25 March according to you (I haven't got time to double check right now). This means you have until 23 April to register your appeal on the tribunal website, and you'd normally get a couple of weeks after that to submit your actual grounds of appeal. With that in mind, while I'm happy to help draft the appeal for you, I'm not going to do that right now. There are other cases that are simply more urgent right now (aside from the fact that this is something I do in my spare time).

2) I'm not sure we've seen all the council pictures. Put every last picture the CEO took on a site like imgur.com and post a link on here. I cannot formulate a signage appeal without this.

3) Bump once you've done the above and I'll put your appeal on my todo list.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 19:59

[Hypaspist]

The date of rejection is 25/03.
The bump was mostly for cp8759 who asked for an editable text to provide his corrections.
Ideally I would like to send my case to the adjudicator as soon as possible.

I think the photos you've provided have the potential to be very helpful, however we need to get things into proportion here:

1) The Notice of Rejection is dated 25 March according to you (I haven't got time to double check right now). This means you have until 23 April to register your appeal on the tribunal website, and you'd normally get a couple of weeks after that to submit your actual grounds of appeal. With that in mind, while I'm happy to help draft the appeal for you, I'm not going to do that right now. There are other cases that are simply more urgent right now (aside from the fact that this is something I do in my spare time).

2) I'm not sure we've seen all the council pictures. Put every last picture the CEO took on a site like imgur.com and post a link on here. I cannot formulate a signage appeal without this.

3) Bump once you've done the above and I'll put your appeal on my todo list.

1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

2,3) I've uploaded them in post #22 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1475414 These are all the photos the CEO took

This post has been edited by Hypaspist: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 20:13

[cp8759]

1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

There is literally no advantage at all in registering your appeal early.

[Hypaspist]

1) Yes it is 25/3. I thought it would register better with the adjudicator if I were to send my case within the "grace" period

There is literally no advantage at all in registering your appeal early.

Given that the deadline is this Saturday and with Easter holidays coming, would I have to appeal tomorrow? Or it doesn't have to be on a workday?