PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

833 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 13:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


@MMV,
These disabled bays are for the sole use of people who are registered disabled...

Is this published by the council, I've no idea, neither importantly would the average motorist, IMO.

The criteria that the council wish to apply for their unique Disabled Resident etc.. are for them.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360999 · Replies: 34 · Views: 373

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 11:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


I stick to my interpretation.

The contravention relates to a permit bay, in this case a class of resident permit holder, therefore as it is a resident permit holder bay the BB exemption applies accotding to their letter.

The fact that their definitions confuse them as well as motorists is a problem they'll have to deal with at adjudication.

So, was the bay a resident permit holder bay'? IMO, yes.

The bay has nothing necessarily to do with the definition of disabled in the Chronically Sick etc. and regs because there is no logo on the sign.

Was the driver entitled as a matter of law to rely on an interpretation of the sign which conveyed the meaning that it was a class of res permit holder bay? IMO, absolutely, and I would argue this at adjudication.

Therefore the BB provisions would apply.

OP, you must get the timings and background clear, no changing half way through the process.

Parked by arrangement, but he wasn't ready. The whole process of getting your car out of contravention was accelerated not hindered by you assisting him.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360962 · Replies: 34 · Views: 373

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 11:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Hi NeilB,

Au contraire I'm afraid. My post contains the exact quote from their letter: BB holders are allowed to park without limit (para. 4 lines 5-8 refer).
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360951 · Replies: 34 · Views: 373

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 11:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


No. You must deal with correspondence in a timely manner and do not leave matters open-ended.

Dear Ms Mundbi,

Thank you for your email dated ***** in response to my email dated ****.

I can only restate the position regarding national parking regulations as they apply to England which is that only the recipient may make representations against a Notice to Owner. This cannot be unilaterally amended by me, Enterprise or the authority. I ask you to take advice on this if it would help and to accept that I am being as co-operative as I can be bearing in mind that, as regards parking regulations, I have no legal standing: only Enterprise may make representations and the only means by which liability for the PCN may be transferred to me is for you to make representations to this effect, I am afraid that a letter from you stating that it should not be considered as representations but that the authority should accept representations from me is wholly extra-procedural and improper.

I would again respectfully suggest that either you use my previous draft as your representations or simply seek to transfer liability under the applicable grounds.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360949 · Replies: 48 · Views: 823

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 09:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, forget about the adjudicator, you're not there.

Whoever's name is on the NTO must make reps no later than 5 March.

Arguments so far:
10-minute rule.
Their failure to address both substantive points of the challenge.

IMO, there is a fundmental issue here.
10-minute rule:
At the (now stated) time of contravention of 11.09 IMO the CEO was prevented from serving a PCN by virtue of the 10-minute regulation UNLESS they knew that you parked there after 11am. NB, not that you were parked there after, but that you actually parked there after 11am. This is a fundamental point IMO and unless the CEO knew you parked after 11am it makes their PCN no more than a fishing expedition putting the burden on the motorist. We've seen adjudications allowed on this principle. As far as I can see, the CEO came on the scene at 11.04. (forget what you did, at the start of obs it's ONLY what the CEO had a reasonable belief occurred)
So, what would happen in EVERY case in Westminster where a CEO sees a vehicle parked in any parking place less than 10 minutes after controls start? Issue a PCN? And if the motorist didn't know about the 10-minute rule and had parked there before controls and pays? Hey presto, Westminster are UNLAWFULLY £65 better off.

Remember..
Evidence of contravention

6. A penalty charge shall not be imposed except on the basis of—

(a)a record produced by an approved device; or
(b)information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by him
.

Not guessed, but observed.
Disgraceful.

As regards the reps, I'd focus on this point. Don't get hung up on whether you parked just before or after, you weren't paying attention to the exact time, all you know is that it was around 11am and could have been before or after. But of GREATER importance is that the b****y CEO didn't know either. You're not required to focus on every minute in your life to justify your actions and approximation is an everyday practice, however CEOs when exercising the power of an Enforcement Authority and considering penalising a motorist are not allowed this flexibility, they have to be precise and correct.

Rant over.

A question for other experts:
If in your circumstances you had returned and driven away at, say, 11.06, would the authority have been permitted to serve a postal PCN??
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360910 · Replies: 26 · Views: 1,225

hcandersen
Posted on: Today, 07:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, can we get back to the events please and focus on the BB side of the argument.

You parked for the purpose of ****** Mr A by prior arrangement (some short explanation would help);
Mr A possesses a BB;
The parking bay is situated outside Mr A's house and therefore as you anticipated that Mr A would be ready when you arrived (why?) you would be parked without displaying Mr A's BB for a minimal period;
In the event Mr A *******;
The PCN was issued at *** after **** minutes' observation;
The authority's letter states that ' disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit'.

I don't see boarding/alighting as being a superior argument to you collecting the holder of a BB in order to transport them. As there's only a single BB in play (unlike res permits where visitor's permits can be obtained) then by virtue of the council's policy to allow these bays to be used by BB holders IMO ALL the associated allowances come into play including that the transporter is allowed time to obtain the BB from the person to be transported.

The question on this point is, how long?

So, some specifics pl.

And of course if the authority reject this line of argument in principle, irrespective of the time periods, then IMO they are misleading themselves as regards the correct legal framework for consideration of reps and this would be a PI in itself.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360891 · Replies: 34 · Views: 373

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, pl accept that what follows is meant in your best interests:

Stop bleating;
Stop calling them names;
Post docs, don't give us your precis of them.

You would be at adjudication I presume if you had received the NOR so, in the scheme of things, what's changed?

We must see their evidence case summary and your reps and their NOR. There you have it, all the key items at this stage.

No editorial, no narrative, just docs pl.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360815 · Replies: 124 · Views: 7,769

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you know the parameters of your argument and so you could proceed with it.

Adjudications are not determined by the Clapometer or whether there's a consensus of opinion on Pepipoo.

I am not prepared to risk you money, only you could do this.

So when you challenge etc. you must keep your eye on the end game. So don't just state it's not permissible, require them, should they reject your argument, to give a rationale for having this combination given that it has the potential to confuse.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360683 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


part of the CPZ in Brentford, so they have effectively admitted that it's a CPZ, and so it requires yellow lines.i

No, it doesn't.

The definition of CPZ is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made

This is type 1(a). See the definition... 'except where parking spaces have been provided etc.

So, within a CPZ yellow lines are not needed where parking spaces have been provided.

And, the use of this sign means that parking space road markings aren't required either.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360675 · Replies: 5 · Views: 140

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 07:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


The markings are either lawful or not.

Logic and whether we consider them nonsensical are not the issues. As I posted earlier, whether we like it or not, if it is lawful to place the DYL then an adj could not find that they were not lawful. This has nothing to do with my own views as to their purpose.

And as regards confusing, it would make adjudication even more of a lottery than it is already if only the driver's understanding (AKA knowledge or ignorance of the law) and how persuasively articulated were the determinant factors.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360527 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 07:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


There's no point speculating, there are too many options.

OP, you need to know why the CEO thought the limited parking contravention applied. Yes, it's got somethng to do with a permit, but you don't know what, invisibility, invalidity, you just don't know.

Find out.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360526 · Replies: 24 · Views: 530

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 22:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


If by placing them they confuse, then as they weren't placed in any unique manner it follows that they cannot be placed.

So they can in theory but not in practice. Can't see the powers that be rewriting the 2016 regs for our or this OP's convenience.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360485 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 22:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Parked in a 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


... is not the alleged contravention.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360483 · Replies: 24 · Views: 530

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


We cannot answer the question why the CEO issued the PCN on these grounds.

You were parked 4 hours after the permit was completed. So, the CEO didn't see it at all, or did but thought it was not valid but did you a favour with the lower level alternative contravention as opposed to higher level did not display?

We do not know and no amount of bouncing around the sketchy info will lead us to the answer.

Get their photos.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360456 · Replies: 24 · Views: 530

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Why the detail, I never understand why OPs do this.

The authority know the regs and orders, spelling it out in minute detail does not affect the facts which are independent and the question which you cannot answer but on which you have an opinion (as will the authority) remains the same: was the restriction marked correctly and clearly?

Steel yourself for a NOR and adjudication where you might win, but where you might not.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360454 · Replies: 31 · Views: 696

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, what was the date of the Notice of Rejection?

The procedure is that the registered keeper simply registers their appeal with a skelton argument, they do not have to go into detail at this stage.

Has an appeal been registered?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360450 · Replies: 34 · Views: 1,551

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


We can try and rationalise this until the cows come home, but IMO the fundamentals are whether a local authority are prevented from placing DYL in addition to a stopping prohibition.

All those thinking yes, form a queue on the left, those to the contrary on the right.

I'm on the right.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360449 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


You've chosen to read the sign as 'stopping is permitted other than at the following times' and argue that as stopping is a more onerous restriction than waiting that therefore waiting must be permitted.

But that's not what the sign says, it says that stopping is not permitted between A and B, it is silent on what other restrictions might apply outside this time other than stopping which is not prohibited.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360319 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 14:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you posted:

I had good reason to believe their sign that: parking is permitted at that time.

Which was what?

Each case turns on its own facts. The quoted case is hardly compelling given that it is so heavily caveated by 'I infer that it is the council's case that these restrictions are mutually exclusive no submissions are made on that matter in its case..' Had they been, the outcome could probably have been different.

And had you parked there before when presumably SYLs were in effect no longer than the stopping restriction? If so, then you knew the diffeerence between waiting and stopping, so what's changed in your understanding of this distinction?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360292 · Replies: 25 · Views: 598

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 13:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


we have not seen the paperwork.

Too right and the basis of so many long threads.

The only written evidence we have seen from a competent officer of the company to the authority states that 'this isn't reps' which clearly implies reps have not been made previously.

I can't unravel this, all I know is that as far as evidence in the context of the contract is concerned IMO the OP should act on the letter dated 19 Feb. No contractual fault could attach to them for doing so, and as regards parking regs the OP has no standing.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360276 · Replies: 48 · Views: 823

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 13:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


I'll just wait until the reps are posted.

OP, IMO the less you say at present the better.

If you have not received a copy of your reps by Friday, then chase them.

NOR dated 16 Feb therefore latest date of 28-day period is 19 March.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360250 · Replies: 16 · Views: 310

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 11:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Stamfordman gave you the basics earlier: sorry, made a mistake, senior moment (here's my bus pass or whatever to establish age), did pay, honest mistake, don't normally use this car park ( you've not mentioned this!).

I would forget trying to submit a hard-hitting challenge, they won't accept it and it would only put their backs up.

I'm not certain it's soundly based anyway.

The only time the word 'only' is used at the car park in this context is on the machine which clearly states that this section is for permit holders only Mon-Fri, and it's correct.

She parked, she went to the machine, there was a prominent notice informing motorists that 'this part of the car park is for season ticket holders Mon-Fri', and it was, a Tuesday!

And as far as trying to build an argument around the semantic difference between season ticket and permit, I wouldn't go there at this stage.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360192 · Replies: 23 · Views: 467

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 10:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


There cannot be a NOR.

What we have seen is Enterprise's letter which is clear: this letter is not reps[for the purpose of transfer of liability]

This has a legal connotation which has nothing to do with appealing to an adjudicator,

And it's the most current correspondence,
And as it is to the authority the OP may presume that it is from a competent person within Enterprise,
And IMO the OP may act on it (instead of the ping-pong emails ) as being Enterprise's current position - they're not required to go back to the Ark and assess this in light of preceding info,
And if the s**t subsequently hits the fan, then the OP must get their position clear with Enterprise now.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360179 · Replies: 48 · Views: 823

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 10:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you're editorialising your reps and probably, shall we say, amending contents and emphasis in light of TfL's response.

TfL have a duty to consider, so post your reps and let's see whether they have.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360170 · Replies: 16 · Views: 310

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 09:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,854
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Can we be cleat.

Have Enterprise paid the penalty charge?

If not, then play a straight bat. You have written to the council so I would now respond to Enterprise...

Thank you for you letter dated 19 Feb.

As my hire contract is with you, I have carried out your instructions to write to the council, see copy of my letter. However, I would advise you that this is contrary to parking legislation because only the recipient of the NTO may make representations ( I have enclosed an extract of the relevant regulations). I do not know how the authority will respond to your extra-procedural letter or my letter but would advise you that I cannot be held liable by you should the authority disregard this correspondence and possibly send you a charge certificate after the expiry of the 28-day payment period as they are entitlted to do.

Hugs
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1360142 · Replies: 48 · Views: 823

833 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

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

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 23rd February 2018 - 14:48
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.