Appeal rejected - Bexley, Contravention code 27 |
Appeal rejected - Bexley, Contravention code 27 |
Fri, 12 Aug 2022 - 17:02
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,628 |
Hoping you could help please. - on the 24th June, I received an NTO. The driver of my car at the time had received a PCN and not told me about it. When I challenged him, he said that he tried to pay but it wasn’t showing up. He sent me a screenshot. - on the 3rd of July, I appealed (see attached) on procedural impropriety and contravention did not occur. I did this after reading several posts on this forum. So used some of the wordings and adjusted accordingly. - On 6th Aug, I received a rejection. But the letter says that I made an error as put in “0” instead of “O” and that the contravention occurred. I don’t know how I missed that. Is there anything else I can do? When I viewed the evidence, he was over by a bit but the person's driveway is so wide that he wasn't even close to obstructing - seems like it was done out of spite as you could see the homeowner in the picture. I haven’t been able to obtain a copy of the PCN from the driver as he’s chucked it. Something I noticed is that the response insinuates that I’m the driver but I wasn’t the driver and never said in my letter that I was. Can I use this or am I bang to rights on this? Evidence: 1. NTO: 2. My appeal: [i]Further to receiving your Notice To Owner dated 23rd June 2022, please see below my appeal: 1. “procedural impropriety” - The driver was not given the chance to review the evidence online and to make an informed decision on whether to pay the fee at the discount or submit an appeal. The driver tried several times and the system failed to recognise the reference. Attached is evidence of one of the attempts. 2. The contravention did not occur I dispute that the parking contravention "27, Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway" took place. The photograph on the said Notice clearly shows that the wheels of the front of the car does not encroach on to the prohibited area where the slope meets the kerb. The evidence shows that the car is not obstructing access and the dropped kerb is still able to fulfil its purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway. In light of the above, I look forward to the Notice of Acceptance from the Council and the cancellation of the above PCN. [/i] 3. The rejection 4. The car apologies, I've rotated evidence no3 but it's coming up sideways! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 12 Aug 2022 - 17:02
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Aug 2022 - 18:35
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 7 Sep 2016 From: Glasgow Member No.: 86,985 |
The registered keeper is responsible for a Notice to Owner, not the driver. So there’s no dice on that argument.
It’s a contravention if any part of the car is alongside the flat bit of the kerb (not the slope), not just the wheels. From your photo, it looks like you’re too far over to be borderline. I probably wouldn’t let that person drive my car again to be honest. Sounds like they tried to hide the PCN from you. While that’s pretty unfair, it’s not really procedural impropriety on the part of the council. I’d be more mad at the driver than the council here. |
|
|
Fri, 12 Aug 2022 - 18:42
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would pay the penalty and demand the money from the driver.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Aug 2022 - 22:24
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,912 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
The photo of the parked car shows it as in contravention, with about 30cm of the car intruding into the dropped area, so the PCN is valid. Arguments that the dropped kerb remained useable are irrelevant. I would pay this one, and get the money off the driver. If you can't then clearly that person should not be lent use of your car again.
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Aug 2022 - 08:24
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,628 |
*sigh*
thanks a lot - I guessed as much. I've asked for payment but nothing yet - I'll have to pay. I'm surprised they haven't given the registered keeper the opportunity to pay the reduced amount - that's unfair |
|
|
Sat, 13 Aug 2022 - 22:22
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
We can help you sue the driver if you want.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 - 06:26
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,628 |
nah - he's family but thanks for the offer
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 - 07:42
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
Please provide a google street view of the location - just copy the web address at the top of the page when looking at the spot, and post it here
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 - 08:40
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
nah - he's family but thanks for the offer Ah, so presumably he'll be offering to pay in any event. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Aug 2022 - 09:12
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Post the 'attached appeal form'. At present the NOR is defective, fatally so IMO.* But let's see everything pl. At present your chances are better at adjudication than with your initial reps. *- incorrect rights of appeal and payment dates (because they're both referenced to '28 days from the date of service' as opposed to 28 days beginning on)... no reference to the adjudicator's power to allow further time to submit an appeal; no reference to costs. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 07:19 |