PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

School Lines PCN
BerenElly
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,515



Hello All,

On the 6th of January I parked on school lines near work. I have parked on these lines for the last 4 Years in non term times.

I checked the schools website on if the school was open and the 5th and 6th of January were down as INSET days. I proceeded to park there on the 5th and the 6th of January.

After work on the 6th I was greeted by a PCN for parking on the school lines. I promptly appealed with the following text:

Summary of Reasons for Challenge: I and many of my colleagues/people in the area have always parked here during non term times on these school lines. I have personally parked here every day since Friday 22/12. I've also parked here during every summer holiday since 2014

Attached is the document on term times from St George's school. It notes that today is closed which I was sure to check before I parked.

Can this be reviewed as mentioned it's never been an issue before


I finally received word back on 09/02, rejecting my appeal as per the below:

Please accept my apoligoes for the delay on my reply.
The Notice was issued as the vehicle was was seen failing to comply with the “School
Restriction” traffic restriction in *********** . The "No Stopping" on entrance markings,
restriction operates Monday to Friday 8:15 am to 9:45 am and 3:00 to 4:30 pm as shown on the
sign, which is clearly displayed at the location and is also indicated by “Keep Clear” and
‘zigzag’ markings on the road. In order to view the photographic evidence, please visit our
website on www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline and enter the Penalty Charge Notice number
and vehicle registration number. A vehicle is not permitted to park on school restriction
markings during the times shown as this can cause considerable obstruction and danger to
children.
It is the motorist’s responsibility to abide by the traffic regulations at all times. Having
reviewed this matter, I am satisfied that the Notice was correctly issued.
Given the above, I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and regrettably, you have
not established sufficient grounds for cancellation of this penalty charge. As your enquiry was
received within the discount period the amount of £65.00, will be accepted if payment is
received within 14 days of the date of this letter.

This concludes the Council’s dealings in this matter at this stage.


The issue I have is that the school was SHUT. I'm not sure how I could have caused obstruction and danger to children, as per their reasoning highlighted above?

Could anyone advise if I actually have a case here and what I can do to take this further, if so?

Thanks all for your time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
spaceman
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:22
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 580
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 18:32) *
However I think you have ground to have the PCN cancelled on a procedural impropriety. The council is under a duty to consider your representations, and your representation was effectively that the PCN should be cancelled because the school was shut. By completely ignoring this point, the council has committed a procedural impropriety (They could have considered this point and rejected it as grounds for cancellation, but they can't ignore it). Once we've had a look at all the paperwork we'll be able to advise if there are any further grounds, but this looks worth fighting already.


How can you possibly KNOW whether or not the authority considered the points raised by the OP?

They are only required to consider such representations, they are NOT required to respond to them.

Why people continue to see this as a PI is baffling when it does not satisfy the definition of a PI contained within the legislation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:28
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (spaceman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:22) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 18:32) *
However I think you have ground to have the PCN cancelled on a procedural impropriety. The council is under a duty to consider your representations, and your representation was effectively that the PCN should be cancelled because the school was shut. By completely ignoring this point, the council has committed a procedural impropriety (They could have considered this point and rejected it as grounds for cancellation, but they can't ignore it). Once we've had a look at all the paperwork we'll be able to advise if there are any further grounds, but this looks worth fighting already.


How can you possibly KNOW whether or not the authority considered the points raised by the OP?

They are only required to consider such representations, they are NOT required to respond to them.

Why people continue to see this as a PI is baffling when it does not satisfy the definition of a PI contained within the legislation.


You have raised this point many times and had it rebuffed many times.
The council have a duty to consider.
If they fail to take a step that is within Act or Regs that is a PI.
In not responding to any specific point within a challenge, that may not be 100% but is indicative that they have failed to consider.
Ergo, a PI
Final decision on that will be down to an adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:37
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,431
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



It was an informal challenge. Statutory duty to consider is at NTO stage although council should respond properly to an informal one as a 'general duty' but as we know many kick the can on to the double or quits stage.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:39
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:37) *
It was an informal challenge. Statutory duty to consider is at NTO stage although council should respond properly to an informal one as a 'general duty' but as we know many kick the can on to the double or quits stage.


Stat Duty applies at all stages despite what some adjudicators and authorities may believe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:44
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,431
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:39) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:37) *
It was an informal challenge. Statutory duty to consider is at NTO stage although council should respond properly to an informal one as a 'general duty' but as we know many kick the can on to the double or quits stage.


Stat Duty applies at all stages despite what some adjudicators and authorities may believe



I seem to recall when this came up a while ago there was a difference - possibly without significance - between a statutory and a general duty.

In any case, in practice very many rejections to informal challenges fail either test which is grist for next steps.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:54
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:44) *
........I seem to recall when this came up a while ago there was a difference - possibly without significance - between a statutory and a general duty.

In any case, in practice very many rejections to informal challenges fail either test which is grist for next steps.


Appeals Regs 3(2)(1)(b)(I) "those representations will be considered;"

It is a step that the authority is required to put onto any PCN that comes under TMA2004 and cannot be interpreted in any other way other then a Duty that the authorities must follow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:15
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,657
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



2160379006

he Appellant did not attend her personal hearing scheduled for 10:30 am on 15 October 2016.
The Appellant said that she was not the driver of the vehicle. She said that details of the driver were submitted to the Authority.
The Appellant had made formal representations to the Authority on 7 July and received no reply. She supplied a copy of the proof of posting. The details of the delivery address are correct.
The Authority said that it had not received those representations, and queried how the Appellant could have made representations if her vehicle was being driven without her consent. The Appellant never suggested that the vehicle was being driven without her consent. Her representations were based on a not uncommon misunderstanding that liability falls n the driver.
I am satisfied that informal representations were made but not considered. This is a procedural impropriety.
I would add that when checking the address to which informal representations should be sent, I found only one page of the copy of the PCN. This means that either the original PCN was defective or that the Tribunal has not been sent a correct copy of the original PCN. This is also a procedural impropriety, in either case
I allow the appeal.

2160325415

The Appellant is represented by Mr Dishman.
Mr Dishman had made informal representations o behalf of the Authority. Neither he nor the Appellant received a reply. The Authority has not included these representations in the evidence bundle.
Mr Dishman provided proof that the item was sent via Royal Mail's signed for service on 11 May and was delivered.
I am satisfied that there had been a procedural impropriety. I allow the appeal.

just a couple they are bot obliged to reply, but if not it is easy to infer that they did not consider
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:17
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,431
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:44) *
........I seem to recall when this came up a while ago there was a difference - possibly without significance - between a statutory and a general duty.

In any case, in practice very many rejections to informal challenges fail either test which is grist for next steps.


Appeals Regs 3(2)(1)(b)(I) "those representations will be considered;"

It is a step that the authority is required to put onto any PCN that comes under TMA2004 and cannot be interpreted in any other way other then a Duty that the authorities must follow.



I know. But the operational guidance seems to me to place a higher standard at the statutory NTO stage - e.g. not outsourced, must understand legalities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...al-guidance.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:37
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:17) *
.............I know. But the operational guidance seems to me to place a higher standard at the statutory NTO stage - e.g. not outsourced, must understand legalities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...al-guidance.pdf


I'm aware of the recommendations though confess to not understanding why.
Simple facts are, authorities can sub-contract at any stage (and do) but are required to keep control.
IMO makes no difference if Joe Bloggs Council Employee or Joe Bloggs sub contractor considers as long as within policy framework and under council supervision.
And have never found anything within the guidance that places less emphasis on informal considerations then on formal.
They must consider at all stages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:53
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,555
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



And IMO an adj is likely to find or is certainly not likely to not find that they did not consider because they make specific reference in their reply:

Please accept my apoligoes for the delay on my reply.
The Notice was issued as the vehicle was was seen failing to comply with the “School
Restriction” traffic restriction in *********** . The "No Stopping" on entrance markings,
restriction operates Monday to Friday 8:15 am to 9:45 am and 3:00 to 4:30 pm as shown on the
sign, which is clearly displayed at the location and is also indicated by “Keep Clear” and
‘zigzag’ markings on the road. In order to view the photographic evidence, please visit our
website on www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline and enter the Penalty Charge Notice number
and vehicle registration number. A vehicle is not permitted to park on school restriction
markings during the times shown.....


I am still at a loss as to why some believe that this is evidence of not considering the grounds of:

I and many of my colleagues/people in the area have always parked here during non term times on these school lines. I have personally parked here every day since Friday 22/12. I've also parked here during every summer holiday since 2014

You might have done and you might have been lucky and you certainly don't have hard evidence in support but anyway our response is as given above.

I consider that's considering.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:21
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,946
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (spaceman @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:22) *
How can you possibly KNOW whether or not the authority considered the points raised by the OP?

Certain knowledge is not needed, the OP only needs to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the authority did not consider his submission that the school was closed.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:53) *
Please accept my apoligoes for the delay on my reply.
The Notice was issued as the vehicle was was seen failing to comply with the “School
Restriction” traffic restriction in *********** . The "No Stopping" on entrance markings,
restriction operates Monday to Friday 8:15 am to 9:45 am and 3:00 to 4:30 pm as shown on the
sign, which is clearly displayed at the location and is also indicated by “Keep Clear” and
‘zigzag’ markings on the road. In order to view the photographic evidence, please visit our
website on www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline and enter the Penalty Charge Notice number
and vehicle registration number. A vehicle is not permitted to park on school restriction
markings during the times shown.....


I am still at a loss as to why some believe that this is evidence of not considering the grounds of:

I and many of my colleagues/people in the area have always parked here during non term times on these school lines. I have personally parked here every day since Friday 22/12. I've also parked here during every summer holiday since 2014

The rejection suggests they did not consider the representation that "Attached is the document on term times from St George's school. It notes that today is closed which I was sure to check before I parked."

See appeal 2170256432:

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”.

The rejection notice should have stated something like "we have considered your submission that the school was closed, but have decided this is not a sufficiently compelling reason to cancel the PCN" or words to that effect. Simply spelling out what the restriction is does not show the OP's representation that the school was closed has been considered. In fact, that short paragraph that simply spells out what the restriction is could be included as wording in the rejection letter for *any* representations submitted (that's the whole point of templated paragraphs), from "I didn't see the sign" to "little green men from mars teleported my car there", regurgitating the terms of the restriction does not show that the points raised by a motorist have been considered at all.

In the absence of any evidence that the council took into account the OP's assertion that the school was closed at the time of the contravention, the adjudicator is likely to find the council have committed a PI.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 24th June 2018 - 14:37
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.