City of London PCN, Suspended bay expiry? |
City of London PCN, Suspended bay expiry? |
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 12:11
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
Hopefully somebody will be able to shed some light on this matter.
Whilst working in the City of London on 3rd March I parked my van in a suspended bay after checking the notice cable tied to a nearby sign post. The notice stated that the reason for the suspension (Crane) and the duration of the suspension, from 02/03/2019 until 03/03/2019. In my mind, and that of both the Collins and Cambridge dictionaries, the use of the word until implies up to but not including, as I have seen evidence that other suspension notices do include the wording "until and including". I challenged the PCN on these grounds and but was turned down. Do I have any chance of making a formal representation on these grounds or should I resentfully pay the charge before it increases? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 12:11
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 12:56
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
let's see your challenge and their rejection.
Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like if you run out of space here. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:14
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
Here you go.
My challenge is just a plain word doc. that i copied and pasted as I don't seem to be able to upload the doc. The response is a scan of the letter I received from City of London.
Attached File(s)
PCN_refusal.pdf ( 389.41K )
Number of downloads: 38
I_wish_to_challenge_PCN_number_CL81629231_for_the_following_reason_copy.pdf ( 81.02K ) Number of downloads: 30 |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:17
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Wonders will never cease! CoL using their approved suspension sign.
This is the approval:- http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3520.pdf I don't think the sign photographed is made out correctly. Plus the bay does not appear to be marked on GSV:- https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5192938,-...6384!8i8192 Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:23 |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:33
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 529 Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,788 |
QUOTE Plus the bay does not appear to be marked on GSV:- https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5192938,-...6384!8i8192 It is from a different angle: https://goo.gl/maps/M13vkeDppGs |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 15:01
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
As a writer and editor myself I commend you on bringing the definition of until to their attention but of course they say the extent and duration are clear.
I expect you realised that they meant to include 3 March and you tried it on? Would be interesting to find out if an adjudicator takes until on board. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 15:32
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
As a writer and editor myself I commend you on bringing the definition of until to their attention but of course they say the extent and duration are clear. I expect you realised that they meant to include 3 March and you tried it on? Would be interesting to find out if an adjudicator takes until on board. doesn't matter if you tried it on or not coz the council cannot prove that. and the burden is on them We have won on this point in the past (but can't find it) You are entitled to clarity -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 17:04
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Cannot guarantee a win but worth a shot if you do not mind risking the full amount.
After all, if I see a No Waiting restriction from 8am to 6pm, I would not expect to get done at 6pm. And many suspension signs we see do include times or wording such as "at all times" |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:05
Post
#9
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
As a writer and editor myself I commend you on bringing the definition of until to their attention but of course they say the extent and duration are clear. I expect you realised that they meant to include 3 March and you tried it on? Would be interesting to find out if an adjudicator takes until on board. To be fair, the duration of the suspension did seem odd and I thought about it for a while before deciding, as there was no crane in sight and that at least four other motorists had already parked in the adjacent bays, that it was worth a shot. I would argue that if I said that I would be off work until Monday, it would be reasonable to expect to see me back at work on Monday, not Tuesday. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:17
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
[/url]
Hopefully somebody will be able to shed some light on this matter. Whilst working in the City of London on 3rd March I parked my van in a suspended bay after checking the notice cable tied to a nearby sign post. The notice stated that the reason for the suspension (Crane) and the duration of the suspension, from 02/03/2019 until 03/03/2019. In my mind, and that of both the Collins and Cambridge dictionaries, the use of the word until implies up to but not including, as I have seen evidence that other suspension notices do include the wording "until and including". I challenged the PCN on these grounds and but was turned down. Do I have any chance of making a formal representation on these grounds or should I resentfully pay the charge before it increases? This is the picture I was referring to when I said,"I have seen evidence that other suspension notices do include the wording "until and including." (Picture 4) http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=126508 This one is clearer. https://i.imgur.com/dno7h2d.jpg This post has been edited by breezebarnez: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 21:49
Attached image(s)
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:16
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I think you may succeed if you call their bluff. They may well reject formal reps but not contest the tribunal.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:16 |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 10:17
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
As a writer and editor myself I commend you on bringing the definition of until to their attention but of course they say the extent and duration are clear. I expect you realised that they meant to include 3 March and you tried it on? Would be interesting to find out if an adjudicator takes until on board. doesn't matter if you tried it on or not coz the council cannot prove that. and the burden is on them We have won on this point in the past (but can't find it) You are entitled to clarity I wonder if you'd be able to have another look for the case that won on this point in the past. I'm hoping to use the attached picture of a suspension sign used by Hilligdon council (Until/including Saturday 23/03/2019) https://i.imgur.com/dno7h2d.jpg to demonstrate that the Sign used by CoL is not clear in the extent of its duration (until 03/03/2019) and in so doing, disputing and challenging the wording, "You will also note that the suspension notice clearly set out the extent and duration of the suspension," contained within the refusal of my informal challenge to the PCN issued on 03/03/19. Would there be any use in pointing out the the photographs used as evidence by CoL of the suspension sign show only the front of the sign and not the fold back wings and as such it cannot be proved that the wings were in place, casting a doubt on whether the sign is/was approved by the secretary of state? Surely the burden of proof would fall on CoL to prove this? Something else has occurred to me. The photograph of a suspension sign offered as evidence by CoL is just that. A photograph of a suspension sign. There is nothing to reference it to. It does not show a parking restriction sign along with the location number on the same post. Given that the series of photographs offered in evidence are time coded and begin at 12:18:38 with a photograph of my van pre-ticket. Then follow three in quick succession showing the ticket in place, 12:19:40, 12:19:42 and 12:19:48. Finally at 12:21:45 there is the photograph of a suspension sign. Given that CEO 844 has proved himself to be a pretty quick operator, spotting my van, first photo, issuing the ticket, then three more photos in one minute and ten seconds he then takes one minute and fifty seconds to walk to and photograph the suspension sign offered in evidence. Wikipedia give the average walking speed of a human as 1.4meters per second so being generous and allowing for hills and rough terrain, old age and injury lets put it at 1m per second. That would put the sign offered in evidence at 110m away. At 1.4m per second it is 154meters. That would put any suspension sign either around the corner on Sun Street or close to or beyond the junction of Lackington Street. Either way, as I see no evidence of where the suspension sign was displayed, on what grounds could it be challenged. One last thing, the refusal of my informal challenge refers to suspension signs and suspension notices whilst referring to the same thing. Can anything be made of this? Any help in this matter would be greatly received as I loathe to pay the charge. I put my back out working that day so with the associated osteopath fees I've paid, I'm in negative equity for that days work already. https://i.imgur.com/dno7h2d.jpg This post has been edited by breezebarnez: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:51 |
|
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 22:15
Post
#13
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
Wonders will never cease! CoL using their approved suspension sign. This is the approval:- http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3520.pdf I don't think the sign photographed is made out correctly. Plus the bay does not appear to be marked on GSV:- https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5192938,-...6384!8i8192 Mick In what way is the sign not made out correctly? I have just received my NTO and could do with some help. |
|
|
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 07:53
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Look at Art 2 of the approval.
Does the sign give times? Does it give the location e.g. Wilson Street? When the approval says "shall" those terms it details are mandatory. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 07:55 |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 09:24
Post
#15
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,068 |
As a writer and editor myself I commend you on bringing the definition of until to their attention but of course they say the extent and duration are clear. I expect you realised that they meant to include 3 March and you tried it on? Would be interesting to find out if an adjudicator takes until on board. I thought that you might like to know that the adjudicator did indeed agree with me about the definition of the word 'Until' and found in my favour. I'd like to post the notice I received from London Tribunals. Can you point me in the right direction please. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 09:37
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Wow - nice one. Did you go?
PCN CL81629231 Contravention date 03 Mar 2019 Contravention time 12:19:00 Contravention location Wilson Street Penalty amount GBP 130.00 Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space Referral date Decision Date 01 Jul 2019 Adjudicator Alastair Mc Farlane Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons The Corporation's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay in Wilson Street on 3 March 2019. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1219. The Appellant states that the suspension was from 2 March "until 3 March 2019". He asserts that there are no specific times included in the notice and that "until" does not mean "including". He refers to the OED and Collins and Cambridge dictionary definitions and asserts that until is a preposition means "up to". In the case summary the corporation assert that the suspension "covers the date 2 March 2019 up until and including 3 March 2019". They assert that the "suspension information would have been removed had the suspension not applied on that day. In this case the notice was taken down 1804 hours on 3rd March 2019" (sic). I have noted that the sign relied on by the corporation does not say "up until and including", but rather as the Appellant states "suspended until". The sign does not have any times specified on it. In those circumstances I agree with the Appellant's interpretation and while this may not have been the Corporation's intention, I consider that the sign was therefore ambiguous and the Corporation may not enforce the contravention. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 10:13 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:33 |