Bay Suspension PCN - No Photographic Evidence |
Bay Suspension PCN - No Photographic Evidence |
Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 10:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 21 Nov 2010 Member No.: 42,298 |
I couldn't find my car so checked with the pound and discovered that my car was at the pound.
I recall a non-standard residents' bay suspension sign being erected on the street the previous day but didn't think my car was in that location. At the pound there was a piece of paper on my windshield saying "No Parking: Tree works" with the location, time and date.
1. Please provide me with the details of the suspension I am alleged to have contravened. 2. Please provide me with copies of any and all photographs taken at the time the PCN was issued. 3. Please provide me with a copy of the notes that the CEO took when he served the PCN. 4. Please provide me with the precise location of the vehicle when it was removed. 5. Please provide me with copies of any and all photographs taken at the time the vehicle was removed. 6. Please provide me with a copy of the logs showing when the signs for the bay suspension were placed. 7. Please provide details of all parking bay suspensions on Lymington Road for the week commencing 15th October 2018. 8. Please provide the name of the person who suspended the parking bays referred for which the PCN was issued and their authority? What is my strongest defence, given that I don't have any evidence from Camden? This post has been edited by openshac: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 10:41 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 10:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 08:15
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 21 Nov 2010 Member No.: 42,298 |
Here is the appeal I am going to use. I just need to adjust the case number once I am provided with it.
Ground_of_Appeal.pdf ( 578.61K ) Number of downloads: 87 I can see there is some disagreement over when the grace period applies in this case. Would it harm my appeal to include this as a ground for appeal, if the information on Camden's own website is incorrect? |
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 18:22
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I don't think it would harm your appeal but it's a waste of time. Under regulation 4 of the general regulations, it's quite clear-cut that the 10 minute period must have expired by the time the PCN was served.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:32
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The contra view being --the PCN cannot be served within the 10 minute period.
Mick |
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 12:05
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The contra view being --the PCN cannot be served within the 10 minute period. Mick The contra view being without foundation, as reg 4(3) says "No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.", the word within does not appear. Hence if the permitted parking period ended at 08:30:00, the 10 minute period had been exceeded by 08:40:01 (or 08:40:00 + 1 nanosecond if you wanted to be pedantic). -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 15:59
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 21 Nov 2010 Member No.: 42,298 |
Appeal submitted. Will post back once I get a result.
Thanks again. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 16:57
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
This case is interesting from the point of view of members comments regarding the 10 minute rule. Where differing interpretations have been offered and there is still no consensus the usual direction is that the appeal on that ground goes forward. Let the Council or the adjudicator rule on it.
We should not deny an appellant a chance to put forward a ground which might or might not fly; that is not our raison d'ĂȘtre. Mick |
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 17:09
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
This is getting nowhere. Let the adj decide.
With respect to cp, this is taking a singular view. The PCN states 8.40, not a second, or nanosecond, later. 8.40 is what it states. And frankly, to suggest that the law is going to draw the forensic distinction invited here brings it into disrepute IMO. 11 minutes is a period exceeding 10 minutes, if the law expects a reasonable motorist to start counting seconds, then it is a ass, a idiot. Restriction starts at 8.30 means that 8.40 is a prohibited time, 8.41 is not. Let's see what the adj believes. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 21:13 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:27 |