PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PNC Loading bay
w90210
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 15:38
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 18 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,462



[attachment=62672:Loading_bay.pdf]

HI, received this PNC from the driver, who says she parked for under 10 minutes in this bay. The car is on an operating lease so the company is the registered keeper at DVLA. The car wasn't being used on business at the time. the tarmac is marked Loading Only and there is a small sign that says Loading Bay but nothing else. Is there any way out of paying this or is it a case of pay the £35 and forget. Any input appreciated, thanks.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Loading_bay.pdf ( 589.82K ) Number of downloads: 95
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Advertisement
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 15:38
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 00:59
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Sat, 20 Apr 2019 - 22:00) *
A TMA 2004 PCN is issued but nothing further under the TMA 2004 proceeds despite Parliament passing the TMA 2004. How can parking enforcement hop from the decrim TMA 2004 Act to the criminalised 1984 Act?

Parliament also enacted The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007 when the provisions of the TMA 2004 came into force. From the explanatory note:

The new regulation 5C (inserted by regulation 4) empowers a civil enforcement officer (as defined in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) to remove a vehicle found in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions (as so defined) in respect of which he has given a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention in accordance with regulation 9 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.

If you then look at the explanatory note to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 it says:

"Part 4 makes provision for the making of representations and appeals in relation to vehicles which have been removed and stored or disposed of, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and regulations made under it.

Regulation 11 specifies the persons to whom the regulation applies, requires such persons to be informed of their right to make representations and to appeal to an adjudicator, confers on such persons a right to make representations to the enforcement authority and specifies the basis on which they may be made. Regulation 12 specifies the duties of an enforcement authority in relation to representations received by it under regulation 11 and regulation 13 confers a right to appeal to an adjudicator where the enforcement authority rejects representations made to it under regulation 11.
"

(In case you're wondering, I have read the regulations in full but I use the explanatory notes here as they can be quoted without making this post unreasonably long - I will add that nothing in the explanatory notes appears to be in any way inaccurate).

In light of this, any argument that in 2007 Parliament did not intend for councils to have removal powers under the RTRA 1984 once the TMA 2004 regs came into force is bound to fall flat on its face.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: It might, just might be possible to take the matter to the ECHR, and the outcome of that is at best uncertain. We know from the whole s172 malarkey that the European Court has been willing to qualify previously unfettered rights when the subject matter is seen as sufficiently minor. That's not to say a case can't succeed, just that it's arguable both ways and the outcome would be at best very uncertain.

But as a matter of domestic law, Parliament clearly intended for the councils to have these removal powers and it clearly intended for the rights to make reps, and the rights to appeal, to only arise once someone has paid to secure release of the vehicle. Given the regulations have been in force for over 10 years, a judicial review would be way out of time and I doubt it would get past the permission stage (I suspect it would be dismissed as being wholly without merit).

Now, if Alan Sugar or Richard Branson get their cars towed and they come on here and tell us they don't mind throwing 50-100k at a judicial review just for the fun of it, by all means let's entertain them. But to suggest that ordinary persons of ordinary means should take on legal challenges that could cost thousands if not tens of thousands of pounds to pursue via the courts, with little prospect of success, is frankly not what we're here to do.

Ultimately 99.999% of people who come here will not have the inclination or the means to go beyond the tribunal stage and with that in mind, we need to deal with the domestic law as it is, not as we would like it to be. If I thought the vires arguments had any reasonable prospect of success, I'd be the first to argue it, but on my reading of the regulations this argument is simply hopeless.

I'm reasonably open minded and if you can find anything in the regulations I've quoted which you think I've missed, please feel free to start a thread in the flame pit and I'll be happy to explore the argument with you.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 06:41
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,056
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



28-day period ended on 11 April, 10 days ago.

We've not heard from the OP since 20 March, let's hope they did something.

OP, what's the present situation?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wretched Rectum
post Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 22:57
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 4 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,189



QUOTE
Parliament clearly intended for the councils to have these removal powers and it clearly intended for the rights to make reps, and the rights to appeal, to only arise once someone has paid to secure release of the vehicle. Given the regulations have been in force for over 10 years, a judicial review would be way out of time and I doubt it would get past the permission stage (I suspect it would be dismissed as being wholly without merit).


No one is denying that councils have removal powers and a person a right after removal to make reps and appeal. What is being questioned to quote from EDW , bogsy and others, is after removal " when is it appropriate to charge "the owner" under s.101A RTRA 1984 and when is it appropriate to charge "the person responsible" under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984? One charge includes the PCN and the other does not! One implies a council's right to keep possession and the other clearly does not. Part 4 The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 only concerns the charges under s.101A RTRA 1984 and not the charges under s.102(2A).

Also from others, why do the 1986 removal regulations contain two periods for recovery? These are "before it can be disposed of" and "before it is disposed of". What is it that differentiates them? It must be something but no explanation appears to have ever been given by a council or tribunal.

If a PCN says you have the right to make an informal challenge or 14 days to pay the discount, why is this denied when Parliament clearly intended it? I've never seen an answer to this. How can a PCN be legally valid unless all what it says is true?

What about the court ruling of R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent). It can't be just brushed aside. I've yet to see this ruling taken into consideration.

I do find it bizarre that when your point is denied at adjudication you protest that the adjudicator is wrong and advocate a continued fight but when these points are denied at adjudication, although supported by many menbers here and is not refuted by the very knowledgeable moderators, you oppose it, solely on the basis that an adjudicator denied it.

Its a double standard. If your adjudicator can be wrong, so can others.

If I have the misfortune to visit London and have my car towed I can easily (due to my inheritance and retirement package) afford to go to JR and I will ( I've never encouraged others to do so though). Until then I'll stick to sailing my yacht on the river Dart and along the coast to Falmouth. I and hubby retired from London to Devon and now no longer fear bus lane PCN's, moving traffic PCN's, congestion charges, tunnel charges, etc etc. Still face parking PCN's but very little enforcement here being rural and the worst is a £70 fine and even then the county council will extend payment over 12 weeks on request. A dispensation to park on a double yellow line only costs £5.00 total whether from 1 day or up to 21 days and resident permits are £30 per year. Move away from London if you can is my advice.

OP.......if bags of stuff was taken to a charity shop I suggest a letter or note is obtained from the charity shop confirming this. You can write it and ask them to sign and stamp it. Don't mention your visit to Boots. It will work against you. TPT is much more lenient than the London tribunal system and if you have a supporting note/letter from the charity shop, it should swing your way.

This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 00:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 07:48
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,056
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



But the OP is not the registered keeper and until we know that liability has been transferred ......



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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:33
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here