PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN in No Return Within 1 Hour bays
surrounded
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 11:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,329



Hi all.

I had a PCN a couple of weeks ago that I have appealed, and my appeal has been refused.

The signage states: ‘Mon-Fri 9am-6pm, Permit Holders or 1 hour,
No return within 1 hour’.

I parked outside a friend's house for ten minutes, left, and returned an hour and five minutes after driving off.

They have refused my appeal giving the following reason:
"Whilst I appreciate that you state in your appeal that you were only parked for 10 minutes
at approximately 14:15 and then returned at 15:30; the signs clearly state that parking is
permitted for a maximum of 1 hour and not to be re-parked within 1 hour which makes a
total of 2 hours from the time you originally parked to the time you can return to re-park in this road. The situation described in your appeal is not grounds for cancellation
of this Penalty Charge Notice."

I'm not aware of anyone interpreting the no return rule in this way and believe this to be misleading. Any advice as to whether they are usually implemented in the way that they have described in the refusal? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 49)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 11:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 08:58
Post #41


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Get the tape measure out!

This is the Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...-Order-2016.pdf

The GSV:_

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0075963,-...3312!8i6656

Specifically states at Sch 1 that the bay has to be 2 metres wide--looks tight.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:40
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You have a NTO dated 3 July.

Latest date for reps - 1 August, next Wednesday.

They say you did, you say you didn’t. I don’t like asking for info out of context which, as now, leaves you trying to decipher what’s supplied. IMO, reps stating your case with a clear requirement that should they reject they must produce the record(s) upon which they’re relying is the way forward. If what’s been supplied to date is ambiguous, then tell them: l have looked at the evidence which you’ve supplied which is inconclusive/ambiguous and which does not prove the contravention.

IMO, it’s too late for tape measures, this might be added if applicable to any appeal to an adj.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 11:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:54
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:58) *
Get the tape measure out!

This is the Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...-Order-2016.pdf

The GSV:_

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0075963,-...3312!8i6656

Specifically states at Sch 1 that the bay has to be 2 metres wide--looks tight.

Mick


A Polo is about 1.75m wide, so looks to me just about bang-on 2m wide if that is so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
surrounded
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 22:45
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,329



Thanks all. Just writing up my challenge.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:31) *
Bit that does worry is that first observation was 14.22 which is a little after 14.15 time that Op says they left ?


Think you might have misread my opening post. I arrived at 14:15 and parked for about 10 minutes, which ties in with his observation time.

This post has been edited by surrounded: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:08
Post #45


Member


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



QUOTE (surrounded @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:45) *
Thanks all. Just writing up my challenge. Which box am I ticking as to why I'm challenging, Other?

The alleged contravention did not occur (their bonkers interpretation of "no return with one hour" + you went away and came back after more than an hour)
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority (their failure to consider your reps properly)


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 10:37
Post #46


Member


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



You can add this to your challenge:
-------------------------
The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The telephone payment option includes a 3p per minute surcharge:

On the rear of the PCN it is stated that payment can be made by telephone by calling the payment line 0845 130 4466. The Office of Communications confirms on its website at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-an...all-really-cost that:

"The cost of calling 0843, 0844 and 0845 numbers is made up of two parts: an access charge going to your phone company, and a service charge set by the organisation you are calling.

The service charge for calls to 084 numbers is between 0p and 7p per minute
"

When calling the council's 0845 number, the caller is charged a 3p per minute service charge, which is set by the organisation being called, in this case East Hampshire District Council. In London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
"

In this instance, by imposing a 3p per minute service charge for telephone payments, the council is offering a payment method which exposes the motorist to having to pay a total amount which exceeds the statutory penalty prescribed by law. The High Court has already ruled that where one payment method attracts a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods that do not attract the surcharge is not relevant and an appeal must be allowed on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the penalty due under the statutory scheme. It follows that even if my other grounds lack all merit, the penalty charge notice must be cancelled.


--------------------
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 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 10:45
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I hope not..it’s not a challenge and reps had to be in by last Wednesday.

OP, when and how did you submit your reps?

Pl post a copy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
surrounded
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 15:46
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,329



Victory!

Had a letter today to say they're cancelling it. No explanation or apology for their ridiculous claim about the meaning of No Return.

Thank you all for your help. Much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 16:11
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Someone with a little common looked at it.
And realised they were stuffed on the informal rejection.
Well done

BTW, did you include the penalty exceeds re the 0845 number ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
surrounded
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 19:38
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,329



No, I had already submitted the challenge. But it might help someone else so good to know!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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 - 17:28
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