PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bolton Council forced to pay Restitution, Councils own evidence incriminated them
FEENIX
post Mon, 11 Jun 2007 - 22:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



After a NPAS decision received today Bolton Council will start to receive legitimate claims for restitution of Penalty Charges

In an NPAS adjudication on the 29th May the adjudicator Mr Stephen Knapp allowed the appeal.


From the adjudication

Article 5(1) of the Bolton (Off-Street Designated Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2006 states that:

"No person shall cause a vehicle to stop, stand, wait, load and/or unload or otherwise remain at rest in a parking space within any parking place specified in Schedule 2 other than with its wheels wholly within a marked parking space within a parking place".

The requirement is therefore that the wheels of the vehicle must be "wholly within a marked parking

space".

The point of the Regulation can only be to impose some discipline in the parking of vehicles to ensure the
maximum use of the available parking spaces and that access routes are not obstructed.

I have been told by the Council that its parking attendants are instructed not to exercise any degree of

discretion if they believe that a parking contravention has occurred. However, it does seem to me that

when dealing with this particular contravention, before issuing a PCN the parking attendant might be well

advised to consider whether the vehicle is in fact causing the type of obstruction which the Order is

designed to prevent. In my view the Regulation cannot have been drafted simply to require a driver to

pay a penalty charge in circumstances where his vehicle is on or just over the white line of a parking

space, the question must be whether the mischief which the Regulation is designed to prevent

has occurred.

The Council is clearly obliged to provide adequate signing so that any particular restriction is reasonably

brought to the attention of the driver. It must be expected that drivers are highly unlikely to be able to

read the small printing on this type of sign from a moving vehicle and that unless alerted to a particular

requirement to do so are unlikely, having parked their vehicle, to go and read the "small print" on a sign

which is not readily visible from the place where the vehicle is parked.

This particular sign is headed "Conditions of Use" and refers in the first half dozen lines to the requirement
to purchase and display a pay and display ticket. Then, in the top third of the sign, there is a single line

which states: "A vehicle must park within a parking space". This does not of course follow the wording of

the Regulation Order that the wheels of the vehicle must be parked wholly within the space, which it

seems to me, is a clearer definition of what is required of the driver. In its current form, which I

understand is a standard wording used throughout the Council's car parks, a driver might interpret the

requirement as being that the vehicle should not park within an area which is not designated as a

parking space, for example, in an access route or turning area.

Furthermore the sign does not state that a penalty charge will be payable if any of the conditions are

breached and whilst a driver may well appreciate, from common experience, the requirement to purchase

and display a pay and display ticket it seems to me that it would not be necessarily obvious that a

penalty charge will be payable simply because a vehicle is on or over the white lines of a parking bay. If

the Council consider that this is important for the proper regulation of its car parks it seems to me that it

would not be unreasonable to expect it to highlight that particular requirement on the sign and perhaps

even place repeater signs around the car park in the area of the bays.

Ms Jackson has told me that there may be further reference to the requirement and the fact that a

penalty charge will be payable on the pay and display machine but she is uncertain and I have no

evidence of that. In my judgement, on the basis of the evidence provided to me in this case, I am not

satisfied that the signing of the requirement for every wheel of the vehicle to be parked wholly within the

bay is properly signed and because of that I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

I would also allow the appeal for that reason



(There was no evidence to support what Ms Jackson said, look at the P&D machine picture typical of all Bolton’s P&D Machines and it does not state what will happen if you do not P&D or commit some other contravention



They have now cut away the Foliage, note the lack of the word WHOLLY which appears in the TRO

above, also nowhere in Bolton does it tell you what will happen if you commit a contravention i.e.

A sign should inform the motorist that a Penalty Charge of £60 will be payable if a contravention occurs,

a list of the contraventions should follow, i.e Parking Out Of Bay, Not Displaying a valid Pay and Display

ticket, etc etc.

Whilst disappointed on not getting a result with the four points on the PCN all were given a good airing

and as this appeal does not set a precedent I believe that these four PCN points will crop up again and

again.

If anyone wants a PDF copy of the Adjudication if you pm me with your email address I will send one, it

makes quite interesting reading. if you live in the Bolton area this should be front Page of the Bolton

News.

The NPAS case number is BO 05202G

<a href="http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=s...tendant2nt2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1646/sh...dant2nt2.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>

Shy parking attendant about to fix a PCN onto a vehicle three and a quarter hours after I gave notice to

the council not to issue anymore PCN's on off street and on street car parks in Bolton, no problem I will

raise a FOI request for a copy of the Parking Accounts from 11.00 on Sat 11th June 2007.

the owner of the vehicle arrived just in time, but she insisted pleading with the PA not to issue the PCN I

virtually had to drag the owner into her car to drive away before the PCN was issued, needless to say

the PA said it would be posted, waited then for issue of PCN on mine then again drove away before she

could issue it, easier to avoid a PCN than to get restitution, then from nowhere two more PA's came on

the scene presumbly because I was taking pics of the PA and she phoned them she must have thought

they were the cavalry.

This post has been edited by FEENIX: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 - 22:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 11 Jun 2007 - 22:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
sarahg1969
post Tue, 12 Jun 2007 - 11:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 607
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,771



Excellent!

One for the Bolton News?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Barneyrubble
post Tue, 12 Jun 2007 - 13:18
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 235
Joined: 2 Oct 2005
From: North West
Member No.: 3,908



Bolton Council bites the dust again yippee. I had a parking ticket slapped on my car whilst I was parked outside Machine Mart just off Thyne Street which is supposed to be P&D, I took it to the car park adjudicator and won the appeal because it did not state that that I was entering a Pay and Display area and where my car was parked there were no signs saying it was a P&D area so there's another you can park in for free rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Tue, 12 Jun 2007 - 15:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



QUOTE
where my car was parked there were no signs saying it was a P&D area so there's another you can park in for free
rolleyes.gif

At the time that you found out then that information would have had serious implications for Bolton you could have contacted the BEN (as it was called then)and restitution could have begun immediateley.

It wasn't in the Bolton News today, (I found this out when I got up at 6.30 to get a paper) the Parking services and the Legal services are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, neither dept have returned my repeated phone calls, they haven't given the B/News a statement...won't be in on Wednesday either as there was a large gas explosion in Bolton this morning so that will take front page news, it should be in by Thursday though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DW190
post Tue, 12 Jun 2007 - 19:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,433
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
From: Lancashire
Member No.: 436



Absolutely Marvellous. Bolton Parking Services are slowly joining the ranks. There are still a lot of errors in their paperwork and obviouslty their Car Park Signage.

Feenix, you can upload a PDF file here for all to read. Adjudications are open to the public so you are just providing the result in the public interest. Exactly what BMBC won't do.

Time for Ms Jacksons resignation I think. As a Council Tax Payer in the Borough I find it hard to swallow the anmount of wasted money due to incompetance within the Council offices.


--------------------
DW190

BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES

|^^^^^^^^^^^\||
|www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____
|_________________||__ |__|____|)
|(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@)

Frequently Asked Questions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Tue, 12 Jun 2007 - 22:52
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



Adjudication
Miss Lynne T Pilkington-v- Bolton Metopolitan Council

Adjudicator’s Decision


Penalty Charge Notice Number BO60735620

Penalty Charge £60.00


Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons



The PCN was issued on 20 December 2006 at 13:39 to vehicle P258 BCW in Topps Way Car Park for being parked beyond the bay markings.



Miss Pilkington attended at the personal hearing of this appeal on 29th May 2007 in Bolton. She was assisted by Mr. Moss who has conducted the correspondence in the case.



The Council were represented by Ms. Harris from its Legal Department and Ms. Jackson from the Parking Department attended as an observer.



The only ground of appeal stated on the Notice is that the Penalty Charge Notice did not comply with the provisions of section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and was therefore invalid.

At the hearing Mr. Moss presented detailed written arguments relating to his points of challenge to the validity of the PCN and raising an issue as to the quality of the signing of the requirement to park within the marked bay also questioning whether the photographs are of sufficient quality to demonstrate that the contravention occurred.



Ms. Harris had also helpfully produced a skeleton argument dealing with the points raised by Mr. Moss. I have read and been assisted by the written submissions presented by both parties and I have also read and considered the authorities referred to by Mr. Moss.



The photographs taken by the parking attendant at the time the PCN was issued show that at least the offside front wheel of Miss Pilkington's vehicle is slightly beyond the white line marking the limit of the parking bay. Certainly it appears that with rather more care the vehicle could have been parked in the centre of what is quite a wide bay and Miss Pilkington has given no reason, other than driver error, as to why the vehicle was left in this position.



Article 5(1) of the Bolton (Off-Street Designated Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2006 states that:

"No person shall cause a vehicle to stop, stand, wait, load and/or unload or otherwise remain at rest in a parking space within any parking place specified in Schedule 2 other than with its wheels wholly within a marked parking space within a parking place".



The requirement is therefore that the wheels of the vehicle must be "wholly within a marked parking space".

The point of the Regulation can only be to impose some discipline in the parking of vehicles to ensure the maximum use of the available parking spaces and that access routes are not obstructed.



I have been told by the Council that its parking attendants are instructed not to exercise any degree of discretion if they believe that a parking contravention has occurred. However, it does seem to me that when dealing with this particular contravention, before issuing a PCN the parking attendant might be well advised to consider whether the vehicle is in fact causing the type of obstruction which the Order is designed to prevent. In my view the Regulation cannot have been drafted simply to require a driver to pay a penalty charge in circumstances where his vehicle is on or just over the white line of a parking space …quot; the question must be whether the mischief which the Regulation is designed to prevent has occurred.



On the facts of this particular case whilst it may well be that the position of Miss Pilkington's vehicle would make it more difficult for a driver to manoeuvre into an adjacent parking space it is not in fact clear on the photograph, or indeed any plan, whether the area next to the offside of Miss Pilkington's vehicle is a parking space or simply an area at the end of a line of marked bays. On the basis of the evidence that I have it would seem that it may not be a parking space and Ms Jackson has not been able to give me any evidence on the point.

The Council argues that my interpretation of the Regulation is too narrow and that whatever the status of the adjacent area Miss Pilkington's vehicle is outside the marked bay. However the Council are demanding that Miss Pilkington pay a penalty and in my judgement that would only be applicable if it can demonstrate that her error caused actual or potential inconvenience to another user of the car park. On the basis of the evidence that I have I am not satisfied that this has been proved and so I am not satisfied that contravention occurred and so I would allow the appeal for that reason.



Further, although I would not agree with Mr. Moss that the sign at the entrance to the car park is obstructed by the adjacent foliage I do not in fact have any evidence as to the position of that sign relative either to the place where Miss Pilkington had parked or the car park entrance. The Council is clearly obliged to provide adequate signing so that any particular restriction is reasonably brought to the attention of the driver. It must be expected that drivers are highly unlikely to be able to read the small printing on this type of sign from a moving vehicle and that unless alerted to a particular requirement to do so are unlikely, having parked their vehicle, to go and read the "small print" on a sign which is not readily visible from the place where the vehicle is parked.

This particular sign is headed "Conditions of Use" and refers in the first half dozen lines to the requirement to purchase and display a pay and display ticket. Then, in the top third of the sign, there is a single line which states: "A vehicle must park within a parking space". This does not of course follow the wording of the Regulation Order that the wheels of the vehicle must be parked wholly within the space, which it seems to me, is a clearer definition of what is required of the driver. In its current form, which I understand is a standard wording used throughout the Council's car parks, a driver might interpret the requirement as being that the vehicle should not park within an area which is not designated as a parking space, for example, in an access route or turning area.



Further the sign does not state that a penalty charge will be payable if any of the conditions are breached and whilst a driver may well appreciate, from common experience, the requirement to purchase and display a pay and display ticket it seems to me that it would not be necessarily obvious that a penalty charge will be payable simply because a vehicle is on or over the white lines of a parking bay. If the Council consider that this is important for the proper regulation of its car parks it seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to expect it to highlight that particular requirement on the sign and perhaps even place repeater signs around the car park in the area of the bays.



Ms Jackson has told me that there may be further reference to the requirement and the fact that a penalty charge will be payable on the pay and display machine but she is uncertain and I have no evidence of that.



In my judgement, on the basis of the evidence provided to me in this case, I am not satisfied that the signing of the requirement for every wheel of the vehicle to be parked wholly within the bay is properly signed and because of that I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.



I would also allow the appeal for that reason.



Having allowed the appeal on those grounds it is not strictly necessary for me to go on to consider the arguments raised by Mr. Moss, who has told me that he sees the issues as being of much wider relevance to parking enforcement in the Bolton area.



This is clearly of importance to both parties and so I will consider in rather more detail the submissions made by Mr. Moss.



Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act requires that a penalty charge notice must state:

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the Notice the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period the Notice to Owner may be served by the …… Authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.



The original wording of the section referred to service by "the London Authority" but the provisions now also apply to parking enforcement outside the London area.



It is the vehicle owner who is responsible for the payment of the penalty charge and the owner is presumed to be the keeper registered with the DVLA.



The purpose of Section 66 is clearly to ensure that the individual responsible for the payment of the penalty charge is provided with enough information for him to be able to decide whether the charge has properly been demanded the time limits in which the charge will be paid and what will happen if it is not paid. The section states that this information "must" be included in the PCN but it does not prescribe any particular form in which it is to be given other than by reference to the wording in each of the sub-paragraphs.



Local Authority Circular 1/95 entitled "Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London" was issued by the Department of Transport to provide parking authorities with guidance on the operation of decriminalised parking enforcement.



At Annex 12.1 there is a specimen penalty charge notice and insofar as the wording of this specimen is relevant to the issues raised by Mr. Moss in this appeal it reads:

"You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £ within 28 days"

"If payment is not made within 28 days the registered keeper or the person who the Borough believes to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment ….."



The Bolton PCN follows the specimen wording save that it is stated that the Notice to Owner may be served "by the Authority" and it omits the words “of the vehicle”.



Mr. Moss argues that the use of the phrase "You are therefore" is contrary to the provisions of Section 66 and that it may mislead a driver who is not in fact the owner of the vehicle into thinking that he or she is required to pay the charge.



Section 66 does not in fact include any requirement for the Notice to indicate who is responsible for the payment of the penalty charge, only that if the charge is not paid a Notice to Owner may be served on the person appearing to be the owner of the vehicle and this information is included on the reverse of the Bolton PCN. Taken as a whole it is in my view reasonably clear that responsibility for payment rests with the owner.



In relation to the statement as to the issue of the Notice to Owner Mr. Moss says that the PCN is invalid because it does not state that the Notice will be served by the Bolton Parking Authority. He argues that the mandatory terms of section 66(3)(e) must have intended that the words "London Authority" should in any individual case be substituted with the detail of the actual authority which is to serve notice.



In my judgement there is no support for that proposition in S66 and, of course, it matters not to the owner which authority serves the NTO. The important information which is required by section 66(3) (f) is the address to which payment must be made, which is clearly given on the reverse of the Bolton PCN.



Further the Bolton Council logo is both on the front and reverse of the PCN so it seems to me there could be little doubt in the recipient's mind as to which parking authority had issued it.



Mr. Moss also makes one other point in relation to this particular section in that the wording on the Bolton PCN states that the Notice to Owner may be served by the Authority "on the person appearing to be the owner". Mr. Moss says that this does not comply with the requirement in section 66 because it omits the words "of the vehicle". He says that such wording is mandatory and in any event as it currently reads the Notice is misleading because the recipient of the Notice is bound to ask the question "owner of what?"



With respect to Mr. Moss I can find no merit on this particular point. Reading the Notice as a whole makes it quite obvious that this is a reference to the owner of the vehicle to which the PCN has been issued and that there would be no doubt in the recipient's mind as to who would receive the Notice to Owner, particularly as the section also includes reference to the fact that the NTO will describe how the owner may make formal representations objecting to the PCN.



Mr. Moss has directed my attention to a number of decisions by Parking Adjudicators as to the effect of the use of particular wording on the validity of a PCN. In particular he relies on the decision in MacArthur v. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [NPAS Case BC188] and the Decision by the London Parking Adjudicator in London Borough of Wandsworth v. Al's Bar and Restaurant [the “Al's Bar case”].



In the Al's Bar case the Adjudicator decided that because the Council's powers were penal the drafting of a PCN, which was regarded as a relatively simple task, should pay strict adherence to the statute.



However, this decision has not been universally followed by Adjudicators outside London and it must, in any event, be remembered that one of the major issues in that case related to the wording of the requirement to pay the penalty charge "within" 28 days, which is obviously a critical point because the time limit reflects on the period during which the discounted charge would be accepted and therefore the amount that the owner is required to pay.



In my view any failure to comply with a mandatory requirement in section 66 does not automatically render the PCN a nullity. Whether or not it does is a matter for discretion and will clearly depend upon the particular circumstances of each individual case.



In NPAS case PB8 Airey v. Peterborough City Council the Adjudicator took the view that the correct approach was to regard the question of whether a requirement is directory or mandatory as only a first step. It also had to be asked whether there had been substantial compliance with the statutory requirement and even if there had not been what was the consequence of the non-compliance? In my judgment the question is, based on the facts of any particular case, has the owner, responsible for payment, been prejudiced by the particular wording adopted on the PCN?



Indeed, this is an approach which was adopted by the Adjudicator in the MacArthur case although he expressed the test as being whether any defects in the PCN are "capable of causing a serious possibility of real prejudice", making the point that it was unnecessary for the appellant to have to prove actual prejudice.

The use of the wording "You are required to pay" was considered by the Adjudicator (in fact the same Adjudicator who decided MacArthur) in Robinson v. Brighton & Hove Council [BH05260].



He rejected, as do I, the notion that this particular wording is either required by S66 or creates any substantial prejudice to the owner who has the liability to pay the penalty charge. A PCN may be read by any number of people, including a driver who is not the owner, but the point is that the Notice is directed to the owner and it is simply a statement that a potential liability to pay a penalty charge has arisen. "You are required to pay" does not impose a liability on any person other than the owner.



Therefore, in relation to this alleged defect, Mr. Moss' arguments concerning the identity of the parking authority and the omission of the words "of the vehicle" I find that the Notice substantially complies with the requirements of S66 (3) and that the person having responsibility for the payment of the penalty charge would not be misled or prejudiced by the form of the Bolton PCN.



The final point raised by Mr. Moss is the fact that the date of the contravention is recorded at the bottom of the PCN and that the reverse of the Notice at this point is printed to allow payment to be made using a credit or debit card.



It is quite clear from the decision of the High Court in the appeal by Barnet Council against the London Parking Adjudicator [2006 EWHC 2357 Admin] that the PCN must separately state both the date when it was issued and the date of the contravention. Mr. Justice Jackson also made a specific finding that an inclusion of one of the dates on a "payment tear-off slip" would not be sufficient because the slip might be regarded as not being part of the PCN at all, approving of the finding of the Adjudicator in MacArthur that "the tear-off slip is not part of the PCN and may be detached". The same conclusion was reached by the Chief Parking Adjudicator in NPAS Case BV05002 Meers v. Bracknell Forest Council because a relevant date was on a "tear-off slip".



I anticipate that the date of the contravention has been added to the bottom of the Bolton Notice following the Barnet Decision. It would certainly have been more logical for it to have been added in the middle of the Notice at the place where the location of the vehicle is recorded.



However, Ms Harris argues that the Bolton Notice is rather different in form to that referred to in either the Barnet or the MacArthur cases. There is, for example, no perforation and no indication, either by a symbol or writing, that it is intended that the bottom of the Notice should be removed. Indeed, Ms. Jackson says that it is more usual when payment is made by credit card for the whole PCN to be returned.



Further the section on the reverse of the Notice is to be completed only when payment is made by credit or debit card and is not therefore a general payment slip to be returned with cheque or cash.



The reason why a date on the payment slip was considered not to be compliant in the cases I have referred to above was that the slip was not to be considered part of the Notice. The slip in those cases was a section which was separated from the rest of the Notice by a perforation and was clearly intended to be removed. That is not the situation with the Bolton PCN. The front of the Notice, which includes the important date of the contravention, is a single document. The date of contravention is therefore included in the body of the Notice. The information on the reverse is important but there is no instruction, and particularly no requirement, that the section should be detached.



I find that both the date of issue and date of contravention are included in the body of the Notice.

Therefore I conclude that the form of the Bolton PCN is rather different to and can properly be distinguished from those PCNs where the inclusion of the date on the tear-off slip has been declared invalid.



I reject the submission that the Bolton PCN is invalid.



Stephen Knapp

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 07 June 2007

This post has been edited by FEENIX: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 - 00:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 07:16
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



Bolton Council have still not replied to a request for a statement to the Bolton News, therefore they cannot put the article in the paper, I have phoned the legal services dept and the Parking manager on four occasions each, and they have refused to return my calls.
Going away for 2 weeks on Sat so no update till then unless I can get to a computer,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 22:43
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



The below is the full pathetic statement issued yesterday by Bolton Council to the Bolton News

"At the hearing Mr Moss argued that the fixed penalty notice received failed to comply with the relevant provision of the Road Traffic Act and was invalid and took issue with the signing requirement to park within the parking bay. The adjudicator rejected the submission that the fixed penalty notice is invalid.


"On the issue of parking within the bay, the facts of the case were that Ms Pilkington parked with at least one of the wheels of the car slightly beyond the white line marking the limit of the parking bay. On the basis of the evidence before the adjudicator, he made the finding that he was not satisfied that the signing of the requirement for every wheel of the vehicle to be parked wholly within the bay is properly signed and because of that he was not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

"This adjudication does not make parking enforcement in Bolton illegal and there is certainly no reference to this anywhere in the decision. It is the Council's view that each case is judged on its own facts and the Council has been successful on a previous occasion when parking outside the bay was adjudicated upon."


STATEMENT ENDS

The appeal was upheld because the signage in the car park did not conform with the Traffic Regulation Order so the PCN was cancelled so any PCN issued in any off street car park with the same non compliant signage is entitled to claim restitution Mr Eastwood director of legal services Bolton Council admitted today when I reiterated that Bolton Parking Enforcement were still issuing PCN's in car parks which have the non compliant signs and were committing a criminal act by taking money from PCN's, yes the legal head of a £500million plus Council Turnover had the Temerity to say that he had not yet read the adjudication. In God we trust... All others pay penalty charges, the parking manager has gone on leave now, good timing... I will test the PCN's issue when I return by racking up PCN's in the car parks then test the representations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 22:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



BTW Bolton Council used the wrong picture of the car park where the alleged contravention occured, I don't know which car park it is from but I can state that it in not a picture of Topp Way car park, is there a problem with submitting inaccurate defence papers to an appellant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DW190
post Sat, 16 Jun 2007 - 00:44
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,433
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
From: Lancashire
Member No.: 436



QUOTE (FEENIX @ Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 23:43) *
The below is the full pathetic statement issued yesterday by Bolton Council to the Bolton News

"At the hearing Mr Moss argued that the fixed penalty notice received failed to comply with the relevant provision of the Road Traffic Act and was invalid and took issue with the signing requirement to park within the parking bay. The adjudicator rejected the submission that the fixed penalty notice is invalid.


"On the issue of parking within the bay, the facts of the case were that Ms Pilkington parked with at least one of the wheels of the car slightly beyond the white line marking the limit of the parking bay. On the basis of the evidence before the adjudicator, he made the finding that he was not satisfied that the signing of the requirement for every wheel of the vehicle to be parked wholly within the bay is properly signed and because of that he was not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

"This adjudication does not make parking enforcement in Bolton illegal and there is certainly no reference to this anywhere in the decision. It is the Council's view that each case is judged on its own facts and the Council has been successful on a previous occasion when parking outside the bay was adjudicated upon."


STATEMENT ENDS

The appeal was upheld because the signage in the car park did not conform with the Traffic Regulation Order so the PCN was cancelled so any PCN issued in any off street car park with the same non compliant signage is entitled to claim restitution Mr Eastwood director of legal services Bolton Council admitted today when I reiterated that Bolton Parking Enforcement were still issuing PCN's in car parks which have the non compliant signs and were committing a criminal act by taking money from PCN's, yes the legal head of a £500million plus Council Turnover had the Temerity to say that he had not yet read the adjudication. In God we trust... All others pay penalty charges, the parking manager has gone on leave now, good timing... I will test the PCN's issue when I return by racking up PCN's in the car parks then test the representations.



So much for the Representative of the Council. How long have they been issuinf Fixed Penalty Notices.


--------------------
DW190

BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES

|^^^^^^^^^^^\||
|www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____
|_________________||__ |__|____|)
|(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@)

Frequently Asked Questions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wayne Pendle
post Sat, 16 Jun 2007 - 06:08
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,038
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,088



QUOTE (DW190 @ Sat, 16 Jun 2007 - 01:44) *
QUOTE (FEENIX @ Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 23:43) *
The below is the full pathetic statement issued yesterday by Bolton Council to the Bolton News

"At the hearing Mr Moss argued that the fixed penalty notice received failed to comply with the relevant provision of the Road Traffic Act and was invalid and took issue with the signing requirement to park within the parking bay. The adjudicator rejected the submission that the fixed penalty notice is invalid.


"On the issue of parking within the bay, the facts of the case were that Ms Pilkington parked with at least one of the wheels of the car slightly beyond the white line marking the limit of the parking bay. On the basis of the evidence before the adjudicator, he made the finding that he was not satisfied that the signing of the requirement for every wheel of the vehicle to be parked wholly within the bay is properly signed and because of that he was not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

"This adjudication does not make parking enforcement in Bolton illegal and there is certainly no reference to this anywhere in the decision. It is the Council's view that each case is judged on its own facts and the Council has been successful on a previous occasion when parking outside the bay was adjudicated upon."


STATEMENT ENDS

The appeal was upheld because the signage in the car park did not conform with the Traffic Regulation Order so the PCN was cancelled so any PCN issued in any off street car park with the same non compliant signage is entitled to claim restitution Mr Eastwood director of legal services Bolton Council admitted today when I reiterated that Bolton Parking Enforcement were still issuing PCN's in car parks which have the non compliant signs and were committing a criminal act by taking money from PCN's, yes the legal head of a £500million plus Council Turnover had the Temerity to say that he had not yet read the adjudication. In God we trust... All others pay penalty charges, the parking manager has gone on leave now, good timing... I will test the PCN's issue when I return by racking up PCN's in the car parks then test the representations.



So much for the Representative of the Council. How long have they been issuinf Fixed Penalty Notices.




The Council are committing fraud and misfeasance.

This post has been edited by Wayne Pendle: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 - 15:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Sat, 16 Jun 2007 - 06:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



Totally agree with you Wayne, my main concern is that some of the PCN's issued past and future could lead to bailiff action resulting in families being deprived of their goods or sent further into debt by the illegal actions of the largest Town Council in the country, the head of legal services in Bolton is culpable here, they have given no direction to the Parking regime, who willy nilly issue PCN's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Mon, 2 Jul 2007 - 00:09
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



QUOTE
they have given no direction to the Parking regime, who still willy nilly issue PCN's

Am back off holiday after 2 weeks away the Bolton Council will now start to get some stick, dissapointed with the Bolton News who have yet to print one single letter about the Bolton Parking regime and the adjudication and the legal eagles have still not given any direction to the parking services on what to do, the legal services and the parking services appear to have their heads up their arces at this time, but things will change from Monday, I intend to pick up PCN's in various places in the town on Tuesday and test the legality of them at NPAS.

This post has been edited by FEENIX: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 - 00:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sarahg1969
post Mon, 2 Jul 2007 - 09:37
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 607
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,771



Feenix - why not comment in the comments section of today's parking stories?

Someone has already made a vague comment, but this is a chance to highlight the problem to BN's readers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Tue, 3 Jul 2007 - 13:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



Someone has already made a vague comment, but this is a chance to highlight the problem to BN's readers.
[/quote]

Hi sarah
sorry can't find any comments link perhaps you could guide me to it.

everyday this week there is an article about parking in the B/News did you see yesterdays if not have a look at this, it is a real eye opener. We should flood the Council with restitution claims after this.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton...1511829.0.0.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sarahg1969
post Tue, 3 Jul 2007 - 13:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 607
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,771



Here are the links to the stories. The Bolton Evening News are apparently having a 5-day run of traffic warden stories - called Warden Watch. Bless 'em, eh?

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton...o_draconian.php

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton...ticket_fury.php

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/display.var.1511937.0.0.php

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/display.var.1511829.0.0.php

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton...says_driver.php

This post has been edited by sarahg1969: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 - 13:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 00:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



QUOTE (sarahg1969 @ Tue, 3 Jul 2007 - 14:32) *

The main story is in the BN today hopefully now this article will get the point across to the Council
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sarahg1969
post Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 07:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 607
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,771



Feenix

I have a friend who received a PCN for parking on the white lines.

I've told her she should ask for her cash back, but is it a simple matter of writing a letter to the council?

Thanks.

Sarah
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FEENIX
post Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 08:02
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
From: BOLTON
Member No.: 10,053



QUOTE (sarahg1969 @ Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 08:28) *
Feenix

I have a friend who received a PCN for parking on the white lines.

I've told her she should ask for her cash back, but is it a simple matter of writing a letter to the council?

Thanks.

Sarah


Yes it's as simple as that but it is restitution she should ask for not a refund and she must mention the Pilkington v Bolton Council adjudication which although not case law it is a ruling which the council can't ignore. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/display.var...ket_victory.php

This post has been edited by FEENIX: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 08:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sarahg1969
post Wed, 4 Jul 2007 - 09:07
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 607
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,771



Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 16:05
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