PCN in No Return Within 1 Hour bays Options

[surrounded]

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.

[Advertisement]

[surrounded]

I've received the NtO now. Any advice as to how to word my formal appeal? They've said I can appeal via email and I have 28 days from 5th July. Thanks.

[hcandersen]

Post the NTO, we need to check for compliance with the regs. Leave in all dates etc, only obscure personal info.


As regards your reps ( it’s not an appeal, this is what you might make to an adjudicator), these will set out the law and the events.

For examle, on ** (date), I parked in a parking place outside my friend’s house. The restriction was ***. I parked at approx. ** (time) which permitted me to park until ***. In the event, I left at about **** in order to ***. I returned at approx. *** and being conscious of the ‘no return’ restriction parked in a different parking place subject to the same restriction in the same road. Contrary to what you stated in your letter dated *** in response to my challenge, I was permitted to park at this location until ***, each restriction being unique to each individual parking place.

Consequently, at the time the PCN was issued I had been parked at the location stated in the PCN for no more than *** minutes which is less than ** and therefore the contravention did not occur.

[Steve_999]

. . . . parked in a different parking place . . .

Can't seem to find where the OP said they returned to a different parking place. just, in post #1 "I parked outside a friend's house for ten minutes, left, and returned an hour and five minutes after driving off."

[hcandersen]

Fair point. I suppose I inferred this, but it’s not stated by the OP.

My suggested reps should be amended accordingly if indeed the OP was in the same parking place.

[Longtime Lurker]

Surrounded, we really need to see the NTO to make sense of this.

If I'm reading this right, I think we've had one of these before, where the council came up with a bonkers theory that the 'no return within 1 hour' somehow doesn't start until 1 hour after you park, rather than 1 hour after you leave, but I can't find the thread. Can anyone with better google-fu find that thread? It might be a useful precedent.

[TigerRob]

DELETED

This post has been edited by TigerRob: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 22:52

[surrounded]

Thanks all.

Yes, I re-parked in the same place in the same bay, right outside my friend's house. The street is usually quite empty during the day as everyone is out at work, but I try to park outside his still where possible.

Surrounded, we really need to see the NTO to make sense of this.

If I'm reading this right, I think we've had one of these before, where the council came up with a bonkers theory that the 'no return within 1 hour' somehow doesn't start until 1 hour after you park, rather than 1 hour after you leave, but I can't find the thread. Can anyone with better google-fu find that thread? It might be a useful precedent.

This is exactly what they're trying to say, yes (in their rejection, anyway. In a separate email they gave the more usual explanation of the rule). Sounds like the previous case would be useful!

I have uploaded the NtO to Imgur, see links below. Apologies for the quality - their printer appears to have smudged grey all over the pages, which makes the text somewhat difficult to make out in places.

Page one
Page two
Page three
Page four
Page five

Thanks again.

This post has been edited by surrounded: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:57

[surrounded]

Any thoughts on the NtO?

I emailed them to ask for a copy of all photographs (in case they have any that aren't online) and the CEO's notes in relation to this PCN, and received the following back:

"If you click on the following link it will take you to all the pictures and information as requested:


https://easthants.xrxpsc.com/ocm/details.aspx "

Which is just a link to their online payment/appeal portal containing no CEO notes and only photos from the second time my car was observed. So I'll email again as a SAR asking for the notes and any further photos in particular

This post has been edited by surrounded: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 22:05

[cp8759]

I would make formal reps on the same grounds, i.e. that the "usual rule" applies and not their bonkers interpretation. I would add a line saying it would be wholly unreasonable for them to seek to enforce this PCN and you reserve the right to seek costs should the matter go to the tribunal.

[DancingDad]

I would make formal reps on the same grounds, i.e. that the "usual rule" applies and not their bonkers interpretation. I would add a line saying it would be wholly unreasonable for them to seek to enforce this PCN and you reserve the right to seek costs should the matter go to the tribunal.

And refer to your conversation...date, time, name where the usual interpretation was advised.
And to their PI in failing to consider your second representations.

[surrounded]

I've heard from EHDC again in response to my second request for all of their photographs and the CEO's notes. The notes suggest my valve positions were unchanged. Though why they didn't use this information to reject my informal challenge instead of going down the bizarre interpretation of the No Return rule, I do not know.

See images below. Anything of any use on there?

Letter
Case Status Report 1
Case Status Report 2
On Street Log 1
On Street Log 2

[stamfordman]

Hard to make any sense of the log - but they have surely shot themselves in the foot by now claiming a proper reason, which if you did leave and return, can't be true.

For only £50 this is about as much fun as you can have with a PCN.

I suspect the CEO got into a muddle with different cars.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 20:14

[Steve_999]

Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?

[surrounded]

Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?

The notes say positions unchanged, and the case report gives the valve positions at observation times 1 and 2 and they have the same numbers.

[Steve_999]

Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?

The notes say positions unchanged, and the case report gives the valve positions at observation times 1 and 2 and they have the same numbers.

Apologies - missed the case report first time round.
Have you any other evidence that you were not parked there for the whole time between the CEO's observations? Tyre valve positions are generally seen as quite solid evidence that a vehicle has or has not been moved.

[John U.K.]

Where is the CEO's contemporaneous notes of the valve positions?

[cp8759]

Where is the CEO's contemporaneous notes of the valve positions?

I suspect the CEO might enter the valve positions directly into his terminal. However, why does the case history say "In Permit bay No permit displayed" when the contravention is parking longer than permitted?

In any event I don't see how the council could pull this one off, they can't seem to make their minds up as to what the circumstances of the contravention are. Either they accuse you of leaving your car without moving it, or they accuse you of moving it but coming back too soon, at this point I would say their case is bad for duplicity.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:19

[John U.K.]

I suspect the CEO might enter the valve positions directly into his terminal.

In which case, why are they not in the print-out, if that is what it is?

Without the contemporaneous evidence of the CEO's note of the postions each time they were observed, it is simply the CEO's word that he remembered the postions of the valves on every car he observed that day with sufficient accuracy to be able to record for this car that the valve positions were unchanged a couple of hours later. He must have a phenomenal memory?

The OP asked for the evidence, the EA has failed to provide it ( a case report written up later is not , IMHO, evidence, but hearsay).

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 20:20

[cp8759]

The OP asked for the evidence, the EA has failed to provide it ( a case report written up later is not , IMHO, evidence, but hearsay).

The on-street log looks like a print-out from the machine.

[DancingDad]

Case report clearly states valve positions from On Street Log.
Try as I might, I cannot see where these positions are in the log that has been supplied.

I can see that the vehicle was seen at 14.22 and valve positions entered but cannot see where.
Seems strange that they rely on logs that do not show the information that they claim

Bit that does worry is that first observation was 14.22 which is a little after 14.15 time that Op says they left ?