PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Nottingham Friar Lane Bus Gate
stoneman
post Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 20:15
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
From: nottingham
Member No.: 23,807



Hi All,
Bit of a long shot in case there is anything wrong with the ticket.
Entered Friar Lane bus gate during non prescribed hours, twice!
I am working on a referb of a building near the end of the road by the crossing on the left of the picture. I have about £2K worth of heavy tools that I need to drop off at the site. There is no way I can dump my tools 75 mtrs away, go park my van, some back and haul them to the site, EVERY DAY. And do the reverse when I finish work about 3pm.
So there you have it, I'm looking at it costing me £30 x 2.

PS I have now been told by agent that there is a back way around, thanks you could have mentioned this 2 weeks ago.








This post has been edited by stoneman: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 20:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 20:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 20:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,074
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



You entered 25 minutes before the restriction allows loading between 16.30 - 10.00. Permit holders also allowed but I don't know if visitor permits are part of the scheme, maybe somebody can tell us.

Nottingham are notoriously venal, and one sometimes thinks they are hell bent on destroying the city economy ! Just look at Para 3 for an example of their ruthlessness. Any normal council would put the PCN on hold until reps have been replied to, but not Nottingham. They really are the pits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stoneman
post Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 23:01
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
From: nottingham
Member No.: 23,807



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 21:36) *
You entered 25 minutes before the restriction allows loading between 16.30 - 10.00. Permit holders also allowed but I don't know if visitor permits are part of the scheme, maybe somebody can tell us.

Nottingham are notoriously venal, and one sometimes thinks they are hell bent on destroying the city economy ! Just look at Para 3 for an example of their ruthlessness. Any normal council would put the PCN on hold until reps have been replied to, but not Nottingham. They really are the pits.

I knew you would be the first to reply
Guys on site say they have already appealed on the grounds of where they are working but the council come back saying there is an alternative route. Well why don’t they direct you to it then!

This post has been edited by stoneman: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 23:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 06:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,074
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (stoneman @ Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 00:01) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 21:36) *
You entered 25 minutes before the restriction allows loading between 16.30 - 10.00. Permit holders also allowed but I don't know if visitor permits are part of the scheme, maybe somebody can tell us.

Nottingham are notoriously venal, and one sometimes thinks they are hell bent on destroying the city economy ! Just look at Para 3 for an example of their ruthlessness. Any normal council would put the PCN on hold until reps have been replied to, but not Nottingham. They really are the pits.

I knew you would be the first to reply ������������
Guys on site say they have already appealed on the grounds of where they are working but the council come back saying there is an alternative route. Well why don’t they direct you to it then!

If people knew the alternative for access, they wouldn't make any money !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 08:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,731
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



There is an alternative route to come in from the other end

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Friar+L...33;4d-1.1522767


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stoneman
post Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 15:10
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
From: nottingham
Member No.: 23,807



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 09:53) *
There is an alternative route to come in from the other end

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Friar+L...33;4d-1.1522767

I know now. Why don't they just put a sign up saying "access route". I think Incandescent answered that .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 17:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,732
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The 0845 ground has persuaded Nottingham City to give up in a number of previous cases.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 17:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,731
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 18:14) *
The 0845 ground has persuaded Nottingham City to give up in a number of previous cases.


An old representation on that ground

QUOTE
Nottingham city council allow payment of a penalty charge to be made by debit or credit card, either by telephone, online or by post using cheque or postal order. Strangely the only method not accepted is legal tender

The statutory ground for appeal is actuated by the telephone payment method. Nottingham city council use for this service a premium rate 0845 telephone number that requires a user to pay an access charge to their service provider and a service charge that is set and for the benefit of Nottingham city council. The rate set by the council being 3p per minute This is revenue raised by the council in addition to the penalty that a user must pay in order to discharge the penalty. Thus the total to be paid is 100%+ of the amount set by statute.


The issue of a council requiring payment of a surcharge came before parking adjudicators at PATAS in 2009 the London borough of Camden for a period in 2008 and 2009 required that in order to make payment by credit card a surcharge of 1.3% would need also to be paid. Four cases were taken before the parking adjudicators who found that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Because more than 100% of the penalty set by statute was required to be paid in order to satisfy the debt.

Camden applied for judicial review and this was heard by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)

The judge in his ruling summarises Camden's case thus

Did the Penalty Amount Exceed the Amount Applicable?
27. Mr Coppel's argument on behalf of the Council embarks from the legal nature of a credit card transaction. That involves the credit card company having separate contracts with the cardholder and the supplier of goods or services. Under the arrangement the supplier of goods or services agrees to accept payment by credit card in discharge of the cardholder's liability to him. The credit card holder agrees to pay the full price of the goods to the card company, albeit at a later date and subject to interest if not paid promptly. The supplier of goods or services agrees to pay to the card provider a percentage of the total cost of the goods or services provided. In this instance the percentage agreed was 1.3% so that for every £100 paid by motorists via credit card, the Council received £98.70.[1] The Council point out that the motorist in these circumstances secures a valuable benefit, namely the delay in having to pay the credit card company albeit that there are substantial benefits to the Council in addition. The general convenience (and thus reduction in administrative overheads) is obvious and importantly the credit card company assumes the risk of non-payment. That is not altogether altruistic, since very high interest is generally charged in the event that a credit card bill is not settled in full at the first opportunity. However, the Council is freed of the problem of chasing bad debts or dealing with bouncing cheques.
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.

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT did not accept this argument he said

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.
30. It follows that the challenges in all four cases fail. Those Parking Adjudicators who allowed the appeals by reference to regulation 4(4)(e) were right to do so. The Adjudicators who allowed the appeals on a different basis were, as a matter of law, right to allow the appeals, even if this basis did not form part of the reasoning.

I submit that in making this ruling and specifically the findings at paragraph 29” 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” That a council cannot add any charge that would be to their benefit. This service charge being just such a charge, set by the council and paid to the council raising the penalty demanded to more than 100% of that allowed by statute.

This service charge falls within the scope of additional sums to be paid ruled upon by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT as being a charge the council are not permitted to make and the Pcn must be cancelled


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jm2
post Sat, 19 Sep 2020 - 17:07
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 25 Oct 2014
From: Middle England
Member No.: 73,803



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 16 Sep 2020 - 09:53) *
There is an alternative route to come in from the other end

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Friar+L...33;4d-1.1522767


Doesn't that 'alternative' route also have the same restrictions (no access until 4.30pm) at the SW end of Hounds Gate ?


--------------------
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stoneman
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 22:24
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
From: nottingham
Member No.: 23,807



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 18:14) *
The 0845 ground has persuaded Nottingham City to give up in a number of previous cases.

I’ve used that in the past several times and got them to give up but last time they took it all the way and the adjudicator ruled in their favour stating that my defence (copied from
above) was a totally different set of circumstances.

This post has been edited by stoneman: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 22:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 22 Sep 2020 - 10:29
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,731
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stoneman @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 18:14) *
The 0845 ground has persuaded Nottingham City to give up in a number of previous cases.

I’ve used that in the past several times and got them to give up but last time they took it all the way and the adjudicator ruled in their favour stating that my defence (copied from
above) was a totally different set of circumstances.


Can you post a copy of the decision it will help us to refine the arguments


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 22 Sep 2020 - 19:44
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,732
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stoneman @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Sep 2020 - 18:14) *
The 0845 ground has persuaded Nottingham City to give up in a number of previous cases.

I’ve used that in the past several times and got them to give up but last time they took it all the way and the adjudicator ruled in their favour stating that my defence (copied from
above) was a totally different set of circumstances.

It's a complex argument and the only way it will prevail at the tribunal is if PMB or I act as the appellant's representative. As PMB says, it would be helpful if you could let us have a copy of the decision.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
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, 24th September 2020 - 17:12
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.