PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

774 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 10:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Can't read the sign photo, too small.
Can you use an external picture hosting site (like flikr) and link it back here please.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425687 · Replies: 3 · Views: 90

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 17:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (SPARKY26 @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 16:54) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 08:39) *
QUOTE (SPARKY26 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 16:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 15:03) *
QUOTE (Earl Purple @ Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 14:12) *
If your car has cruise control you even have the wonderful technique of using it. ………….

On crowded motorways, I find the speed limiter is a better option.
Can still use right foot to match traffic speed (it is never constant) so can maintain stopping distance but engine will not drive you over the set speed should foot get a little heavy on the gas.

I find this is rubbish keeps slowing you up when a slip road comes up with a lower speed limit even if your staying on the main road with the higher speed limit. Its very dangerous.



???
I set the limiter to the speed I want.
Lower speed limits do not affect it unless I want them to and set the limit accordingly.

the car has a camera that picks up the speed signs and adjusts to the limit.


Ah biggrin.gif
To quote a phrase, fook that.
My car has a driver that sees road signs and adjusts to the limit.
None of this new fangled tech wot don't work proper biggrin.gif
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1425449 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,241

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


That's the problem with dates.
If they are shorter then statute dictates, easy win even with the most perverse of adjudicators.
But when extended there is the prejudice issue.

That is where the brinkmanship comes in. If you pay after day 14 but within the given dates the council should accept, if they don't, real prejudice occurred and you would win.
But if accepted, not a chance of taking it any further.

Same should apply with a challenge and see the discount reoffered even if after day 14 but before given date. But that does require an extra step in the logic which could fail at adjudication, the re-offer is specifically against the 14 days as prescribed. Remember as well, that although recommended and usual custom and practice, there is nothing prescribed on re-offer, any council that does is simply following guidance so the whole issue can get a little fuzzy.

See what others think, I am not guaranteeing a win here, just laying out options and issues.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425359 · Replies: 5 · Views: 123

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


I think you win.
Councils have a duty to clearly sign any restrictions.
They will argue that they did by erecting the suspension sign.
Counterpoint to that is that motorists have a duty to check restrictions when they park.
It would seem that there was no sign on the normal restriction pole (did you take photos?) so any diligent motorist checking the restriction sign would find that there was no suspension and park accordingly. And lawfully.
No matter what the council may think, there is no duty on the motorist to play hide and seek, checking the whole area for any other sign that someone may have erected on a CPZ sign.
The CEO photo of the sign clearly shows it could not have been on the restriction pole outside number 8 (no hedge there) and that it could easily have been on the CPZ pole (white wall, hedge and white house)

Challenge is simple IMO.
I parked. Check the sign outside of house number 8.
There was no suspension sign mounted on that pole so I relied on the normal sign in place. (photo attached if any available)
Having found the PCN and checked CEO photos, I believe that the suspension sign relied upon was mounted on the CPZ entry sign pole.
This is inadequate to convey the suspension to myself or any other diligent motorist who checked and relied upon the normal restriction signs for the parking bay.
Please confirm cancellation of this PCN
Hugs and kisses
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425345 · Replies: 4 · Views: 90

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


There is summat adrift with those dates.
Day one is the date of service so both given dates add three days ??

Sounds bang to rights on the contravention though mitigation may be applied (don't bank on it) if the situation is explained.
Dates should see it cancelled but adjudicators often look at if any real prejudice occurs and all council needs to say is that they would abide by those dates for that to possibly happen.
But I would include in any challenge that the statutory timings are mis-represented, that this is a step not allowed within the regulations and as such is a procedural impropriety and must cancel the PCN.

If you feel like playing brinkmanship, don't challenge, make discount payment day 15, 29th October and see if they accept. If a Notice to Owner turns up, you win.
I would say delay challenge till day 15 but the wording on the back doesn't refer to date, only date of service so would be relying on that they gave a date and you trusted it.... should end up a winner though if they do not re-offer discount.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425338 · Replies: 5 · Views: 123

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


This is looking into Fieldview Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4401004,-...6384!8i8192
No footway parking signs I can see though it does seem as though custom and practice allows.
OP will need to link to exact point
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425270 · Replies: 6 · Views: 167

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 07:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (SPARKY26 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 16:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 15:03) *
QUOTE (Earl Purple @ Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 14:12) *
If your car has cruise control you even have the wonderful technique of using it. ………….

On crowded motorways, I find the speed limiter is a better option.
Can still use right foot to match traffic speed (it is never constant) so can maintain stopping distance but engine will not drive you over the set speed should foot get a little heavy on the gas.

I find this is rubbish keeps slowing you up when a slip road comes up with a lower speed limit even if your staying on the main road with the higher speed limit. Its very dangerous.



???
I set the limiter to the speed I want.
Lower speed limits do not affect it unless I want them to and set the limit accordingly.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1425247 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,241

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 13:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Any argument you have on payment comes down to did you make payment and were the signs clear enough or simply an error on your part.
But would do no harm, even if the latter to state you made payment and include a copy of the payment receipt from your phone, let them tell you that you made an error.
But your main point, add as an addition, is simply that the PCN was totally unreadable, that you even had to phone to get a PCN number before you could challenge, that you are not even sure why the PCN was served as it cannot be read and that the PCN fails to convey mandatory information so must be cancelled. Include a picture of it.
If a challenge is sent within the 14 day period, they must re-offer it, custom and practice even if not stated on the PCN.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425095 · Replies: 15 · Views: 145

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 13:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Phone council, give them your reg number, ask for PCN number.
Then challenge online.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425091 · Replies: 15 · Views: 145

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 12:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 13:19) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 13:06) *
CP has specifically included that the service charge is set by the council.
Thinking on the above, I think that should be expanded to "set by and kept"
Even if an unsupported statement, council would need to refute.

I don't want to go there, if they do refute the argument is dead. If we leave things as they are, it won't even occur to them.
Okay
We have been discussing via PM and I can understand where you are coming from.
But still feel emphasising that this is in the control of the council would be beneficial.
Perhaps this line
QUOTE
In this instance, by imposing a 4p per minute service charge for telephone payments,
to
QUOTE
In this instance, by setting and imposing a 4p per minute service charge for telephone payments,


  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425081 · Replies: 33 · Views: 798

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 12:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 12:27) *
Post 47 on in this thread.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114780

seems adjudicators need their hands holding to guide them through sometimes



Just reading through that...this is the reasoning for rejecting
QUOTE
2p/m telephone charge
Rejected on the grounds that this was a charge levied by the telephone company and not the council. She saw it as no different to having to pay for a stamp if you used the post. I argued that the charge would be paid to the council and amounts to the same thing as the credit card charge but she asked if I knew it would be paid to the council. Since I assumed it would be and did not know for sure it was rejected.
I think it came down to the fact that the credit card charge would be on the statement as part of the PCN charge in a single transaction and therefore could not be separated from the PCN charge.


CP has specifically included that the service charge is set by the council.
Thinking on the above, I think that should be expanded to "set by and kept"
Even if an unsupported statement, council would need to refute.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425061 · Replies: 33 · Views: 798

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 11:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 11:41) *
...….A UK national could be prosecuted for bribery under the Bribery Act 2010 once they return to the UK (as the Bribery Act has extra-territorial jurisdiction) so this is not an option.


biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Bribery your 'onour ?
I simply paid an on the spot fine.

Had that in various countries from India (200 rupee) to USA.
At least in the latter I got a receipt smile.gif
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1425051 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,241

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 11:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Very nice CP.
I for one will not presume to mess with that draft.
End of day, either the adjudicator will accept the arguments or not. We haven't seen one (AFAIK) where a telephone surcharge has been tested but that draft is simple and concise, details all that an adjudicator needs and IMO, will take a perverse one to reject. I would not be surprised if they duck the issue and find on the failure to consider however. Or if the council cancels once someone with sense looks at the appeal.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425049 · Replies: 33 · Views: 798

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 10:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


It will be two grounds.
The second assuming that you detailed Camden case within the formal challenge, giving the case references and saying High Court (generally as per CP's informal draft)?
If you did then you include a Procedural Impropriety being a failure of their duty to consider. The statement within the NOR that PATAS cases are non binding is strictly correct but ignores that HC cases are. In doing so it represents a clear case of failing to consider at best and a wilful attempt to divert at the worst.
I also assume, though you must confirm, that the waffle on the PCN service and justification is simply that, waffling about something that is not in dispute. Again an indication that they either didn't read (consider) your challenge, chose to ignore it or simply relied upon a template.

Telephone or papers? Depends on how eloquent you are?
If you are likely to sit there going Uhm, Dah and not be able to argue the case with conviction, papers will be better.
If you feel you can discuss it and not be browbeaten by adjudicator (not that TPT adjudicators usually do that), telephone.
In either case I would put up a draft of your appeal before sending, let's make sure you have the points down pat.


A term I like to use in cases like this, while you freely admit to an error in going for change and accept that errors have consequences, the council have also made an error in applying a surcharge, that error also has consequences, that they must cancel the PCN.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425034 · Replies: 33 · Views: 798

DancingDad
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 09:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Broadsman @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 09:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 19:51) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:55) *

Two issues: Firstly, speed limits only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles, not bicycles or pedestrians. Secondly, this technique does not work in every country, reportedly in Kazakhstan you can be prosecuted for speeding even if the signs are missing.


But how many speeding issues do we deal with in Kazakhstan on these boards? smile.gif

Would not have thought many would not be resolved with a $50 donation to the local cops, specifically the one that stopped the miscreant. smile.gif
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1425022 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,241

DancingDad
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 12:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


It has to be your choice, it is your money.
Worst case, assuming you meet deadlines on the notices is paying full penalty, 70 quid.
Before you decide what to do, post the PCN in full please.
I can't remember seeing a recent Salford Bus Lane PCN and there may be errors that can be used.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424836 · Replies: 12 · Views: 234

DancingDad
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 09:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Tank Engine @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 23:48) *
...….DancingDad - yes, you make the (only) justification possible. But it seeks to explain the attitude - not the change in attitude.

O Hippocrates H - I bleed for you. hca, I bow to you. bama - I know, read-only is best...……..


Well, Hippo left for personal reasons, HCA and Bama still around, others like Bogsy have sadly fallen by the wayside, circumstances and times change, attitudes change with them.
In many cases, from necessity.
When I started, technical challenges on PCNs were common and often won. Councils have tidied up their wording and phrases like "when read as a whole" have crept into the lexicon of adjudicators.
Not much point in putting forward a challenge based on wording when even blatant issues (Reading Bus Lane PCN wording) get brushed aside.
Similar with signs and lines, time was when a broken line or missing T Bar at the end could win. Forget it now, substantial compliance is the "in term"
And don't forget people may drift away but others come along, some of them very good and are finding new issues to explore.
Some go out of their way to act as unofficial photo/video hosts, some specialise in TRO/TMOs, many contribute.
That the fire and brimstone beloved of Hippo may have abated and is missed does not mean that people no longer fight to win.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1424804 · Replies: 78 · Views: 2,364

DancingDad
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 08:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 00:31) *
QUOTE (j-st @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:21) *
absolutely, I hadn't even submitted any additional evidence as part of the appeal...

This is what you must highlight in your costs application. Claim four hours at £19 per hour, total £72. Post a draft of your application here before sending it to the tribunal but don't delay, you only have 14 days from the date of the decision.

Use the DNC as a lever, For the council to DNC when the only change to anything submitted was to register an appeal begs the question why did they not cancel at an earlier stage, the defence, ie that the payment machine was totally inaccessible, has not changed.
If the defence is strong enough to cancel without any ado at appeal stage it was surely strong enough to cancel at Formal, Notice to Owner and Informal stages. For the council to pursue then cancel when faced with an adjudicator looking at the case is evidence that they have acted wholly unreasonably in serving and pursuing this PCN.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424797 · Replies: 41 · Views: 1,283

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 20:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Trouble is that TSRGD 2016 defines Taxi as "(a)
in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed under—
(i)section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847(43); or
(ii)section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869(44);
or under any similar enactment; "
Both take you back to Hackney Cabs, not PHVs.
Having said that, differing councils do cite "taxi" exemptions in differing ways, Salford seem specific to allow Hackneys only while Birmingham (for example) allows both Hackney and PHVs to use bus lanes. Both councils use the same signs with the word "Taxi" on them.

Unfortunately, I cannot see any challenge on inadequate signage winning as the default is Taxi = Hackney
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424714 · Replies: 12 · Views: 234

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 19:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Tank Engine @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 18:55) *
………... - that this has become a "Give In" forum, not a fight-back one - and pursue such distractions and trivia?

Carry on, if you must...


I must be a servile stooge, simply because I don't see that either the council or the PPC forums advocate giving in very often.
Dislike the speeding side if you will but sometimes the best service that can be given is to layout the options and repercussions of fighting back.
I am with SP regarding one thing that any regular poster should be aware of, it is not our money, licence or points at risk.
Poor advice can put someone else's at risk, even cast iron defences can be lost should the OP fail to understand a point or treat it like a silver bullet.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1424702 · Replies: 78 · Views: 2,364

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 13:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (kellerco @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:49) *
Hi

Though technically the badge does not apply in this case , you should have mentioned it since some councils do try to cancel tickets issued to such drivers. I would appeal and mention the badge.



Council have already considered it and discounted so unless OP wants to forego discount and challenge again at NTO stage, nothing new to challenge on beforehand.


There is a "cannot cancel" which is a PI as it ignores discretion but seems like thin gruel at this stage.


Three possible contraventions BTW, Yellow line, Dropped Kerb and Footway parking.
Two would have allowed boarding alighting, one would have allowed the BB as well.
Mum and CEO chose the most difficult to challenge and where neither boarding alighting nor the BB have any effect.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424550 · Replies: 4 · Views: 152

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 09:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


The onus will be on you to prove no uniform, if you can you win, if not, you lose.
Photos?
Else is your word against theirs.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424452 · Replies: 4 · Views: 194

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 09:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


I know I predicted a DNC but this is ridiculously fast.
I can only concur with your thoughts that they played a game of bluff knowing they had not a leg to stand on.
This is the sort of thing that annoys me and keeps me on here offering help.
I don't mind councils enforcing parking, am fully aware that many drivers ignore restrictions and then call foul but can never get my head round councils cynically pushing people to pay when it is obvious to anyone that there is no case to enforce.
Sorry, rant over, well done for sticking with it, many cave which is one reason councils push it to the limit.
The other is ineptitude though to apply that in this case assumes that the reviewing council officers were Dumb and Dumber.

If you want to put the boot in, apply to LT for costs, if enforcing on this PCN is not wholly unreasonable, I am not sure what is.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1424451 · Replies: 41 · Views: 1,283

DancingDad
Posted on: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Dandd @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 15:05) *
Why were you paying to get a wrongfully seized vehicle returned ????



Because I still don't have the V5 from DVLA, can't tax the car and therefore can't take it on the road.
It's a bit of a vicious circle.


My point was that bailiffs should have returned it FOC.

Assuming you had shown it was unlawfully seized ?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1423476 · Replies: 47 · Views: 1,539

DancingDad
Posted on: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,405
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Their legal bods seem to have come up with the "it's only a designated parking place when restrictions apply"
Not a stance I agree with, to me it is a designated parking place 24/7 with timed conditions of use.
I very much doubt that the TMO says otherwise although I understand the interpretation being used to offset the complaint.
I don't know if this has ever been tested in High Court but that would be the only definitive interpretation.

They miss totally that by ignoring an important facet of TMA S86, the bit about designated parking places, they have not made life better for residents, they have potentially left them unable to use their drives, 24/7. Even if only restricted to the times of the permit condition, it is still a significant portion of each day when anyone with a permit can block a DK with impunity. Even the police using obstruction would be faced with TMA and the TMO specifically allowing parking.

End of the day, this is a cock up, possibly designed to help residents but with consequences far outweighing the occasional need to park over their own drive.
TBH, I think that it is simply done that way to save money, a little time and paint.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1423466 · Replies: 6 · Views: 467

774 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 16th October 2018 - 13:17
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.