PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN from council
John Bravo
post Fri, 9 Sep 2016 - 21:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



Hi All,
I hope you are well.
Some time ago I have received a PCN. I have done online representation to it. They have sent a letter asking to provide an invoice of car repair as a proof or accept the fine and pay £65 within 14 days.
After that I have scanned, uploaded and submitted a scanned document via their online system. Used exactly the same PCN number and car reg number to login to online appeal facility.
After 2 weeks I have received a Notice To Owner instead asking to pay £130, so no Notice of Rejection or Acceptance, so far.
What should I do now. I can only do a formal representation at the moment. I assume that the previous online representation was kind of informal.

I have these options on the list:
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur
B I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention
- I have sold the vehicle before that date
- I had brought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
C - The vehicle was taken without my consent
D - We are a hire firm and have supplied details
E - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid
H - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid
I - Other

I was going to go for Other, but not sure how they treat Other in comparison to variant F - procedural impropriety.
Please advise.
Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 9 Sep 2016 - 21:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 17:07
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 17:40) *
SWMBO has allowed me time off.

OP, I do not see that you have any defence against the contravention.

Your vehicle broke down and you chose to have it moved to an apparently restricted location. The breakdown is not relevant IMO because that is not the reason for the contravention which is that you chose to have it left there - unless you can show that the driver of the tow truck left it there against your instructions.


Hope your having a great time HCA,

Reading the OP's post 6 you have a point re the breakdown, the words "I decided" are the killer, however the reason for the DK
should still be explored looking at GSV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 19:59
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



John

HCA is correct, any argument re the breakdown is weakened by you instructing the recovery truck to leave the car there. If you intend to make representations I would go along these lines

On dd/mm/yy at xx am/pm my car suffered a breakdown and required recovery. When this was effected the recovery driver could find no other place within a half mile of my address.
I am aware of this DK, the only reason it is used is to facilitate the emptying of the bins. Knowing that the day the bins are emptied is xxxxxxxx and that I had arranged for repair this would not be an issue. Repair was effected at the roadside later that day (copy invoice enclosed)

The DK cannot be used as mentioned in your rejection of my informal challenge "to allow easy and safe access for pedestrians in particular people with prams or wheelchairs.
You will note. that opposite this DK there is no corresponding DK, indeed the opposite kerb is dominated by marked parking bays. Anyone with a pram or wheelchair would have no way of gaining access to the opposite kerb,
and would likely be stuck on the carriageway because of parked cars

With this in mind I contend that none of the conditions for a DK subject to the requirements of TMA 2004 are met and the PCN should be cancelled


As always it's unlikely the council will agree and you would need to put your case to an adjudicator,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:17
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:49
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17) *
I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?


Know what you mean, but that is not one of the reasons given in section 86
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 20:59
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17) *
I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?


Know what you mean, but that is not one of the reasons given in section 86

Wheelchair users are classed as pedestrians.
And actually need the DK.
The use is only to enter/leave the carriageway, not to cross it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:02
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:17) *
I keep wandering about the two lower flats with ramp access that leads to that DK.
And thinking that access for a wheelchair to allow entry to vehicles may be argued or inferred.

They haven't mentioned this and have obviously just used a generic cut and paste explanation.
Hmmmm?


Know what you mean, but that is not one of the reasons given in section 86

Wheelchair users are classed as pedestrians.
And actually need the DK.
The use is only to enter/leave the carriageway, not to cross it


Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 21:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 23:15
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 21:10) *
Hold up a bit, lets get things together. You must now make formal representations against the NTO so we want to put everything in even if only briefly, adjudicators like consistency

Two questions .

What is the date of the Notice to owner (second letter)?

Do you hold a permit for the parking bays outside the building?


Hi again Pastmybest,

The date of NTO is 8/09/2016

I do not hold a parking permit outside the building as I drive to work everyday leave after 8am, back home after 5:30pm, weekends are not restricted.
I just have a bunch of scratch cards for visitors I have applied and paid for quite some time ago.

Best regards,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 09:19
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,525
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02) *
.......Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)


Apologies, should have checked and not worked on memory.

So, let them dig the hole on pedestrian use while highlighting the bin access use.
As you are local, photos of bin collection would be good.

Somewhere in here we have a guy with multiple PCNs for a bin collection DK and at least one that has been won at adjudication on that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 09:23
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 10:19) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02) *
.......Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)


Apologies, should have checked and not worked on memory.

So, let them dig the hole on pedestrian use while highlighting the bin access use.
As you are local, photos of bin collection would be good.

Somewhere in here we have a guy with multiple PCNs for a bin collection DK and at least one that has been won at adjudication on that.


Got these two as well as the one I referenced

2150447303 2150450181
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 16:57
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 10:19) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 14 Sep 2016 - 22:02) *
.......Na


1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
.

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
.

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

What an adjudicator might think is different though (their only human)


Apologies, should have checked and not worked on memory.

So, let them dig the hole on pedestrian use while highlighting the bin access use.
As you are local, photos of bin collection would be good.

Somewhere in here we have a guy with multiple PCNs for a bin collection DK and at least one that has been won at adjudication on that.


Hi again,
I wish I could get it, they come every Tuesday I think early morning or whenever they arrive. I have never witnessed that myself.
If you look at the street view of this building, the doors on the left of main entrance are where the 4-wheeled bin is hidden, people drop their bin bags from 1st floor using the shaft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 14:19
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



Latest response re my online appeal. I have received NTO a week before this response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 14:55
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sat, 17 Sep 2016 - 15:19) *
Latest response re my online appeal. I have received NTO a week before this response.


wonder what the prerequisites are, strange they did not tell you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 21:21
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 21:30
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21) *
The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.



It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob232
post Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 23:01
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 21 Nov 2012
Member No.: 58,447



possibly because there is no time marked on the invoice?

I might be well wrong on this one, but there is no dogbone sign in front of the dropped kerb, it is a single yellow from the GSV link.
The council photos are at night, so I assume the yellow line waiting restrictions were not in operation.
So it could be assumed it was OK to park there.
Why have a timed sign in front of a dropped kerb? Should it be double yellows?
Sorry if wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 01:04
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,420
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, you are not you, you are two separate entities: the driver and the registered keeper.

With your driver's hat on you could submit a challenge before a NTO was served as to why the penalty should not be paid. But once the NTO was served you as registered keeper would need to make separate representations irrespective of the situation regarding your earlier challenge.

As I understand it, you challenged, they responded, you wrote back with further info, you received the NTO and they responded to your 'further info' letter. You as registered keeper have not made reps against the NTO.

When and how did you send your further info?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 00:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 01:13
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21) *
The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.



It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 07:30
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21) *
The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.



It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.


Ask the garage for a letter stating the location the repair took place, by asking for the proof the council are as good as accepting the ground as valid
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Bravo
post Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 20:43
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 5 Dec 2015
From: London
Member No.: 81,055



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 08:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21) *
The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.



It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.


Ask the garage for a letter stating the location the repair took place, by asking for the proof the council are as good as accepting the ground as valid


Apart from producing invoices or MOTs garages are quite reluctant to produce any custom documents, they hardly use their computers.
They asked for a valid invoice, then they refuse to accept it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 22:54
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 21:43) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 08:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Mon, 19 Sep 2016 - 02:13) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:30) *
QUOTE (John Bravo @ Sun, 18 Sep 2016 - 22:21) *
The only thing I can think of is VAT invoice.
This mechanic is not VAT registered, they have another venture elsewhere which is VAT registered, but in this garage they do car body works only.



It can't be VAT. I would say the invoice doesn't detail why the car was immobilised and 'mechanical repairs' sounds like anything. But obviously you need to ask them.

Faulty alternator was given as the reason of car immobilization (at the very first online appeal) that is why they have asked for proof.
Broken alternator is a quite common reason to immobilize a car and it is actually quite dangerous situation as you cannot even use emergency lights - drained down battery.

I do not always see the time specified on the invoice. Besides the PCN has been issued after 1AM and the car has been repaired same they. It is not possible that is was fixed before e.g. 0:30AM.


Ask the garage for a letter stating the location the repair took place, by asking for the proof the council are as good as accepting the ground as valid


Apart from producing invoices or MOTs garages are quite reluctant to produce any custom documents, they hardly use their computers.
They asked for a valid invoice, then they refuse to accept it.



You can't expect everyone at the council to know a 'faulty alternator' means the car was immobilised - it needs to be spelt out I expect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Sunday, 27th May 2018 - 11:54
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.