PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Haringey council PCN
boo13
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 10:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



Hi all, I was wondering if you could help and direct me to any previous cases that may be relevant.

Haringey council has not enforced certain parking restrictions, double yellow lines, double parking in a particular area etc. Are there any successful cases that have shown that it is reasonable to assume the council is not enforcing parking restrictions and therefore the issuance of a ticket should be considered unreasonable/ unenforceable?

Furthermore, the Notice to rejection letter was received on 14th December, despite the letter being dated 3rd December, 11 days beforehand. I appreciate the post maybe busy because of Christmas, but is that acceptable?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 10:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 15:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the PCN, your challenge, their rejection, google street view, council pics... all the usual things you know we need.

Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 15:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 15:38
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 545
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



Legitimate expectation is what you are looking for, use the top right search for plenty of examples.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 21:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (boo13 @ Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 10:58) *
Haringey council has not enforced certain parking restrictions, double yellow lines, double parking in a particular area etc. Are there any successful cases that have shown that it is reasonable to assume the council is not enforcing parking restrictions and therefore the issuance of a ticket should be considered unreasonable/ unenforceable?

Andrew Rotenberg v London Borough of Barnet (2160242624, 19 July 2016) http://bit.ly/2VeeE8t
Darren Roberts v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2190483619, 13 December 2019) http://bit.ly/2RYtb9a


--------------------
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
boo13
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 23:43
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



Thank you all. I will have a look at those cases and searching previous cases.

I will post more details but need to redact it all so will take me a bit of time.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boo13
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 09:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



Btw what would be the date of service, if the Notice to rejection letter was received on 14th December, despite the letter being dated 3rd December, 11 days beforehand? Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 15:20
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The date of service is deemed to be 2 working days after the date of postage, i.e. 5 December. The date of service is rebuttable, i.e. if you can persuade the council or the tribunal that the letter only actually arrived on 14 December then that will be the date of service, but as you got the letter within the 28 day period it would seem like a pointless battle.


--------------------
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
boo13
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 00:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 15:20) *
The date of service is deemed to be 2 working days after the date of postage, i.e. 5 December. The date of service is rebuttable, i.e. if you can persuade the council or the tribunal that the letter only actually arrived on 14 December then that will be the date of service, but as you got the letter within the 28 day period it would seem like a pointless battle.


Thank you. So the Notice of Rejection of Representation states "within the next 28 days (from the date this letter was delivered to you) you must either pay the penalty charge or appeal to the independent adjudicator at the London Tribunals".

The letter was delivered to us on 14th December and so according to the letter this would mean we have until 11th January to appeal to the independent adjudicator. We emailed the council on 14th December to say we received the notice of rejection of representation on that date, and on 16th December, they stated "whilst I acknowledge the letter was dated 3rd December 2019 and you received the letter on 14th December 2019, this does not invalidate the response as it was still sent within the statutory response time".

Despite the council a knowledging the date we received the rejection letter, we received a Charge Certificate today. This is why I was concerned about the big time difference from the date on the letter to when we actually received it as it affects the time we have to appeal to the adjudicator. Would this constitute procedural impropriety on the part of the council? And if so, are there previous tribunal cases that would add additional arguments for my case and for the PCN to be cancelled.

We are in the process of scanning all the documents, redacting parts and posting them so you can understand the chain of events more fully.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 11:38
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,715
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Post the documents we are blind without them


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 13:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,355
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, I'm going to be blunt: post the docs or pay.

I don't know what you think we can do without sight of the documents.

And register your appeal TODAY. Contravention did not occur; procedural impropriety.

Further details to follow once you have been notified that the appeal has been registered.


State that notwithstanding that the NOR gave an issue date of 3 Dec, it was not received at the stated address until 14 Dec. You contacted the authority by email immediately (14 Dec) and in their response they did not address the matter but instead referred only to the fact that in either case the NOR was served in time, which was not the substantive issue (see attached correspondence).

You therefore request that the proper officer would still register your appeal despite this appearing to be beyond the 28-day period.

Do NOT mention the CC.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 13:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,395
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 13:23) *
And register your appeal TODAY.

online !

QUOTE (boo13 @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 00:05) *
we received a Charge Certificate today.

Dated?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 14:03
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,355
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, just to add the reasoning behind my post.

You now have a CC which in itself cannot be appealed by you. Only 2 bodies may deal with a CC, namely the authority and the Traffic Enforcement Centre(TEC).

1. The authority
If your appeal is registered then the authority must cancel the CC.

2. TEC
If your appeal is not registered, then the only way in which the authority may pursue enforcement is for them to register this as a debt with TEC and then send you the next notice which is an Order for Recovery. This comes with a form called a witness statement which you could submit to TEC who would then direct the authority to cancel the CC.Your grounds would be that you made representations to the authority to which they did not respond in accordance with the regs, in this case ensuring that the NOR was posted on its issue date.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boo13
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 22:16
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



Thank you all - very helpful. I have registered the appeal as you recommended with evidence to follow.

Just trying to figure out how to post all the reacted docs.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 23:15
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Redact them by using something like MS paint or GIMP, or just cover your name / address / number plate with some bits of paper and take photos with your phone. Upload to an image hosting site like imgur.com or imgbb.com


--------------------
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
boo13
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 01:00
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



Ok I hope this works.

1. Here is the PCN:

https://ibb.co/x8v4KVR

https://ibb.co/h7hkSsq

2. Civil enforcement officer photos:

https://ibb.co/RvXPJw2

https://ibb.co/ryCc6dk

https://ibb.co/dthvPG0

https://ibb.co/bXCPqBm

3. Initial rejection of informal appeal and correspondence that followed

https://ibb.co/jHNZP9H

https://ibb.co/SN9qJ4W

https://ibb.co/kGfYrgb

https://ibb.co/9Zv1p7F

https://ibb.co/g7WS8ZD

4. Notice to Owner

https://ibb.co/TkVbZn0

https://ibb.co/VxLLxyL

https://ibb.co/gM53Yv0

https://ibb.co/vJZGYq9

5. Notice of rejection

https://ibb.co/x6SMfQs

https://ibb.co/qNffg8x

https://ibb.co/Zf6hZNw

https://ibb.co/p2H5S2Y

https://ibb.co/PFDxcyJ

https://ibb.co/Ybmsv69

https://ibb.co/6vC7rkn

6. Charge certificate

https://ibb.co/cLQsbhG

https://ibb.co/8rTzhk2





Here is the text from the initial informal appeal that was sent on the 30th July 2019:

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to make an informal challenge against the above PCN. This representation is made within the 14 days beginning with the date of the notice. Therefore the penalty charge is to be held at the discount amount whilst you consider this representation.
I received a parking ticket on Tuesday 23rd July 2019 (my wedding anniversary) but I believe there are grounds to make representations as the alleged contravention did not occur.
I would like to request your photographic evidence for this PCN. This is because there are no restrictions on Rhodes Avenue London n22 and hence I could not have been parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.
Moreover, I was parked outside my own house and was unloading my sleeping 4 year old daughter into the house. As I put her to bed she was disturbed and awoke, so I had to settle her. I had taken her into the house just prior to your officer's alleged arrival on the scene. I parked outside my own house and across our drive to easily unload my daughter's. Hence the alleged contravention did not occur.
Should my request to cancel this PCN be rejected then please take this as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:
a) A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this parking bay, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).
b) Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from TSRGD.
c) Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.
d) Certification of type approval of the CCTV device or evidence of alleged contravention.
e) A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.
f) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location.
g) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled by you following informal challenges.
h) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled by you following formal appeal to you.
i) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.
j) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and not pursued by you for any other reason.
k) The number of complaints received with respect to this location from Motorists, both formal and informal and all records of action taken if any.
As this appeal is made within the 14 days beginning with the date of this notice, please hold the penalty charge at the discount amount whilst you consider this representation.
I would also appreciate a return email confirming the receipt of this challenge.
Yours sincerely




Here is the text sent as part of the formal appeal:

I received a parking ticket on Tuesday 23rd July 2019 (my wedding anniversary) but I believe there are grounds to make representations as the alleged contravention did not occur and there are compelling reasons why this PCN is not justified.
I was unloading my sleeping 4 year old daughter into the house. It is unfortunate that the Civil Enforcement Officer did not observe any loading or unloading activity, but they arrived just after I unloaded my daughter into the house. The Civil Enforcement Officer had already taken photographic evidence within 4 minutes 7 seconds of their arrival and issued the PCN within 6 minutes from their arrival.
As I put my daughter to bed, she was disturbed and awoke, so I had to settle her. I had taken her into the house just prior to your officer's alleged arrival on the scene. Please see evidence of this in the Nest video clip here https://video.nest.com/clip/ . I parked outside my own house and across our drive to easily unload my daughter's. Hence the alleged contravention did not occur.
Moreover, [deleted] states "Parking rules apply even if only part of your vehicle is parked on the line. Parking rules are there to ensure that traffic flows freely and safely. A vehicle even partly parked where it is not allowed can still have a considerable effect on traffic flow and safety." However, it is clear that this has not been the case on our road and it has become an established practice that parking attendants do not enforce restrictions on Rhodes Avenue - we have been living on Rhodes Avenue since 2016 and cars are regularly parked fully on double yellow lines, disabled bays without a blue badge, and across driveways but no parking tickets issued. We therefore had legitimate expectations that we would not be issued a PCN for parking outside our own driveway in a safe manner and unloading our daughters. Moreover, during the time in which unloading was occurring, it can be seen from the above clip that there is no impact on traffic flow as there is not any.

If Haringey council had established practice to enforce parking rules on Rhodes Avenues N22 to ensure the traffic flows freely and safely, then they would most certainty have done so when children’s safety was of paramount concern, yet they have failed to do so - i.e. around key times during the school day. Why are we therefore being discriminated and treated unfairly by Haringey council? Please see photographic evidence of others consistently parking on the double yellow lines on multiple dates, across driveways etc yet no parking enforcement action has been taken. https://photos.app.goo.gl/[deleted] In addition, from our FOI enquiries [deleted]) it is clear that parking enforcement action has not taken place at this location which is in line with what we have observed ourselves.
I have also been made redundant and would like you to cancel this PCN taking this into consideration. Please see attached letter of evidence.

Moreover, after buying our house we queried the council about the double yellow lines going partly over our driveway, yet despite replying to the council requesting more information on 10th December 2018, we have yet to receive a response back from the council - this is unacceptable and we should not have to chase the council to do its job.
Finally, in respect of the FOI request, I clearly stated: "Should my request to cancel this PCN be rejected then please take this as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000". I do not, therefore, understand why [deleted] failed to forward my FOI request onto the relevant department and instead directed me to a website address several weeks later on 19th September and in effect used delay tactics to hinder my ability to gather relevant evidence.
Given we have made representations within the 14 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice and [deleted] email dated 19th September, please hold the penalty charge at the discount amount whilst you consider this representation.
Yours sincerely
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Right, finally we're getting somewhere, let's distil a few facts:

1) There is prima facie evidence of a contravention.

2) You cannot "unload" a person, but you are allowed to stop on DYLs for the purposes of allowing passengers to board or alight. If the passenger in question cannot reasonably alight unaided, this becomes assisted alighting. You must first establish how old your daughter was, also you use the expression "we" so you need to justify why one person couldn't help your daughter into the house while the other person moved the car.

3) You might find this disappointing, but pretty much nothing else you say amounts to a defence to the allegation. The Google Street View history presents no evidence of vehicles regularly parking at that location with impunity.

4) The delay in you receiving the representations is irrelevant unless your formal representation was received by the council before 18 October 2019, but you haven't given us the date of your formal representations. If you can show that the formal representations were received by the council prior to 18 October, you have a winning appeal on that alone.

5) Everything else you say amounts to mitigation or, at worst, an expression of frustration and while this is understandable, it is not a statutory ground of appeal that the tribunal can take into account.

You have a valid complaint regarding the council's failure to handle your FOI request correctly, the council cannot require you to make the request again via the website. However it's now too late to get any information under the act within a useful timeframe, so personally I wouldn't bother clogging up the ICO with a complaint that will have become academic by the time you get a response (which you wouldn't get for several weeks if not a few months). Failure to handle an FOI request is not in itself a ground of appeal under the parking regulations.


--------------------
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
boo13
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 14:23
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:07) *
Right, finally we're getting somewhere, let's distil a few facts:

1) There is prima facie evidence of a contravention.

2) You cannot "unload" a person, but you are allowed to stop on DYLs for the purposes of allowing passengers to board or alight. If the passenger in question cannot reasonably alight unaided, this becomes assisted alighting. You must first establish how old your daughter was, also you use the expression "we" so you need to justify why one person couldn't help your daughter into the house while the other person moved the car.

3) You might find this disappointing, but pretty much nothing else you say amounts to a defence to the allegation. The Google Street View history presents no evidence of vehicles regularly parking at that location with impunity.

4) The delay in you receiving the representations is irrelevant unless your formal representation was received by the council before 18 October 2019, but you haven't given us the date of your formal representations. If you can show that the formal representations were received by the council prior to 18 October, you have a winning appeal on that alone.

5) Everything else you say amounts to mitigation or, at worst, an expression of frustration and while this is understandable, it is not a statutory ground of appeal that the tribunal can take into account.

You have a valid complaint regarding the council's failure to handle your FOI request correctly, the council cannot require you to make the request again via the website. However it's now too late to get any information under the act within a useful timeframe, so personally I wouldn't bother clogging up the ICO with a complaint that will have become academic by the time you get a response (which you wouldn't get for several weeks if not a few months). Failure to handle an FOI request is not in itself a ground of appeal under the parking regulations.


Thank you.

On 2) our daughter that was sleeping was 4 years and 2 months old. We also had our other daughter that was 6 years at the time to help into the house. Unloading activity was taking place. There were bags and other things too that were unloaded. We have provided video footage of this, so the council can see the unloading activity.

3) Google street view is not the best source of information here. We live here and know that violations happen on a daily basis and enforcement does not happen. This is particularly true around school drop off and pick up times. We have also shared photos of violations occurring with the council, but due to privacy I have not posted that link here - there are people and car registrations in the images. People would not park on the double yellow lines on this road regularly if parking restrictions were being enforced.

4) Not sure I understand this. Delay in receiving the NOR matters (11 days after the date on the letter) as no-one can understand what the date of service of the NOR is and hence which timelines apply e.g. to appeal to the tribunal. Council acknowledged we received the NOR on 14th December, so surely we then had 28 days from this date to appeal to the tribunal?

Re: the formal representation: this was done via their online system after we received NTO on 10th October. Unfortunately, the council system does not appear to have emailed confirmation so I do not have the exact date/ time, but think it was around 3rd November. However, the content of what we stated in this, was similar to what we emailed the council on 23rd September (i.e sharing the video footage we were able to download of unloading activity) but was ignored by Haringey council staff who rejected our initial informal appeal. They failed to look at this additional informal information and went on to issue a NTO without taking this information into account (as far as we can tell and given the council stated "I have seen that you have made representations and another officer will assess your case and respond to you" it appeared the video footage was not looked at before the issuance of the NTO. Moreover in the council's rejections they fail to acknowledge the video footage or explain why the video footage is not sufficient evidence of unloading. They only talk about the civil enforcement officer not seeing any unloading activity over a relatively short observation period (and where the CEO has clearly parked his bike it is arguably not in sight of the house).

Re FOI: in relation to some specific dates where we took photos of multiple (and daily) double yellow line violations on the road, the council did not issue any PCNs. Again supporting evidence that we had legitimate expectation that parking enforcement does not occur on our road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 16:14
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,715
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Tell us as soon as you have confirmation of the registration of your appeal from London tribunals


--------------------
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
boo13
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 17:03
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 May 2010
Member No.: 37,808



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 16:14) *
Tell us as soon as you have confirmation of the registration of your appeal from London tribunals


Thank you, will do. Do you know how long this usually takes? We picked a hearing date.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 17:04
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,355
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, there's so much hot air, meritless statements and ridiculous requests in your reps that you have successfully obscured the essentials. But perhaps this was intentional. Lay down a barrage and hope they lie down.

It can work.

Or, if the adj accepts your late appeal request..you have explained why it is late, haven't you???

At present you have NOT registered your appeal, you have submitted a late appeal request. Only when you receive confirmation from ETA that it has been registered can you relax.

The objective and indisputable facts:
Your car was parked on DYL to more than a trivial degree;
There was adequate room for you to have parked wholly off the DYL and not across your neighbour's crossover;
6 minutes' obs is given in the PCN and the last photo extends the period during which your vehicle was stopped and clearly unattended to 7 minutes.

Your defence:
A 4-year old daughter was being taken into the house by the driver/passenger.
A 6-year old daughter was similarly being escorted into the house.

But where's the meat?

As per cp, why did it take two adults more than 7 minutes to move two children into the nearby house and why was the fact that you were parked on DYL not addressed by the driver by simply moving back a couple of feet?

And where and what is the video to which you refer?

As your appeal has not been registered yet we have time to give you the best defence available and this does not include a rantathon about other drivers' parking etc. This simply conveys the impression that you attach no importance to being on DYL which in your mind you are able to ignore with impunity.

And of course there are absolutely clear traffic reasons for the DYL, you know it and so do we..the entrance to the golf club is a bit of a giveaway. The sight lines must be kept clear both to the right and left of that entrance.

And unanswered questions:
Why did you not park on your driveway?
How were the children moved? A bit old for carry-cot, the 6-year old could walk and settle themselves. Assisted alighting is exactly that, it is not a period allowed to take a child indoors, change them, put them to bed and read a bedtime story. OK, a tad over the top, but you do not know what an adj might be thinking when they read your reps and other correspondence. My guess is that they'll be closer to my challenging view than is good for you.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 15:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Wednesday, 23rd September 2020 - 23:27
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.