PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Code 27 and Towed car (ENFIELD), I hope you can help...it's a challenge!
n101
post Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 00:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Hi,
I'm new to this forum but have been doing a LOT of reading on this site since last week. Despite all the great advice I’ve seen, none of the cases are identical to mine, so I’m a little stuck. You people seem like the perfect ones to turn to, so I do hope you can help me!
On 19/4/2012, approx 8.50am, I parked my car outside a house on the street opposite to the hospital where I work. I returned at 5.10pm and discovered it missing. Long story short:
I called 999 (I panicked!) and they told me to call 101. They had no sign of my car being found abandoned on their database and the operator asked there were any street signs or markings which indicated that car towing took place on the road. I answered no. She then gave me the number for ‘TRACE’ and advised me to call them. I did and was told that my car had been clamped and was being held at Enfield Council car pound. I was given the number for Enfield Council, so I called them and was informed that the release fee would be £255.
I went to the car pound (via home to collect the relevant docs) and received the following documents (minus the photos of the car). I was also given the appeal form. I was, as expected, made to pay the full £255 (£55 for PCN and £200 for the tow charge) for the release of my car. Despite asking, I wasn't allowed to pay the PCN at a later date, or pending an appeal. I was told by the guy serving me that I could only get my car back if I paid the tow charge AND PCN.
I got in touch with the council and requested the photos be posted to me (this was accompanied by the letter dated 21/4/12).
I am aware that the boot of my car overhangs across the driveway slightly, but I ensured there was ample room for any cars to get in or out, and even if I did deserve the PCN, I think the towing was too excessive. Also, please make a note of the timings of the photos, and the timings on the PCN (you can even see the tow truck in the photos at the time the CEO was observing my car). I was also informed (via email by the council) that the car was towed at 11.15am (my car was observed between 11.06am and 11.08am).
So – what do you think of my case? Many thanks for taking the time to read this, your help will be sorely appreciated!












This post has been edited by n101: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 00:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 00:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 09:40
Post #2





Guests






Can you link to the location via google streetview?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 11:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Just my luck the house was having its driveway done at the time Google Street View came along! I was essentially parked where the white van is.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ridge+Crest,...258.77,,0,16.13

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ridge+Crest,...156.73,,0,26.47

Thank you!

This post has been edited by n101: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 11:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 12:44
Post #4





Guests






Thus far I would make your primary appeal point that no wheel was adjacent to the dropped footway and any overhang should be considered as de miminis. I would refer the council to PATAS case 211026505A and send a copy with your appeal. You can obtain a copy from the PATAS website.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...egAdvanced.aspx

Then include the text below. Keep all underlining.

I also bring to the council's attention the matter of procedural impropriety. The council has incorrectly applied those charges specified under section 101A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in regard to the collection of my vehicle when the correct charges to apply are those under section 102(2A). Paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms this assertion. The charges under s.101A apply only when the vehicle being recovered is one that was considered to have the appearance of being abandoned and its disposal is pending. Clear evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008.Therefore, the council had no lawful right to insist the penalty charge be paid when I collected my vehicle nor did the council have any right to retain my vehicle until I also paid the removal charges. A council operating under civil enforcement powers is not given the same power to retain that is given to a council operating under criminalised enforcement powers. This is made quite clear under s.102 RTRA 1984. The power to retain until all charges are paid is purposely withheld, not only so that those rights that follow the service of a regulation 9 PCN can be fully exercised, but also because the right to retain is inappropriate for a civil matter. The council also had no right to administer the appeal process regulated under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Part 4 is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and yet where enforcement under the TMA 2004 occurs and a penalty charge is imposed then any appeal must be pursuant to and in accordance with section 80 TMA 2004. As my vehicle was not immobilised the council should have administered the appeal process under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as these are the regulations that satisfy s.80(1)(a) TMA 2004. It is no coincidence that had the council correctly applied those charges under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 then access to the Part 2 appeal process would not have been obstructed.

Before my vehicle was removed the council served a regulation 9 PCN. The council has not only denied me the opportunity to pay the PCN at a time of my choosing within the statutory 28 day period but they have also denied me the opportunity to make an informal challenge and the right to receive and respond to an NtO. The PCN and statute clearly bestow these rights upon me and it is no coincidence that had s.102(2A) been correctly applied then none of these rights would have been interfered with. If the council are advocating that these rights are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a notice filled with lies. If the PCN has no validity then it is a nullity and thus there can be no penalty charge and no lawful CEO removal.


This post has been edited by Bogsy: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 12:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Sun, 29 Apr 2012 - 00:38
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Thank you so much, Bogsy! Would you suggest that I also keep the underlined words underlined in the letter, also? Thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 29 Apr 2012 - 06:24
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,899
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Given that your financial downside in pursuing reps and possibly an appeal is only your emotional investment and the cost of your own time it's worth considering disputing the issue. Also the punishment could be seen as being disproportionate to the act.

The question is - how to play this?

I would agree and disagree with Bogsy's suggestion.

I agree that something along these exact lines could be submitted, but IMO to the adj. What I think your approach should focus on for your reps is the council's reference to the London Local Authorities Act 2000. This was prospectively repealed by the TMA and AIUI actually repealed by order in 2008/2009 when it was replaced by the TMA's provisions and so if you could get the council to state in their response to your reps that they'd used this as their or part of their legal frame of reference then IMO you could advance an appeal to the adj on the grounds of procedural impropriety.

Perhaps if Bogsy could re-word his post in the context of the LLA (and ss 9 -14 go to exactly the same point) you might be able to push the council's response in the right direction.

HCA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 13:54
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Thanks HCA, definitely worth looking into. Just to check Bogsy - is the PATAS case you are referencing this one: http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...eref=211026505A (the link you provided didn't work on my computer)?

And is there any way you can incorporate HCA's advice into the statement you provided for me? Thanks, I really do appreciate your help.

-n101-
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qafqa
post Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 14:16
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



QUOTE
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...eref=211026505A (the link you provided didn't work on my computer

If you haven't been able to see case number 211026505A because that link went to
an error page go via the Search button here:

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk

Type or paste the number into the Case Reference (10 characters) box and click Search.

This post has been edited by qafqa: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 14:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 14:48
Post #9





Guests






QUOTE (n101 @ Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 14:54) *
And is there any way you can incorporate HCA's advice into the statement you provided for me? Thanks, I really do appreciate your help.


Sorry I've not got sufficient free time to research the 2000 Act and unearth what precisely has or has not been revoked and rework my text to suit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 14:51
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Thank you qafqa - that is what I did to find the link I provided but it turns out mine goes to an error message, too!

Thanks again, much appreciated smile.gif

-n101-

PS: looking forward to hearing from you, Bogsy wink.gif (sorry, I'm being pushy, I know!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Mon, 30 Apr 2012 - 15:24
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Hi Bogsy, you must have sent your message as I was writing mine. Thank you for all your help, I really am grateful. I'll compose my letter within the next few days for everybody's perusal. Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Thu, 3 May 2012 - 01:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Here you go:

RE: PCN: EFxxxxxxxx
VRN: xxxx xxx


Dear Sirs,

I am writing with regards to PCN xxxxxxx and the subsequent removal of my car. I work at Chase Farm Hospital and parked my car on Ridge Crest at approximately 8.50am on 19/4/2012. I returned to my vehicle at the end of day, 5.10pm, to discover it missing. After making many phone calls, I discovered it had been towed and was being held by Enfield Council at Crown Road Vehicle Park. Upon payment of the PCN and car release fee (I was told by the officer at the desk that in order to release my car, I must pay the PCN there and then), I requested Enfield Council post me the photographs of my ‘contravention’. I would like it to be noted that while the CEO observed my vehicle between 11.06am and 11.08am, in the photographs, I could see the tow truck in the background, and even a part of it hanging over my vehicle. I was informed by Enfield Council via email, that my car was removed at 11.15am.

I would also like to bring to the council’s attention that no wheel was adjacent to the dropped footway and it is my opinion that any overhang should be considered as de miminis. I respectfully refer you to the Parking Appeals Traffic Appeals Service case 211026505A (Mrs Roheama Cleghorn v. Redbridge), a copy of which, I have enclosed with this letter.

I also bring to the council's attention the matter of procedural impropriety. The council has incorrectly applied those charges specified under section 101A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in regard to the collection of my vehicle when the correct charges to apply are those under section 102(2A). Paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms this assertion. The charges under s.101A apply only when the vehicle being recovered is one that was considered to have the appearance of being abandoned and its disposal is pending. Clear evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008. Therefore, the council had no lawful right to insist the penalty charge be paid when I collected my vehicle nor did the council have any right to retain my vehicle until I also paid the removal charges. A council operating under civil enforcement powers is not given the same power to retain that is given to a council operating under criminalised enforcement powers. This is made quite clear under s.102 RTRA 1984. The power to retain until all charges are paid is purposely withheld, not only so that those rights that follow the service of a regulation 9 PCN can be fully exercised, but also because the right to retain is inappropriate for a civil matter. The council also had no right to administer the appeal process regulated under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Part 4 is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and yet where enforcement under the TMA 2004 occurs and a penalty charge is imposed then any appeal must be pursuant to and in accordance with section 80 TMA 2004. As my vehicle was not immobilised the council should have administered the appeal process under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as these are the regulations that satisfy s.80(1)(a) TMA 2004. It is no coincidence that had the council correctly applied those charges under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 then access to the Part 2 appeal process would not have been obstructed.

Before my vehicle was removed the council served a regulation 9 PCN. The council has not only denied me the opportunity to pay the PCN at a time of my choosing within the statutory 28 day period but they have also denied me the opportunity to make an informal challenge and the right to receive and respond to an NtO. The PCN and statute clearly bestow these rights upon me and it is no coincidence that had s.102(2A) been correctly applied then none of these rights would have been interfered with. If the council are advocating that these rights are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a notice filled with lies. If the PCN has no validity then it is a nullity and thus there can be no penalty charge and no lawful CEO removal.

I also ask the council to refer to London Local Authorities Act 2000 sections 9-14.

It is my contention that my vehicle was not parked in such a manner that removal in this instance was either proportionate or necessary. It is my belief that the enforcement authority cannot justify removal in this instance. Removal without justification is a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. In the event that the enforcement authority sees fit to reject these representations I will expect them to provide a full explanation of why the removal of my vehicle was proportionate and necessary and to fully justify the need for removal with evidence in their notice of rejection.

Due to the above given representations I require you to refund both the penalty charge and removal fee forthwith, totalling a sum of £255. In the event of these representations being rejected I will have no hesitation in taking this matter to adjudication, and will be requesting costs on the grounds that the enforcement authority acted unreasonably and vexatiously in not properly considering and accepting valid representations at the earliest opportunity.


Yours Faithfully,


xxxxxxxxx

Bogsy: Thank you for your help - I looked into your references and I know I never would have found them on my own, so thanks again, I am very grateful.

HCA: I read and re-read your post, and I'm still trying to find ways to incorpate LLA section 9-14 into the letter whilst making it look like a natural fit to what has already been written. I've added it, but am unsure how I can add to it (I don't want to sound uninformed!) - is there any way you could expand on the points a bit, and then I can add them to my letter?

Many thanks - now, feel free to read and criticise!

PS: I'll be abroad from tomorrow afternoon until Tuesday. I'll still be in Europe and have been assured that I have wi-fi in my hotel, so I will be checking regularly. If you reply and I haven't responded, please don't think me rude - it just means I haven't got access to the net!

Thanks,

-n101-
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 3 May 2012 - 17:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,745
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Google 'London Councils Code of Practice for clamping and removals' and you will find a PDF version of London Councils' Code of Practice on Traffic enforcement. Enfield claim to adhere to this Code of Practice but if you read it you should find several points where they haven't applied the COP. It includes definitions to do with the priorities of which vehicles should be removed and it also stipulates situations where an immediate towaway may be valid, otherwise the normal procedure for a non-absolute contravention is for a passing CEO to first observe to check for exemptions, then issue a PCN, then report it for possible removal if it's a priority (in that order). It says they can do immediate tows but mainly where a CCTV has spotted a car in a bus lane, etc.

I wonder if the towaway truck was driving round looking for vehicles to tow and the on-board CEO jumped out and slapped a PCN on then towed immediately (against the COP in my view). You can find out if it was just one CEO by comparing which CEO issued the PCN to the CEO who authorised the removal. If it's unclear then in your appeal put the Council to proof that they followed the COP and that two CEOs were involved and that a measured individual decision was made as per the COP. It doesn't look like it was to me! Looks like the CEO on the tow truck shouted, 'look, there's one! Let's see how quickly we can do this...'

The second thing to read I would recommend is the 'LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ENFIELD PARKING ENFORCEMENT PLAN JUNE 2008' which I have open here as a PDF but can't seem to link. It also mentions there is a Parking Charter on their website but I found that to be very bland, just paying lip-service to the idea of consumer openness IMHO.

Anyhoo, the Stakeholder Consultation document is worth Googling as it has such gems as:

''Removal of contravening vehicles
The clamping and removals of vehicles can be used to enhance and improve the
enforcement of parking regulations with clamping providing a visible deterrent, and
removal being used to combat dangerous and inconsiderate parking. The London
Councils provide a code of practice for clamping and removals for all London
Boroughs and Government guidance is that they should only be used as a last resort
measure.


Enfield currently applies the London Council’s Code of Practice and the proposed
clamping and removals standards as laid out in The Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 which came into force 31 March
2008. Better publicity about the way the policy operates would be helpful as a
deterrent.''


Finally, in your wanderings around Google, look at the Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard's comments about removal of vehicles only being a last resort as otherwise it's disproportionate/possible breach of human rights. I would quote her as well.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 3 May 2012 - 17:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Wed, 9 May 2012 - 14:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Thanks, SchoolRunMum, much appreciated. I'll look into the sources you quoted, and adjust my later accordingly.I'll aim to get my letter on here tonight.

Thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Wed, 9 May 2012 - 23:06
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Here's my revised letter:

Mr xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx

02/05/2012

RE: PCN: EFxxxxxxxx
VRN: xxxx xxx


Dear Sirs,

I am writing with regards to PCN xxxxxxx and the subsequent removal of my car. I work at Chase Farm Hospital and parked my car on Ridge Crest at approximately 8.50am on 19/4/2012. I returned to my vehicle at the end of day, 5.10pm, to discover it missing. After making many phone calls, I discovered it had been towed and was being held by Enfield Council at Crown Road Vehicle Park. Upon payment of the PCN and car release fee (I was told by the officer at the desk that in order to release my car, I must pay the PCN there and then), I requested Enfield Council post me the photographs of my ‘contravention’. I would like it to be noted that while the CEO observed my vehicle between 11.06am and 11.08am, in the photographs, I could see the tow truck in the background, and even a part of it hanging over my vehicle. I was informed by Enfield Council via email, that my car was removed at 11.15am. Due to the torrential rain at 5.15pm on Thursday 19th April, I had no choice but to pay £7 for a taxi to drive me home in order to collect the relevant documents to secure my car’s release.

I would also like to bring to the council’s attention that no wheel was adjacent to the dropped footway and it is my opinion that any overhang should be considered as de miminis. I respectfully refer you to the Parking Appeals Traffic Appeals Service case 211026505A (Mrs Roheama Cleghorn v. Redbridge), a copy of which, I have enclosed with this letter.

I also bring to the council's attention the matter of procedural impropriety. The council has incorrectly applied those charges specified under section 101A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in regard to the collection of my vehicle when the correct charges to apply are those under section 102(2A). Paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms this assertion. The charges under s.101A apply only when the vehicle being recovered is one that was considered to have the appearance of being abandoned and its disposal is pending. Clear evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008. Therefore, the council had no lawful right to insist the penalty charge be paid when I collected my vehicle nor did the council have any right to retain my vehicle until I also paid the removal charges. A council operating under civil enforcement powers is not given the same power to retain that is given to a council operating under criminalised enforcement powers. This is made quite clear under s.102 RTRA 1984. The power to retain until all charges are paid is purposely withheld, not only so that those rights that follow the service of a regulation 9 PCN can be fully exercised, but also because the right to retain is inappropriate for a civil matter. The council also had no right to administer the appeal process regulated under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Part 4 is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and yet where enforcement under the TMA 2004 occurs and a penalty charge is imposed then any appeal must be pursuant to and in accordance with section 80 TMA 2004. As my vehicle was not immobilised the council should have administered the appeal process under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as these are the regulations that satisfy s.80(1)(a) TMA 2004. It is no coincidence that had the council correctly applied those charges under s.102 (2A) RTRA 1984 then access to the Part 2 appeal process would not have been obstructed.

Before my vehicle was removed the council served a regulation 9 PCN. The council has not only denied me the opportunity to pay the PCN at a time of my choosing within the statutory 28 day period but they have also denied me the opportunity to make an informal challenge and the right to receive and respond to a ‘Notice to Owner’. The PCN and statute clearly bestow these rights upon me and it is no coincidence that had s.102 (2A) been correctly applied then none of these rights would have been interfered with. If the council are advocating that these rights are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a notice filled with lies. If the PCN has no validity then it is a nullity and thus there can be no penalty charge and no lawful CEO removal.

I also ask the council to refer to London Local Authorities Act 2000 sections 9-14 as well as London Councils' Code of Practice on Traffic Enforcement. In the latter’s case, I have read the ‘Order Of Priority For Vehicle Removals’ (68) and can not find a single circumstance which is relevant to my case, and could justify why it had to be removed. There was no Dangerous Position, Serious Obstruction, Serious Parking Contraventions or Parking Contraventions committed by me. Three of the stages in Removal Operations consist of:
a) Identification;
b) Removal truck despatch
c) Authorisation
My car was observed by the CEO between 11.06am and 11.08am, and according to my email correspondence with Enfield Council, it was removed at 11.15am. It is interesting that my car was removed within 9 minutes of the CEO observing it, especially when there is evidence of the tow truck in the photographs provided by the council. The immediate removal of my car does not adhere to the terms stipulated in the Act. The normal procedure for a non-absolute contravention is for a passing CEO to first observe to check for exemptions, then issue a PCN, then report it for possible removal if it's a priority (in that order). Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that there was a second Parking Attendant on board the removal truck to “authorise the lifting of the vehicle”. I have details of the CEO who issued the PCN and would be interested to see the identity of the second CEO/Parking Attendant on-board the removal truck.

The London Borough of Enfield Stakeholder Consultation Enfield Parking Enforcement Plan June 2008 states under ‘Removal of contravening vehicles’ that “The London Councils provide a code of practice for clamping and removals for all London Boroughs and Government guidance is that they should only be used as a last resort measure”. Also, “It is recommended that the London Council’s Code of Practice for clamping and removals continue to be applied by Enfield and that the clamping of vehicles be used only to address persistent offenders in permitted parking bays and hazardous yellow line parking”. I was/am not a persistent offender, nor were there any parking bays or yellow lines present.

Finally, I would like to bring to the council’s attention to Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard's comments: “Removal action would be appropriate in cases where parked vehicles are causing an obstruction or a hazard to other road users, where they are obstructing a restricted stopping or waiting place such as a bus stop, cab rank or loading bay, or where the Local Authority has suspended the operation of a designated parking bay. Removal action from designated parking places would also be appropriate in some cases – for example, where a vehicle is parked across more than one meter bay or if parked in a loading, doctor’s or residents’ bay without authorisation. Vehicle removal would also be appropriate where a vehicle has been clamped for some time (for example, 24 or 48 hours) without any action being taken by its owner to pay for its release”.
“Removals should not be carried out in an ad hoc fashion. Local Authorities should consider, in consultation with the Police, devising a list showing the priority to be accorded different types of parking contravention when deciding the order in which vehicles should be removed. As with wheel clamping, it is important to ensure that vehicle removals are only undertaken where the seriousness of the contravention warrants this level of enforcement. Inappropriate use of removals may bring an Authority’s enforcement activities into disrepute”.

It is my contention that my vehicle was not parked in such a manner that removal in this instance was either proportionate or necessary. It is my belief that the enforcement authority cannot justify removal in this instance. Removal without justification is a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. In the event that the enforcement authority sees fit to reject these representations I will expect them to provide a full explanation of why the removal of my vehicle was proportionate and necessary and to fully justify the need for removal with evidence in their notice of rejection.

Due to the above given representations I require you to refund both the penalty charge and removal fee forthwith, totalling a sum of £255. In the event of these representations being rejected I will have no hesitation in taking this matter to adjudication, and will be requesting costs on the grounds that the enforcement authority acted unreasonably and vexatiously in not properly considering and accepting valid representations at the earliest opportunity.


Yours Faithfully,


xxxxxxxxx


I've included advice from SchoolRunMum - please let me know if you think it needs any more adjusting.

Many thanks!

-n101-
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 10 May 2012 - 00:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,745
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



THat reads very nicely to me - and that's a better quote from Caroline Sheppard than I have seen before.

Great stuff and of course worth appealing all the way now as you have nothing to lose and everything to gain except your taxi fare!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Fri, 11 May 2012 - 15:42
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Aw, thanks SRM, I'm glad you like the quotes! I've been advised by the council to email my appeal to them, with attachments. Another alternative offered to me was to hand it in in person, so I think I'll do both this weekend.

Based on what I've read on these forums before, I'm not wholly confident that Enfield Council will cancel my PCN and towing fee, but I know I've got a good case thanks to you all.

I will keep you updated - in the meantime, everyone please keep reading my letter for any more amendments you think necessary!

Thanks.

-n101-
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Mon, 14 May 2012 - 18:24
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Right, I've emailed my appeal to them, and I also handed it in in person to ensure they receive it before the deadline. I'll let you know when I get a reply. In the meantime, thanks for your help Bogsy, HCA and SchoolRunMum!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
n101
post Thu, 24 May 2012 - 23:57
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,554



Right, as expected, my appeal was rejected. I've attached all the documents they sent. I'm so annoyed, I really thought I had a chance! Any advice, lovely helpful people?









Thanks

-n101-

This post has been edited by n101: Fri, 25 May 2012 - 00:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 25 May 2012 - 00:13
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,926
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



they didn't reply at all to some of your points.

am sure Bogsy will be along re the s.101 args


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
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: Tuesday, 7th July 2020 - 15:19
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.