PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN in residents' bay near Harrods when restrictions not in force, CEO getting his Saturdays and Sundays mixed up
X-treem
post Tue, 25 Feb 2014 - 23:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



I received a s.9 PCN at 08:51 on Sunday 1st December, and subsequently an NtO, for parking in a residents' bay in Basil Street near Harrods. Now, I'm not entirely sure exactly where along the street I was parked, but it was certainly between here (where the black Porsche is parked) and here (where the black Volkswagen is parked). All the residents' parking bays along that side of the road along that stretch have the same time restrictions which includes 'Sunday 1pm - 5pm'. At the time of the alleged contravention, I was not parked during the restricted times. So, unless I'm missing something here, this really seems like the CEO didn't know what day of the week it was and had possibly been out on the lash the night before and thought it was Saturday morning, not Sunday morning.

So, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Notwithstanding the above, even if I have missed something, I have some very good mitigating circumstances as I had intended to remove my car after an evening out with friends on Saturday night, but I ended up 'assisting police with inquiries' that resulted in me being unable to remove my car until Sunday afternoon (similar to a previous PCN I successfully appealed against a few months earlier when my vehicle was actually towed). However, given the aforementioned ground and assuming it's valid, I can probably not mention this.

This is the PCN:


I asked someone I know who works in Harrods to check one of the signs for me tonight and it is still the same sign as on GSV. I assume the other resident permit holder signs along that stretch are also the same.

Here's the representations I've drafted:

QUOTE
My vehicle (registration XXXXXX) was issued with a PCN number KE22330885 in Basil Street, London on 01 December 2013 at 08:51 which I discovered later in the day when I returned to my vehicle to remove it.

Please consider this e-mail my representations against this PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur as I am permitted to park in the residents' bay at 08:51 on a Sunday according to the roadside sign (photograph attached).

However, you have not provided me with any photographic evidence showing the exact location where I was parked. Therefore, if I am mistaken and I was parked in a location not subject to the restrictions of the referenced sign, then I have mitigating circumstances that I would like to use as the police had control of my vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and permitted it to remain at rest in the place where it was without my consent. I will only provide evidence of this if required, though, should you reject my main ground for appeal.

On the above basis, please cancel this PCN forthwith. If we are unable to reach an agreement, then I understand I have the option of appealing to an adjudicator at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service if required at a later stage, which I certainly would do in this case.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


Any thoughts or comments? In particular, have I massively missed something to do with the restrictions and my main ground of appeal?

This post has been edited by X-treem: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 - 23:49


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 25 Feb 2014 - 23:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
EDW
post Tue, 25 Feb 2014 - 23:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



In trouble with plod again?


Case Reference: 2120562288
Declarant: Mr Andrew David Rush
Authority: Southwark
VRM: Y874OGW
PCN: SO04510563
Contravention Date: 01 Jun 2012
Contravention Time: 11:36
Contravention Location: Champion Hill
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Parked in a residents or shared use pay without displaying a permit, voucher or Pay & display ticket
Referral Date: 07 Nov 2012
Adjudicator: Austin Wilkinson
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Mr Rush had displayed in his vehicle a Pay & Display voucher . However the vehicle was parked in a permit bay.

It is quite clear from Mr Rush' communication of 13 th June that he had no notion of why the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued.

I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.

The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.

However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.

The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.

I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:04
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



OK, cool. But, is it even worth going down this more complicated route when it seems obvious I wasn't even parked during the restricted times? It might be an easy one to just keep simple.


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:11
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



NtO? Letter of rejection? Please show.

QUOTE (X-treem @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:04) *
OK, cool. But, is it even worth going down this more complicated route when it seems obvious I wasn't even parked during the restricted times? It might be an easy one to just keep simple.


Why keep it simple for this council? For the most part, and unlike many arrogant councils, their paperwork is highly in order. Hitherto, except for and courtesy of EDW i.e.!

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:17


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:11
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:06) *
NtO? Letter of rejection? Please show.

NtO is linked to in the first sentence of my first post. No letter of rejection yet as I haven't lodged any appeal. I prefer to allow easy ones such as this to go through to NtO stage in order to cost the Council more money rather than getting it cancelled before the NtO is sent out.

And, if the main ground is a no-brainer, then adding any additional more complicated grounds just takes up more of my time and the Council will at best skim over it and cancel the PCN based on the no-brainer ground. If my main ground is sound, then I have no problem with this going to PATAS and causing the Council more embarrassment for allowing it to go that far. So, I suspect they won't as this really is quite obvious, unless I've completely missed something here.

This post has been edited by X-treem: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:16


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (X-treem @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:04) *
OK, cool. But, is it even worth going down this more complicated route when it seems obvious I wasn't even parked during the restricted times? It might be an easy one to just keep simple.



so where is the TMO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I received a s.9 PCN at 08:51 on Sunday 1st December, and subsequently an NtO, for parking in a residents' bay in Basil Street near Harrods.

??????????????


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:12) *
QUOTE (X-treem @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:04) *
OK, cool. But, is it even worth going down this more complicated route when it seems obvious I wasn't even parked during the restricted times? It might be an easy one to just keep simple.



so where is the TMO?

There doesn't seem to be one for the residents' bays on Basil Street looking on here. Perhaps it's not searchable?

QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 00:23) *
I received a s.9 PCN at 08:51 on Sunday 1st December, and subsequently an NtO, for parking in a residents' bay in Basil Street near Harrods.

??????????????

What's your problem?


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Thu, 27 Feb 2014 - 01:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



I've added the following paragraph to my representations based on EDW's advice:
QUOTE
Regarding the PCN itself, it does not comply with paragraph 1(e) of the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 which states that “A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(2) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state— the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable.

The contravention stated on the PCN isParked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge - residents’ bay”. This is a rather complex wording of a “12” allegation as standardised by London Councils. It consists of 38 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur – 12 possible combinations in total. The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty. However, this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the driver an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made; he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discounted rate or dispute the PCN. In other words, the PCN must inform a person of what they did wrong. The PCN does not do this, which amounts to procedural impropriety. I have attached a PATAS case (ref. 2120562288) which was allowed on these grounds alone.


This post has been edited by X-treem: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 00:52


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Thu, 27 Feb 2014 - 05:42
Post #10





Guests






QUOTE (EDW @ Tue, 25 Feb 2014 - 23:58) *
Case Reference: 2120562288
Contravention: Parked in a residents or shared use pay without displaying a permit, voucher or Pay & display ticket
Referral Date: 07 Nov 2012
Adjudicator: Austin Wilkinson
Appeal Decision: Allowed

It is quite clear from Mr Rush' communication of 13 th June that he had no notion of why the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued.

I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.

The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.

However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.

The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.

I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal.


EDW.....thanks for posting this. It seems that this can be used to support my argument below.


I bring to the council’s attention that the PCN served by the council is not adequate to comply with paragraph 1(e) contained within the Schedule to the 2007 General Regulations.

1. A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(2) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state—

(e)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable

The grounds given on the PCN was as follows;

Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge.

The law requires a PCN to state the grounds why the CEO believes a penalty is payable. In other words the PCN needs to inform a person of what they did wrong. In my view the PCN does not do this but rather relies upon the recipient playing a guessing game and attempting to work out whether an "or" applies and if so, which one or ones.

Resident's parking place/no permit displayed
Resident's parking place/no voucher displayed
Resident's parking place/no pay& display ticket displayed
Resident’s parking place/parking charge not paid
Shared use parking place/ no permit displayed
Shared use parking place/ no voucher displayed
Shared use parking place/ no pay& display ticket displayed
Shared use parking place/parking charge not paid
Resident’s zone/ no permit displayed
Resident’s zone/ no voucher displayed
Resident’s zone/ no pay& display ticket displayed
Resident’s zone/parking charge not paid

It may be that the council is using wording standardised by London Councils but this does not mean it satisfies paragraph 1(e). This is made clear in the case between Metrick v Camden (Case no 207034396A).The law does not invite a PCN to list a combination of possible grounds but requires something definitive from the CEO to be stated. As the PCN states a combination of possible grounds the PCN is too vague to satisfy paragraph 1(e) and wholly inadequate for its primary purpose of informing a motorist of exactly what they did wrong. It is not for the recipient to work out which ground is applicable it is for the PCN to state it.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 - 05:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 27 Feb 2014 - 06:29
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,308
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Do the council not have pics on their website?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 00:55
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



Thanks Bogsy - I've used that wording you've provided before, but that PCN just seemed to disappear into oblivion as I never heard anything back from Camden after I sent my initial appeal. Weird.

Anyway, I'm sticking to the more concise form this time using wording from the PATAS case that EDW provided and a bit of your own wording. I think it gets the same message across. I've updated the wording in my earlier post and highlighted in red my changes.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 27 Feb 2014 - 06:29) *
Do the council not have pics on their website?

Nope. They don't seem to be as tech savvy as some other councils in London.


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 10:59
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE
PCN just seemed to disappear into oblivion

have seen that a few times
normally a sign of catching the LA in flagrante dilecto IMO

This post has been edited by bama: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 10:59


--------------------
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
X-treem
post Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 04:41
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



Received an NoR to my reps. It appears from the photograph shown on the NoR that there was a temporary sign stuck over the top of the existing sign at the time of the alleged contravention. Hmm, wonder what traffic order allows that then, and when the sign was actually placed, because, according to GSV (before) and the photo I took (about three months after), the prevailing restriction is the existing permanent sign. It would be interesting to know if the temporary sign was placed after I left the car the previous evening, such as overnight. Especially as I parked there on 30th November (evening) and got the ticket on 1st December. I'm guessing it was a temporary restriction put in place for the month of December for Christmas shopping in Knightsbridge.

In any case, the NoR seems to completely ignore the photograph of the sign I included in my reps that supports my argument and they've not made any effort to point out if a temporary order was in place.

I've sent an e-mail to trafficorders@rbkc.gov.uk:
QUOTE
I am attempting to use your Traffic Orders Search page to find TMOs in relation to Basil Street; however, it only comes up with one result relating to a change in waiting restriction.

I am specifically looking for traffic orders in relation to the residents’ parking bay on the east kerb of the road, just north of the junction with Rysbrack Street, as depicted by this Google Street View link. Could you please send this to me? Also, I am interested in any temporary traffic orders that were in place on 01 December 2013 that changed the restrictions on Sunday from ‘1pm - 5pm’ to ‘8.30am - 6.30pm’ including the effective date/time, the date/time when a temporary sign was placed over the existing sign, and the date/time that any on-street notice was placed to show the impending temporary change in restriction.


Guess it's off to PATAS again. I've completed the form and also included the evidence of my mitigating circumstances in that I was not in control of my car at the time.

Anyone know the rules surrounding temporary signs stuck over existing signs?

This post has been edited by X-treem: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 04:50


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 08:34
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,992
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



There is a will/may issue in the NOR. It is not mandatory that they issue a Charge Certificate.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ScottA
post Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 11:13
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 6 Jan 2013
From: Hamilton, N.Z
Member No.: 59,184



Any photos of the temporary sign included?

EDIT: Can see them now.

This post has been edited by ScottA: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 11:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Tue, 22 Apr 2014 - 20:28
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 09:34) *
There is a will/may issue in the NOR. It is not mandatory that they issue a Charge Certificate.

Mick

No, but they usually do.

I've received a reply from RBKC regarding the traffic order:
QUOTE
I have attached the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO). Please see Schedule 3B Part II on page 48. We use a map based system so I have also attached the relevant map tile which was valid on 1 December 2013 and Legend. My colleagues in Parking Operations should be able to supply you with the dates that the temporary signs were erected.

Fair enough - they can vary the restrictions on "special occasions", but this still doesn't answer whether the "special occasion" started while I was parked there, and indeed the placement of the sign; or if there was an order to cover this "special occasion", which it appears is required under section 6(3)(c') of the Road Traffic Act 1984.

I've responded with this e-mail:
QUOTE
It appears that the variation on restrictions in Basil Street is covered by Schedule 3B, Part II, during “special occasions”. My understanding is that such variations require orders to be made under section 6(3)(c') of the Road Traffic Act 1984. Could you please provide a copy of the order relevant to the variation I mentioned on Basil Street on 01 December 2013? And also the date/time when the temporary sign was placed, as well as the date/time and exact location of any on-street notice that was placed before the change to notify motorists of the impending change (if there was one).


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 22 Apr 2014 - 20:58
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,992
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The will/may error in the rejection letter is a sustainable ground for appeal.

As per Hippocrates :PATAS cases
2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316, 2140046893

The Notice of Rejection is misleading as to the possible consequences of a failure to pay the penalty or submit an appeal. The legislation does not impose a mandatory obligation on the Authority to serve a Charge Certificate, thereby increasing the charge by 50%, where the Penalty Charge Notice remains unpaid and an appeal is not submitted.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Tue, 22 Apr 2014 - 21:28
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



2130236316 is a good one. They have also misstated the 28 days period if your appeal at PATAS is unsuccessful. But, so do PATAS!

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 - 21:30


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Thu, 24 Apr 2014 - 01:03
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



Very good. I like 2130236316. I think I'll use that in my follow-up letter/e-mail with additional evidence once I have the date of the hearing through.

I've had a reply from RBKC:

QUOTE
No variation order has been made. I am not an expert in traffic order making, but this provision has been included in our orders for a number of years. Not just under the map based system but for 10 years or more when we used text based orders. You may want to take your case to the independent parking adjudicator. My colleagues in Parking Operations will need to provide you with the dates the temporary signs were erected so I have copied them in again.

So, it appears that RBKC don't bother with variation orders and rely on the we've-always-done-it-that-way approach instead. Am I missing something here or am I right in thinking a council cannot just vary parking restrictions at will without any order whenever there is a "special occasion"?


--------------------


Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. See the success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. See the success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. See the success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 87 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 60 | 12 contested, 54 | 12 won, 0 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Friday, 15th November 2019 - 20:19
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.