Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Council car park PCN 86: not parked within markings of bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Matthew123456
Hello,

I have received my first parking ticket. I was in a council-operated car park. I paid for a pay and display ticket. I parked at the end of a row of cars; I was in the final space. When I returned to my car, there was a notice on my windscreen saying I had not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space: code 86.

It's my first time on this forum. I have read the guide on how to post and I have removed all the identifying information from the ticket. Please let me know if I have removed too much.





To clarify what I have removed (from the front of PCN): the name of the council, PCN number, date, time, officer's number, name of council, address of car park, car registration, make, colour. The road fund number and expiry were blank on the original, though I was not displaying a disc so there would have been no details to copy. I have removed the observation times to and from. The pay and display ticket number and expiry time were blank on the original, even though I had a pay and display ticket. From the detachable slip, I have removed PCN number, car registration, date, time, and location.

From the rear of the PCN I have removed the council's web address, postal address and telephone number. Next to "payment" and "appeals" were square barcodes. I have removed those in case they identify the PCN. Please let me know if you need some of those details and I can post a new photo with them added.

I am very unhappy that the PCN says I have parked outside the bay. I concede that the tyres on the one side were slightly over the white line but this is because the car next to me was parked slightly across, so I parked slightly across so that that people in the neighbouring car could return to their car and get in without damaging my car. However I would say that I was only a a couple of inches across if that. Should I write to the council and ask for photos showing how little teh car was across the lines? I had a quick google and found something to suggest that a tyre had to be over the line. I am not sure whether part of the tyre may even have been in contact with the line.

Surely the spirit of this rule is to prevent people parking halfway across two bays and blocking a bay that could be used by someone else. There was no additional bay where I had allegedly "overhanged", so I had not inconvenienced anyone. I was not blocking the road in or out of the car park. Even if we accept that I was slightly over the line, it was by a matter of centimetres and this is the officer being pedantic. I am not sure how to post a phot without revealing the car make, colour, and location.

Of course, when I returned to my car at the end of the day, there were no other cars near mine, so I cannot prove there were any other vehicles protruding into my space.

I am also concerned with the statement on the rear of the PCN that "payment is acceptance of liability", which seems completely unfair and prejudicial.

I don't know whether this makes any difference but it has been reported in the local paper that the council have sold the car park to a developer. This means that althouigh they operate a car park on that land, they do not own that land. Does that make a difference or is it that a car park must be council-operated rather than council-owned?

Please help! Thank you.
stamfordman
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Fri, 9 Jun 2017 - 20:25) *
To clarify what I have removed (from the front of PCN):



You can start by reposting all the PCN with all details bar the car reg. It is only for private, not council, tickets that you have to be cautious.

Also we need the council's pics - see if they are online. Did you take any of your own?

"There was no additional bay where I had allegedly "overhanged""

This may play well with an appeal but let's see the pics.
Matthew123456
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 9 Jun 2017 - 21:22) *
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Fri, 9 Jun 2017 - 20:25) *
To clarify what I have removed (from the front of PCN):



You can start by reposting all the PCN with all details bar the car reg. It is only for private, not council, tickets that you have to be cautious.

Also we need the council's pics - see if they are online. Did you take any of your own?




I have thought of a couple fo things I would like to make clear on my original post.

1. The back of the PCN has not scanned properly and the rigthhand edge is cut off on this post; in real-life it is all there, it has not been printed by the council like this.

2. This has only recently happened so I have not made any contact with the council yet and I am within my first 14 days.

In response to the reply, thanks for helping me. Sorry I chopped too much, I will repost another version for you. I do not have the council's photos yet. So far the only "correspondence" has been the PCN attached to my windscreen. I thought I would ask for your collective advice before writing to the council but I will certainly ask for their photos when the time comes. Is there anything else I should say or not say in my initial letter to them? What should I blank out in my photos when I post them?
stamfordman
We can help you write what is called an informal challenge (or informal rep as your council says), which is the first step and best sent within 14 days to preserve the discount. But these bay contraventions live or die by the evidence so we need the pics - don't challenge until you (and we) have seen them. Repost the PCN in the meantime.

Another point is the terms of the car park - if you have a pic of them that would also help.
hcandersen
For consideration by others:

Here are the regs:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/3/made

As regards 3(1)(b)(ii) what does the PCN state?
'Once a NTO has been served the registered keeper must follow the instructions in the NTO'.

So, does this equate to 3(1)(b)? IMO no, the NTO would not make and is not required to make any reference to the position with respect to informal challenges, only the PCN does this.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 10 Jun 2017 - 07:06) *
For consideration by others:

Here are the regs:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/3/made

As regards 3(1)(b) what does the PCN state?
'Once a NTO has been served the registered keeper must follow the instructions in the NTO'.

So, does this equate to 3(1)(b)? IMO no, the NTO would not make and is not required to make any reference to the position with respect to informal challenges, only the PCN does this.


I'm confused HCA, did you mean 3(2)(b)(ii). If so yes . The reason for the statement being that no obligation is placed on the council to respond to informal challenges.
this council impose on themselves this obligation by stating the discount will be re offered so the issuance of a NTO a demand for the full penalty, would leave both the recipient of the NTO and of the PCN in limbo
Matthew123456
Uploaded new documents as requested:



Matthew123456
Hello again, I went back to the car park and took these photos of the pay and display machine and signage.

You can see that the sign is very high up in the air, much higher than at eye level, so not something you would normally look at, and none of the bays have individual signs saying to park within the bay. I don't know if either of these observations are relevant but reading old posts by people with PCN86s, these were mentioned in old posts.

The pay and display machine was covered by rain, so let me know if you need me to take a photo on another day when it is not covered in rain drops.

I need to write to the council asking to see their photos and perhaps asking to extend the time for informal appeals to fourteen days from receipt of the photos? I think I should also ask for the TRO for that car park. Is there any recommended wording for this letter?






hcandersen
@PMB, I've amended my earlier post, the (ii) was originally missing.

Where does the PCN carry the information specified in the regs i.e. that on receipt of a NTO notwithstanding the situation regarding informal reps the owner must follow the instructions?

IMO, the PCN implies that all of the info which an owner needs is contained within the NTO, but it isn't: a NTO does not contain any info regarding informal reps. IMO, the PCN is defective.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 08:02) *
@PMB, I've amended my earlier post, the (ii) was originally missing.

Where does the PCN carry the information specified in the regs i.e. that on receipt of a NTO notwithstanding the situation regarding informal reps the owner must follow the instructions?

IMO, the PCN implies that all of the info which an owner needs is contained within the NTO, but it isn't: a NTO does not contain any info regarding informal reps. IMO, the PCN is defective.


2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i) those representations will be considered;

(ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.


I think we agree the requirement I have highlighted in red is not there in any meaningful way
Matthew123456
Hello again,

So I need to write to the council and ask for the photos. Should I ask for these within an informal appeal or should I make the informal appeal after I have received the photos? I was think of something like this:


Dear Council,

[Notwithstanding that the PCN may not be legal] I wish to appeal parking ticket number XXXX. In order to do so, please can you send me all the information you have pertaining to this case, especially any photographs you have of the alleged offence, and any measurements of how far over the white lines you allege my car protruded?

If my car did protrude, this is only because it was parked in alignment with the adjacent car, allowing space for safe entry and egress from both vehicles.

[The bay is 226cm wide and this car is a Ford Mondeo, 185cm wide.]

If the car was protruding from the bay, I am sure this will only have been slightly and since it was parked on the end bay, would not have intruded upon any other bay, therefore I would wish to appeal on the grounds of de minimis non curat lex.

As you are aware, the regulations require all councils to publish their parking policies and their guidance on discretion. I would be grateful if you could forward these to me with your other evidence.

I hope you will see fit to cancel this notice. [If not, I trust you will give me fourteen days from receipt of the evidence to make a full informal appeal.]

Yours Faithfully etc.


The bits in square brackets I was unsure whether to include at this stage. The comment about the PCN not being legal is taken from the reply above.

I have been back and measured the bay and it is 226cm wide. I was wondering whether there was any regulation stating how wide the bay should be. According to google my car is 185.2cm wide, which only leaves 20cm either side if parked centrally. This is not enough space to allow people to get in/out of both sides.

I wasn't sure whether I should ask for the 14 days to be reset on receipt of the photos, as I cannot make a complete defence without all the evidence, or would I be better to allow it to proceed to a formal appeal at that time?

I wasn't quite sure what the documents I require are called; have I asked for the correct things by asking for their policies on parking and discretion? What are these documents called in the regulations and where in the regs. can I find them?

Thanks.
stamfordman
You need to see the pics.

Email: carparks@cheshireeast.gov.uk

Or call them on 0300 123 5020
Matthew123456
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 13:43) *
You need to see the pics.

Email: carparks@cheshireeast.gov.uk



Thanks. Done. Waiting for their reply.
Matthew123456
Hello,

I've finally got the photo from the council - they have supplied only one. Here it is, with only the reg number blanked out. It was supplied as a pdf but I have converted it to jpg to display here.



It does show the car is over but I did ask for a measurement of how far over and they have not supplied one, which I assume means they did not measure it. Whilst the photo shows the car is over, there is not a close-up photo of the tyre and the white line. Does the tyre have to be completely over the line? If part of the tyre is still touching it, is that better?

Unfortunately the car in the bay to the left of my car (your right on the photo) had gone when the photo was taken.

They also sent the TRO as requested but that is pdf too. How can I link to that here?

I also asked for their policy on parking and discretion and have had no reply.

My deadline for appeal is Friday.

Thanks.
stamfordman
I would certainly challenge this on de minimis (minimal) contravention and also say it is not clear the tyres are totally outside the line.

Councils often say that the position of a neighbouring car is not relevant and you shouldn't park if you can't get in the bay but you should still say this is why you parked as you did - emphasis 'considerately'. The fact that it's the end of a row means you were not contributing to the knock on effect they say is the result.
PASTMYBEST
dear Mr parking

I would challenge the above numbered PCN on the basis that I do no believe a contravention occurred. The photographs supplied do not show that the whole of the wheel is over the whole of the line.
As such I cannot be said that I was outside the markings of the bay.

if it is considered otherwise then the principal " de minimis non curat lex " should be applied

It should be noted that I was parked in an end bay towards the outside of that bay, and as such could not have created a knock on effect in narrowing the bays.

in light of the above I would ask that the council exercise the powers granted it, and cancel this PCN

regards


xxxxxxx

Matthew123456
Thank you very much. I will post the letter tomorrow afternoon. I'll check back tomorrow to make sure I haven't missed any replies. I'll let you know how I get on. I could email the appeal but do you think it is better to post it recorded delivery?
John U.K.
QUOTE
do you think it is better to post it recorded delivery?


Anthing posted, take to post office, post first class at counter and get proof of posting.

Recorded delivery does not work well for large organisations.
Matthew123456
Just emailed my informal appeal at 14.55 and had an "out of office reply". Why are they closed so early? their message said "This mailbox will not be monitored from 5pm on Thursday 1st April 2010 until the office re-opens at 8.45am on Tuesday 6th April 2010." It's a bit alarming that their message is seven years and two months old!
stamfordman
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 14:58) *
Just emailed my informal appeal at 14.55 and had an "out of office reply". Why are they closed so early? their message said "This mailbox will not be monitored from 5pm on Thursday 1st April 2010 until the office re-opens at 8.45am on Tuesday 6th April 2010." It's a bit alarming that their message is seven years and two months old!


We know councils are behind the times but that's ridiculous. I would complain. But not to that email. How do you know your challenge will be seen with a message like that?
John U.K.
Take a screenshot#print off reply.
Post your challenge as per post#18, enclosing copy of that e-mail.
Matthew123456
Still waiting for reply. I was told it will be within 14 days. I will let you know what happens.
John U.K.
Did you follow advice in post #21?
Matthew123456
Hello,

As you know, I sent my appeal on 22nd June. It's now the 27th July. I'm sorry I haven't posted here since but I hadn't heard anything from the council. I started to wonder whether they had cancelled the notice and had not told me. But today I have received this letter:





I suppose I cannot do anything now until I get the notice to owner?

Is it acceptable for the council to take over one month to reply? Is there a deadline for considering apepals or issuing notice to owners?

The council's second paragraph talks about access to bays and allowing free movement but my car did not block access to any bays nor did it stop free movement of traffic.

The council have attached two photos. Previously when I contacted the council, they only supplied one photo. Is this wrong? Doesn't the council have a duty to provide all evidence as early as possible, not keep one photo up its sleeve for later use?

The ratios of the photos are wrong; they are stretched horizontally, it's almost as if this has been done to make the car appear further over the line! The angle of the photos does not show the positions of the tyres properly.

At the bottom of page 1, they say that the sign says a PCN could be issued for parking outside the bay but the sign actually says "may" not "could". I'm not sure whether this is significant but I know other cases have been decided on the basis of the words used.

The sign is high up; above eye level. Their photo shows that. Is it too high to expect a driver to see?

What should I do?



Also, what is a bay? Is there an official definition? The other bays have white lines on three sides. This one, being an end bay with no other bay behind it, has just two lines: one on either side of the car.
stamfordman
I think for £25 I would take this further. Without going back over the posts, did you take any pics yourself? The council ones are not conclusive but as you say the rear one in particular does not look great.

Also, you didn't post your challenge. What was it?
Matthew123456
I appealed using the wording suggested here in an earlier reply: "I would challenge the above numbered PCN on the basis that I do not believe a contravention occurred. The photographs supplied do not show that the whole of the wheel is over the whole of the line. As such I cannot be said that I was outside the markings of the bay. If it is considered otherwise then the principal "de minimis non curat lex" should be applied. It should be noted that I was parked in an end bay towards the outside of that bay, and as such could not have created a knock on effect in narrowing the bays. In light of the above I would ask that the council exercise the powers granted it, and cancel this PCN"

It is clear that they have not read that properly because I did state it was an end bay and I was parking away from the other bays, yet they keep going on about blocking other bays. Wasn't there a case that is often quoted here about an adjudicator rejecting a ticket because the council had not read the appeal properly?

I wonder whether it has taken them a month to reply because no-one knew what "de minimis non curat lex" meant!

I did ask for but have not received the council's policy on discretion.
PASTMYBEST
No it's about normal both in time and in response. When you get the NTO add the fail to consider
hcandersen
Unless you know that the discount would be reoffered after unsuccessful reps or that this authority have a defective NTO then the discount looks attractive.

You were not parked wholly within the markings of the bay, it's clear and indisputable. Why is not the issue because it is not a defence other than going to mitigation and they've rejected this. The adjudicator cannot consider mitigation, so where would this leave you? The degree of your annoyance does not make a defence, sorry.

If you're determined to carry on, then write back and repeat your request for a copy of their policy on discretion as regards the circumstances of this case and also tell them that you are minded to pay by cash and ask them how this could be arranged.

As regards the latter, the Operational Guidance is clear:

'The [payment] system should allow motorists to pay by whatever method is most convenient to them' (not most convenient to the b****y) council.
Matthew123456
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 11:40) *
Unless you know that the discount would be reoffered after unsuccessful reps or that this authority have a defective NTO then the discount looks attractive.

You were not parked wholly within the markings of the bay, it's clear and indisputable. Why is not the issue because it is not a defence other than going to mitigation and they've rejected this. The adjudicator cannot consider mitigation, so where would this leave you? The degree of your annoyance does not make a defence, sorry.

If you're determined to carry on, then write back and repeat your request for a copy of their policy on discretion as regards the circumstances of this case and also tell them that you are minded to pay by cash and ask them how this could be arranged.

As regards the latter, the Operational Guidance is clear:

'The [payment] system should allow motorists to pay by whatever method is most convenient to them' (not most convenient to the b****y) council.



I have not received a NTO yet, so I do not know whether it is defective or not, but earlier replies suggested the PCN was defective.

Their rejection is at the informal stage, so I tyhink I should at least proceed to the formal appeal stage.

If I were parked over an adjacent bay I would agree that this would be wrong, but any overhang is slight and away from the adjacent bays and is not obstructing anyone. It's not clear from the photos that the tyres are over the white line; they may be touching the white line.

I'm happy to do as you suggest but can you tell me why paying in cash is significant?

Thanks.
hcandersen
Obstruction is not an issue as regards the contravention. You are choosing to read 'wholly within' as not with a whole wheel width outside, but these are not the same. You were not wholly within either at the front or back. You weren't far over either, but you'd be relying on an adjudicator finding that this was de minimis, and it's a risk.

As regards cash, the Secretary of State's operational guidance is clear: the authority should provide a range of methods of payment convenient to the motorist, and this includes cash. Their response suggests you would have to jump over undefined hoops in order to pay cash. This would not be in line with the guidance. You just want them to commit themselves.
Matthew123456
Hello, the NTO arrived today:






I really struggled to upload these, I had to try several times with tinypic; isanyione else having problems uploading?

Please can you help me with my reply?

The only page edited is page one, where I have removed my name and address and car registration.
stamfordman
Pics of NTO are fine. Try Flickr next time - much easier.

The key for me is that you were in an end bay and pretty much in de minimis and cannot be claimed to be causing an obstruction as the council indicates. As you note they've not addressed these points and your formal appeal must hold them again to this.

You are committed to £50 now or £0 although sometimes they will reoffer the discount again to deter you from going to the adjudicator.
Matthew123456
Do I ask again for a copy of their policy on parking and discretion before I make my formal appeal, or do I use the fact that they have not supplied them as part of my appeal?
Matthew123456
I think I need to challenge on the de minimis grounds and I think the earlier post about the PCN being defective is good too. They seem to be rejecting my informal appeal on the basis of hypothetical events: if I caused an obstruction, if other motorists coped and parked across, etc.

Whilst the following may be less relevant, what do you think about the following:

1. The sign saying to park within bays is very high up above the pay and display machine. The council's photo is taken at a very steep angle, which shows that it is much above eye level. Have there been cases dismissed where signage was above eye level? I thought I read a case was dismissed because there were not individula signs in each bay?

2. Are these "terms" legal? They post a list of conditions on a sign but you cannot negotiate with a sign, nor tell a sign that you do not agree. Aren't there rules about unfair terms in consumr contracts?

3. The site has been sold to a developer. Is this relevant that the land is now privately owned, or is it the operator of the car park that is important, not the owner?

4. Is there a legal definition of a bay? Should they be a certain size? Should there be certain markings? This one only had two lines: one eith side. Nothing at the front or back.

hcandersen
1. Not a defence in this case.
2. Yes. It's not a negotiation because it's not a contract: these are the conditions, you either comply, leave or risk a PCN;
3. Not relevant;
4. Irrelevant for these purposes.

As regards their policy on discretion, you make reps, claim de minimis and, if they reject these, ask them to exercise discretion and if they reject this request then you require them to provide you with a copy of their policy.

NB. the exercise of discretion is NOT the whim of individual officers, it is compliance with the council's policy and you have the right to see that policy
Matthew123456
Hello,

I have had a reply today, a rejection, of my appeal to the council. I have uploaded their reply. I should explain that on the first page I have removed my name and addess and the car registration; all of the photos had the registration in the top lefthand corner and I have removed this and the registration where it appears on photos of the car; I have done no other editing. This is significant because some of the photos are very distorted and this is how they were sent to me.



To explain what is going on in their reply, I appealed under the grounds of de minimis. In their second paragraph they state I had one or moer tyres over the lines. Is this acceptable? Surely they should know if it was one or if it was more?

They state their guidance is if the line is crossed by a tyre's width, notwithstandiong that tyres come in different widths, whilst I may have been over, I think none of my tyres were a tyre's width over. Haven't they contradicted themselves?

I would still like to know whether there is a legal defintion and minimum width for a bay?

I have no idea why they talk about obervation periods in the third paragraph; I didn't ask about this.

The comments in the next paragraph about no witholding photos is because I am unhappy that the first time I contacted the council and asked to see ALL evidence, they sent me one photo of the car; the second time I asked, they sent two photos of the car, and now they have provided about ten photos. My argument is that all evidence should have been provided at the beginning, not this trickle where at each stage of the appeal, they have more evidence up their sleeves.

You will remember they rejected the informal appeal saying it COULD have obstructed someone. I explained that the car park was empty and no-one was obstructed, hence their comments about how it COULD have become busier later and COULD have caused an obstruction some time after the PCN was issued. Surely the PCN should be issued based on what is happening now, not in the future?

The notice board is above head-height. Is there a legal requirement for it to be at a specific height or cases that have been dropped because it is too high? Surely the terms are those in the traffic order, not what's on the sign?









I was told I had exceeded the number of photos allowed in my previous post. I've still got more to post but cannot find a way to post the rest! As you can see from the photos, they are taken at strange angles and the ratios seem wrong. The fifth photo especially seems to make my Mondeo look like a Smart car!


Perhaps if someone can post a reply, I can add the remaining photos and remaining pages of the letter to your reply?
stamfordman
Use a site such as Flickr for pics and post the BBCode links. Post the rest of the rejection letter.

Matthew123456
Here are the remaining pages of their letter:











Hello. Thank you for your reply. All the photos were uploaded by tinypic and I copied and pasted the links into my reply but for some reason the system told me I had posted too many. I have managed to post the rest today, perhaps your reply reset the counter or perhaps it's because a certain amount of time has past?

As you can see they took many more photos of the car than they initially disclosed but none of them show the actual position of the tyre with respect to the white line. All of the photos appaer distorted stretching the photo horizontally to make the car seem wider than it is and making the overhang look bigger, with the exception of the one photo that goes the opposite way and is totally squashed in my earlier reply.

I still have not been sent a copy of their policy on parking or discretion. They make just one sentence about discretion being the overhang has to be a tyre's width and I do not think I was over the line by that amount but I have not been sent the full document.

I have no idea what the bit in strange typeface about "awc, nnd, nbbd", etc means.

Their comment about having checked the PCN is because I repeated the comments at the very beginning of this post to them about it omitting a certain details.

Their comments about freedom of information are because they say it could have caused an obstruction and I simply asked them how many complaitns did they receive that day about obstructions in the car park.

An earlier reply said I should ask about paying in cash but their reply is contradictory about this: the boiler plate letters say you can pay at a townhall in a different town to where the offence was alleged to have been committed, yet the persnalised repyl says cash is only accepted in exceptional circumstances.

I note that the pay and display machine still has a sign on it saying it will only acceot the old pound coin; surly it's wrong they have not sorted this yet?

Thanks.

PASTMYBEST
Please post your representations. the principal of de minimis is a legal one. If an adjudicator finds it applies then it would trump any policy.

The NoR contains the errors laid out in this appeal. the amounts are different. it being London amounts


4// 4(4)(f) of the Appeals regulations of 2007 that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority;

regulation 6 of the appeals regulations sets out the information that a notice of rejection must contain. In essence it is the time frame for taking action. Paying or making an appeal, the consequence of missing this time frame and an adjudicators power to award costs.

To deal with the consequence of missing this time frame. A charge certificate may be issued, increasing the penalty by 50% to £195. This time frame is set by statute at regulation 6(1)(a) it is.

28 days BEGINNING WITH the day on which the notice of rejection is served. This is a legally defined time, being in the normal course of events 2 working days after the date of posting. (taken to be the date of issue)

The notice of rejection misstates this time frame. It says “you have 28 days FROM the date of this letter being served (delivered)to. By legal convention a different time.

The term “beginning with” makes the date of service day one. The term “from” makes day one the next day adding a day.

Whilst this may be seen as to my advantage, it is not. Should I have made an appeal on the last day as per the NOR then legally that would be out of time and a charge certificate could be served, leaving me with no recourse except payment

the issue is exacerbated further by the inclusion in brackets of the word (delivered). The postal service is not universally reliable and delivery could be 3,4 5 or even more days after the date of posting. This would not matter without this addition as without the ability to rebut service it would needs be accepted as two working days after posting. The inclusion of (delivered) removes that certainty, again leaving me in danger of submitting an appeal late.

I respectfully refer the adjudicator to the finding of Mr Justice Jackson in the high court neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 2357(admin) The queen on the application of London borough of Barnet council v the parking adjudicator

paragraph 39 (last sentence) “there must always be certainty of the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payment expire.” also paragraphs 41, 43 to 46, available in the key cases files.

Further still This error is compounded by the further failure to accurately describe the time allowed for making an appeal, in omitting in it's entirety 4(1)(b) of schedule 1 (Such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow)

an appellant who for whatever reason does not or cannot make an appeal on time can explain to an adjudicator their reasons and as the regulation states, that adjudicator may allow a longer period. Without this information being communicated the appellant may feel that the opportunity is lost

I respectfully submit that for any one or all of the above reasons this PCN should be cancelled


Matthew123456
Many thanks! I had not realised the NOR was defective. An earlier poster said the PCN was, so with both of these and the de minimis, I have lots of points to argue! Thank you so much. Shall I wait a little longer to see if anyone else has suggestions before sending my appeal to the adjudicator?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:02) *
Many thanks! I had not realised the NOR was defective. An earlier poster said the PCN was, so with both of these and the de minimis, I have lots of points to argue! Thank you so much. Shall I wait a little longer to see if anyone else has suggestions before sending my appeal to the adjudicator?


Matthew

I will draft something for you on Sunday, There are quite a few points re the NOR, it will be just as easy to do this as to point them all out

please bump if you have nothing from me by then
Matthew123456
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:21) *
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:02) *
Many thanks! I had not realised the NOR was defective. An earlier poster said the PCN was, so with both of these and the de minimis, I have lots of points to argue! Thank you so much. Shall I wait a little longer to see if anyone else has suggestions before sending my appeal to the adjudicator?


Matthew

I will draft something for you on Sunday, There are quite a few points re the NOR, it will be just as easy to do this as to point them all out

please bump if you have nothing from me by then



Bump, bump!
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 07:47) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:21) *
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:02) *
Many thanks! I had not realised the NOR was defective. An earlier poster said the PCN was, so with both of these and the de minimis, I have lots of points to argue! Thank you so much. Shall I wait a little longer to see if anyone else has suggestions before sending my appeal to the adjudicator?


Matthew

I will draft something for you on Sunday, There are quite a few points re the NOR, it will be just as easy to do this as to point them all out

please bump if you have nothing from me by then



Bump, bump!


Thought you'd decided to pay as not heard. Will do it tonite

Started work on this but realised we do not have your representation against the NTO. I need this to do a thorough job please post You have til the 15th of oct to register your appeal. I want to be finished by this weekend
Matthew123456
Hello, Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I'm going through a painful separation, so I have a lot on my plate and I'm not checking the internet every day. This is what I sent as my appeal:

I wish to make a formal appeal against this penalty charge notice on
the grounds that:

1. that the offence did not occur
2. that there has been procedural impropriety by the council
3. other grounds

In my earlier email I asked the council to provide all evidence it had
showing this offence occurred. I was sent one photograph.

I asked how far outside the white lines I was alleged to have parked;
the council has provided no such information.

I asked for a copy of the council's policy on parking and your policy
on discretion, both of which you are required to publish but the
council has provided neither.

This prevents me from making a complete defence as I cannot argue that
the notice should be cancelled because of paragraph x on page y, nor
can I argue that you are in breach of paragraph x on page y, etc.

When you sent your reply to the informal appeal at that time magically
another photograph was produced. Why was this withheld from me
originally?

Failure to disclose all of the evidence is a breach of the data
protection act, the freedom of information act, and The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and
Appeals Regulations 2007, sections 3(5)(b) and 3(5)(6).

The photographs on your response are stretched horizontally to
exaggerate the width of the car and the alleged offence. The
photographs have not been taken perpendicular to the car nor at ground
level, so the angles of the photos are subject to parallax errors.

Notwithstanding that the bay is not enclosed on all four sides by
white lines, if the car is parked outside of one of the lines, the
distance over the line is slight and therefore this penalty notice
must be rejected on the grounds of de minimis and/or discretion.

The second paragraph of your response stated "the car park design...
needs to balance the high demand for spaces whilst ensuring that all
marked bays can be accessed safely without causing restrictions and
therefore ensuring the free movement of vehicles"

The penalty must be cancelled because none of these are valid reasons.
Your photographs, despite being late and distorted, clearly show that
the car park is largely empty; there was no high demand. All marked
bays could be accessed safely. It was to allow the car parked next to
me to be accessed safely that I may have parked to the side furthest
from the adjacent bay.

Consider this a FOI request: how many complaints did the council
receive that there was no room in that car park that day or that bays
could not be accessed safely or easily? I think we know the answer
will be none.

If the car was parked over the line slightly, the car was parked in
the end bay, notwithstanding that any infraction would have been
trivial, that it was parked away from the end bay would not have
restricted anyone nor hindered access.

You then continue on the second page to state: "if a motorist
observes a vehicle not parked within a bay and follows suit this
reduces the number of bays available... etc."

You cannot issue a penalty because something in a different
circumstance could cause something hypothetical to happen. The fire
brigade are not breaking into my house because there could be a fire;
the police are not breaking into my house because I could be a
criminal. You cannot issue a penalty because had someone parked in a
different way they could have caused a restriction and if someone else
had then copied them something hypothetical could have happened!

And in the alternative, if in some parallel universe motorists copied
and parked across to the one side, the number of bays available would
not be reduced because each car would be parked across by the same
offset.

You continue to state "obstruction to pedestrians and other users". It
is a car park. There is no public right of way and what "other users"
are there of a car park? This is nonsense.

I feel this is evidence that you have failed to consider my informal
appeal; you have considered a different, hypothetical, appeal.

I would add that when I emailed my informal appeal at 14.55, you sent
me an "out of office reply". Why were you closed so early? Your
message said "This mailbox will not be monitored from 5pm on Thursday
1st April 2010 until the office re-opens at 8.45am on Tuesday 6th
April 2010." That your message was over seven years old suggests gross
impropriety.

Your third paragraph states these conditions are stated on a notice
board.This board is situated very high up; not just above eye level
but above head level. You enclose a photo of that board and it is
impossible to read the text because your photographer has had to take
the photo at such a steep angle because the board is so high. Motorists
will not have sight of the board that high up.

I hope that you will cancel the PCN on the basis that the
contravention did not occur, or if it did, it was by such a slight
amount that de minimis should be considered and you should exercise
discretion under "other grounds". I also remind you that the
regulations allow you to cancel a notice at any time for any reason,
no matter to what stage it has progressed.

I would be grateful if you could provide proper photographs of my car
and your policies on parking enforcement and discretion, in case it is
necessary to take this to the adjudicator. If this is referred to the
adjudicator I will also be arguing that in addition to the
improprieties already discussed, the wording on the PCN is defective.

I also wish to know how to pay in case should my representations be
unsuccessful.

I am aware the freehold of this car park has been sold an I would like
the details of the sale and a copy of your lease agreement.

Yours Faithfully,


And that was it. It was largely copied and pasted from here, so thank you everyone for your help. I'm sorry but I put some stuff in that some posters said was not relevant but I was clutching at straws and wanted to include anything. I have heard nothing since; none of the stuff they would send as FOIA has arrived to date.
PASTMYBEST
Matthew

You have until Sunday to register your appeal. do this online before then. In the box for your appeal write full submission to follow. I am busy ATM but when you confirm a date for a hearing I will draft an appeal for you
Matthew123456
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:27) *
Matthew

You have until Sunday to register your appeal. do this online before then. In the box for your appeal write full submission to follow. I am busy ATM but when you confirm a date for a hearing I will draft an appeal for you



Thank you very much.
John U.K.
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 21:03) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:27) *
Matthew

You have until Sunday to register your appeal. do this online before then. In the box for your appeal write full submission to follow. I am busy ATM but when you confirm a date for a hearing I will draft an appeal for you



Thank you very much.



Have you registered?
Matthew123456
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (Matthew123456 @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 21:03) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 12:27) *
Matthew

You have until Sunday to register your appeal. do this online before then. In the box for your appeal write full submission to follow. I am busy ATM but when you confirm a date for a hearing I will draft an appeal for you



Thank you very much.



Have you registered?


I have just completed the form on the adjudicator's website saying "full submission to follow"
John U.K.
QUOTE
I have just completed the form on the adjudicator's website saying "full submission to follow"


Good smile.gif

Sadly, there's been quite few cases here recently where missing deadlines of one sort or another has led to some horrendous situations, so forgive me if I sounded a bit terse!
Matthew123456
Hello,

Sorry for the long absence here. I made an application to the tribunal in October stating "application to follow", but as I hinted in a previous message, I was going through a separation and I fell into a depression and didn't go on the internet (my girlfriend took her laptop with her!) and didn't do much else for a while.

I have heard nothing from the tribunal. I went on the tribunal's web site and it said the council has uploaded all their evidence and it is ready to be reviewed by an adjudicator. I cannot have a hearing in person but I can have a telephone hearing. They need me to upload my evidence as soon as possible.

Is there any chance you can help me draft what to upload? Should I ask for it to go straight to adjudication or should I go with the telephone hearing?

Thanks
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.