Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: City of Westminster. PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
TINBASHER
Dear Gents and Ladies,
Whilst not going into great detail at this point in time i.e. posting copies of numerous correspondence etc could one of you much enlightened and no doubt more up to date fellows give me you initial thoughts on this current escapade my company is going through with what appears to be a bunch of automatons.


We are now at correspondence number 23 and my question revolves around procedure/compliance with how these matters should be dealt with. Personally I am not too bothered if they read this as for the past 30 odd years the inevitable consequence of carrying out contract work in London is to be on the receiving end of a overzealous parking tax but Hey Ho we have nearly always paid the PCNs as its more hassle than its worth going through the rigmarole of contesting them but on this occasion I have the bit between my teeth....


Proof of postage obtained with all our correspondence.

1. 05-07-2017 - PCN issued. City of Westminster.

2. 05-07-2017 - Written challenge and representations posted to City of Westminster.

3. 13-07-2017 - Letter received from C.o.W rejecting our challenge against PCN. Offered Option 1. pay or 2 Make a formal Representation. We chose to await the NtO and thus make formal representations appealing against the PCN. The letter also stated the procedure for doing so will be explained on the NtO.

4. 16-08-2017 NtO. Received 17th- 08-2017. We reply with written Challenge and make representations.

5. We awaiting a reply but received no correspondence until....

6. 09-10-2017 - Charge Certificate received.

7. 10-10-2017 - We post letter acknowledging C/C, we also state the events leading up to this date as above and make it clear that we have to date not received any correspondence or a reply to our written Challenge and representations. ( it was latter we learnt the correspondence we should have received is a so called Letter of Rejection)

8. 16-10-2107 - Letter received from Marston Dept recovery dated 13-10-2017 stating we had not complied with the C/C .

9. 16-10-2017 - Reply sent to Marston Recovery and copied to Westminster Parking stating we have sent representations but as to date received no reply therefore we have complied. We requested messers Marston refer the matter back to Westminster Parking as we wish to appeal to the Independent Adjudicator if the challenge was rejected.

10. 20-10-2017 - Letter received dated 18-10-2016 from Westminster parking thanking us for our correspondence regarding the charge certificate. They then go on to state a NtO was sent and that they received our representation and that a NoR was subsequently sent to us.

They also state they had received no payment or appeal to the London Tribunals therefore a Charge Certificate was issued increasing the amount by 50%

They then thank us for the information we supplied advising them did not receive a response to our formal representations but it is now too late for the City council to consider a representation against a PCN and payment of the current charge is required.

it cont... If payment is not received reg with county court.... order for recovery of dept etc . Letter goes on to state four options under a witness statement...

11. 30-10-2017 Letter from City Westminster dated 25-10-2017. Again referring to our letter regarding the C-C and Repeating statement that its too late for the council to consider Representations in respect of the PCN. The letter then repeats previous correspondence i.e. four options under a witness statement etc.

12. 01-11-2107. We forward letter to CoW stating we have replied immediately to all their correspondence be it the PCN, charge certificate etc so how is it too late for the council to consider representations given we have not received a NoR...

We again state in capital letters WE HAVE NOT RECIEVED A NoR, We will therefore make a witness statement to this effect.

13. 08-11-2017 Letter from City Westminster dated 06-11-2017.

YIPPEEEE... they sent us a Copy of the NoR dated 07-09-2017 but it did not have a copy of the form to appeal to the Adjudicator and the covering letter still states its too late to make representations etc and goes on to repeat the court blurp etc.

14. 13-11-2017. We forward letter confirming receipt of the copy NoR but it did not have a copy of the form to appeal to the Adjudicator.... We ask for this form to allow us to appeal to the adjudicator.... which is what we have been trying to do all long....

15. 22-11-2017. Letter from City Westminster dated 20-11-2017. Again referring to our letter regarding the C-C and Repeating statement that its too late for the council to consider Representations in respect of the PCN. The letter then repeats previous correspondence i.e. four options under a witness statement etc.

16. 27-11-2017. We reply again stating we will make a witness statement on the grounds we did not receive the original NoR.

17. 31-11-2107 Received forms TE3 and TE9 (order for recovery and witness statement forms). Sent them the history of this long drawn out saga and basically state we have been denied our right to appeal to the adjudicator despite us writing umpteen letters stating we have not receive the original NoR together with the forms to appeal to the adjudicator.

18. Letter from City Westminster dated 01-12-2017. Again Repeating statement that its too late for the council to consider Representations in respect of the PCN. The letter then repeats previous correspondence i.e. four options under a witness statement etc.

19. 07-12-2017 Received the county courts notification that a statutory declaration/witness statement has been filed - unpaid penalty charge
Quote " The respondent filed a statutory declaration statement on 07-12-2017. It is ordered that the order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked. It is further ordered that the charge certificate be cancelled"

20. 12-12-2017. We send letter to CoW parking stating we have received the above from the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

21. Letter from City Westminster dated 18-12-2017. It notes our previous correspondence and states that on receipt of the Revocation order the city council will review the case and take the appropriate action.

22. 03-01-2018 we forward a letter confirming receipt of their letter of 18-12-2017

23. 05-12-2018 Letter from City Westminster dated 02-01-2018 . CoW state they have received notification of our witness statement submission to the traffic enforcement Centre regarding the PCN.

They confirm that we indicated we made Formal Representations following the issue of the NtO but received no reply and for this reason the council have reverted the case allowing then to reissue a new response...

The council have issued us with a NoR and at long last the forms to appeal to the adjudicator....

Would have saved one hell of a long time if they had just sent us one once we informed them we hadn't received a reply but hey Ho
PASTMYBEST
Marstons being involved pre OfR and debt registration is the only bit that seems wrong on the council part. If you have proof of posting then the issue of a CC pre NoR might be a ground for appeal
TINBASHER
yes have proof of posting for all correspondence
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:35) *
yes have proof of posting for all correspondence


The law requires that when the CC and OfR are revoked for non receipt of a NoR then the case should be referred to an adjudicator for direction.

Read the chapter on Stat decs and referrals on page 23 this doc

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...-16%20final.pdf

It seems that E&TA have given a guidance that the to re issue of the NoR is the way to go i do not read it as such so there may be a PI there
Mad Mick V
If you are concentrating on procedure then you must determine two things:-

1. If any of the steps taken by Westminster have been premature --for instance the involvement of Marstons before the OFR.

2. Whether any of Westminster's statements are factually incorrect such as "too late to consider anything".

If they have acted prematurely this is regarded as a procedural impropriety (PI) which will win the case on its own. Likewise a PI exists if they have fettered their discretion by telling "porkies".

Mick
DancingDad
There would seem to be a definite PI with Marstons being involved prior to the earliest date where council could send an Order for Recovery.
And nothing I am reading in that list would seem to be an Order for Recovery, at least not with TE3 and TE9 included.

But whether an adjudicator would find on this as they seem to regard an Order from TEC as wiping the slate clean.
TINBASHER
Ok here are in date order the list of correspondence















Cont
TINBASHER
Cont





















cont
TINBASHER
















cont


TINBASHER
Well I was going to post thumbs of all the correspondence but I appear to have hit the limit...
PASTMYBEST
At this moment there is still a CC live so an order for recovery could be on the way, you need to contact the council and ask them if they have issued, and if not when they intend to do so.

Second, any appeal you make before a Stat dec would be out of time so a reason would be needed. You have one looking at the photos on the NTO you will not win on the contravention, there are double kerb blips (no loading at any time ) so you should not have been there.
There is a major abuse of process, that in my opinion an adjudicator will take a dim view of, in the use of Marston's to attempt to collect this penalty pre registration
TINBASHER
Hang on Pastmybest I'm still trying to to upload the complete story but I have ran out of imagine space Doh,,,

Having to use direct links now but they are in date order

https://s17.postimg.org/yz0naxbxb/13-11-201..._6th_letter.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/q3zt0fppr/20-11-201...from_Co_W_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/oc6u5k8xr/20-11-201...from_Co_W_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/mkdvap7lb/27-11-201..._7th_letter.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/piau4fpjj/TE3._Reve..._30-11-2017.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/mo7oqzv33/TE3._Reve...0-11-2017_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/fmeci11a7/TE9._Reve..._30-11-2017.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/s114ieasv/TE9._Reve...0-11-2017_1.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/cfjsyh1fj/01-12-201..._8th_letter.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/n2dm3y70v/01-12-201...th_letter_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/jvj2kf21b/01-12-201...th_letter_2.jpg

cont

https://s17.postimg.org/6rdi7uzqn/01-12-201...r_from_Co_W.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/wo76k40pr/01-12-201...from_Co_W_1.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/75eu73ovj/07-12-201..._9th_letter.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/ac9dqqor3/07-12-2017_TE5_B.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/g0fohn8j3/12-12-201...0_Th_letter.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/9zhzkl927/18-12-201...r_from_Co_W.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/3lswhdm6n/03-01-201...1_Th_letter.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/m1ddetibj/02-01-2018_No_R.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/6sng12bsf/02-01-2018_No_R_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/o5xqfxetb/02-01-2018_No_R_2.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/srtuoafrz/02-01-2018_No_R_3.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/me4rl1y1b/02-01-2018_No_R_4.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/ey5hz9xhb/02-01-2018_No_R_5.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/t4l8uj37j/02-01-2018_No_R_6.jpg


Thats the whole story...





Neil B
Sorry to whinge but it's impossible to keep up with you using 'postimage'
It's a nightmare.

Seeing everything upfront, not links, not thumbnails, would help.

Tinypic, using IMG codes

or Flickr using BB codes.
TINBASHER
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 14:53) *
Sorry to whinge but it's impossible to keep up with you using 'postimage'
It's a nightmare.

Seeing everything upfront, not links, not thumbnails, would help.

Tinypic, using IMG codes

or Flickr using BB codes.


Hi Neil...long time no speak...

I did try just to post thumbs but ran out of space hence posting direct links. They are all in date order. I did read the FAQ and im sure I read that a lot of the old image posting sites are now closed and someone suggested postimage. Will have a look at Flickr using but please note I am an old fart these days lol
Neil B
I'm probably moaning to much but getting the story involves flitting backwards and forwards.
Don't worry, I'll try as is, when time.
TINBASHER
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:16) *
I'm probably moaning to much but getting the story involves flitting backwards and forwards.
Don't worry, I'll try as is, when time.


Ive opened a Flickr account and uploaded them... but now trying to find where the BB links are...God Im getting old

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmc587FU

Please someone tel me that works
Neil B
QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:29) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:16) *
I'm probably moaning to much but getting the story involves flitting backwards and forwards.
Don't worry, I'll try as is, when time.


Ive opened a Flickr account and uploaded them... but now trying to find where the BB links are...God Im getting old

Well I'd capitulated but if you insist -

Sharing is a curved arrow - bottom right ish.
Click that and it defaults straight to BB code, lighting it up. So just right click and copy that.



Our First letter 05-07-2017 by ian acobs, on Flickr


CoW 13-07-2016 page 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr


CoW 13-07-2016 page 2 by ian acobs, on Flickr

I've left out NtO.

09-10-2017 Charge Certificate 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr
Left out p2 not needed

Then this Marstons is irrelevant.
13-10-2017 Letter from Marston 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr
TINBASHER
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:56) *
QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:29) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 15:16) *
I'm probably moaning to much but getting the story involves flitting backwards and forwards.
Don't worry, I'll try as is, when time.


Ive opened a Flickr account and uploaded them... but now trying to find where the BB links are...God Im getting old

Well I'd capitulated but if you insist -

Sharing is a curved arrow - bottom right ish.
Click that and it defaults straight to BB code, lighting it up. So just right click and copy that.



Our First letter 05-07-2017 by ian acobs, on Flickr


CoW 13-07-2016 page 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr


CoW 13-07-2016 page 2 by ian acobs, on Flickr

I've left out NtO.

09-10-2017 Charge Certificate 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr

Then this Marstons is irrelevant.
13-10-2017 Letter from Marston 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr

Aha Brill

I will now up load in date order and delete the forgoing so not to confuse... tune back to this Bat channel in about 3 hours.....
Neil B
16-10-2017 Our 4th letter by ian acobs, on Flickr


18-10-2017 letter from CoW 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr

18-10-2017 letter from CoW 2 by ian acobs, on Flickr
Jo Carn
Like you, we too have had over 23 PCN from our friends at CoL. A few will be heard at Tribunal this week.
It appears to me that they are completely overloaded and may have well have handed out some of this work to numpties.
I have case summaries that refer to photographic evidence, maps and plans and none were included - and this is when they send it 10 days late!

My advice is to continue doing what you are doing - being thorough, methodical and reasonable.
Neil B
I'll leave you to pick up from there Tin.
TINBASHER
Ok thanks to Neil I have managed to join the 21 century. The following are in date order as we received them and not necessarily the date on the correspondence.

PCN 05-07-2017 by ian acobs, on Flickr
Our First letter 05-07-2017 by ian acobs, on Flickr
CoW 13-07-2016 page 1 by ian acobs, on Flickr

CoW 13-07-2016 page 2 by ian acobs, on Flickr
NtO 5 by ian acobs, on Flickr

NtO 2 by ian acobs, on Flickr

NtO 3 by ian acobs, on Flickr

NtO 4 by ian acobs, on Flickr

NtO 5 by ian acobs, on Flickr

NtO 6 by ian acobs, on Flickr



Sorry Neil but Pepipoo forum wont allow me to post more than 10 BBs....
Neil B
It will after this break I think.

But you didn't need to - I thought you would carry on where I stopped but you've reposted images I did?
Incandescent
Is there an Order for Recovery in any of that lot ? As this allows the appellant to reset the process back to the NtO via a Witness Statement, it is a fairly important document.
Neil B
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 17:25) *
Is there an Order for Recovery in any of that lot ? As this allows the appellant to reset the process back to the NtO via a Witness Statement, it is a fairly important document.

There is somewhere and it went ****-up from there.

TINBASHER
I know we bang on about needing everything - but sometimes we don't.

I left out the NtO and 2nd page CC cos it's largely irrelevant to the problem - which
is in the latter stages.

i.e OfR and whatever happened from there.
Neil B
Ok, I've read through everything and can sum it up now. You won't like it.

WM have done nothing wrong.
You are now back in process at the point you should be.

--
The plethora of correspondence going nowhere was caused by YOU, repeatedly writing to them rather than
following process, which incidentally, they patiently advised you correctly in every response.

Have I read something wrong?

--
For future reference, a Witness Statement, as referred to here, is 'tick box, sign'.
As you did but there appear to be other sheets headed WS ? Both WM and TEC would ignore such.
TINBASHER
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 17:54) *
Ok, I've read through everything and can sum it up now. You won't like it.

WM have done nothing wrong.
You are now back in process at the point you should be.

--
The plethora of correspondence going nowhere was caused by YOU, repeatedly writing to them rather than
following process, which incidentally, they patiently advised you correctly in every response.

Have I read something wrong?

--
For future reference, a Witness Statement, as referred to here, is 'tick box, sign'.
As you did but there appear to be other sheets headed WS ? Both WM and TEC would ignore such.


Neil the reason we kept sending letters is that this escalated into us being presented with a possible bill for £203 quid without us prior receiving a NoR and thus the opportunity to put our case before the adjudicator.

Parking was allowed up until 10am (PCN 10.15) but as my guys were unavoidably delayed by the break down of the main contractors lift they could not just leave the new structural steel staircase (For Formula Ones new offices no less) in a precarious and dangerous position... I even stated I could get a letter from the main contractor to verify but that obviously fell on deaf ears at CoW. It was a genuine case of Health and Safety but if this means didly shite to CoW then I suppose we will have to pay up...
Neil B
QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 20:38) *
Neil the reason we kept sending letters is that this escalated into us being presented with a possible bill for £203 quid without us prior receiving a NoR and thus the opportunity to put our case before the adjudicator.

and the simplest and quickest way to deal with it is to let the process continue to the point
where you can act (WS).
Your repeated interruptions are likely what delayed that.
As I said, they informed you correctly of your options as soon as you queried the Charge Cert.

I understand you were frustrated but you don't seem to have taken any notice of the responses.

QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 20:38) *
Parking was allowed up until 10am (PCN 10.15)

I'm confused.
WM claim you were on a 24/7 waiting and loading restriction?
Pics seem to support them in formal rejection.

At odds with their initial rejection agreeing with you.

Hmmmm.
Neil B
It will be interesting to hear what others think of appeal chances.

I'm not hopeful - but some tentative thoughts.

If, in formal NoR, WM have cited only road markings as 24/7 restriction and ignored their
earlier reply citing both a 24/7 restriction marked on road but only 10am onwards on sign, then -
Believing a 24/7 restriction, they cannot have considered your mitigating plea of over-running time
for essential safety reasons.

Maybe conflicting signs themselves help?

It's watery but all I have.

--
Have you established what the restriction really is?
Incandescent
Best to get this in front of an adjudicator then this forum can advise further.
hcandersen
The council have issued us with a NoR and at long last the forms to appeal to the adjudicator....

Then do so.

All you have to do - and pl try to stay within procedure - is to complete the form and send to the adjudicator.

Presumably your grounds would be that the contravention did not occur and, judging by the tone of your post, procecural impropriety. It's possible that the NOR contains one, but we wouldn't know because we've not seen it. Other than for a prospective PI here, I cannot see one, nor can I find fault with CoW's responses.

NeilB is spot on, your continued extra-procedural correspondence has been wasted, all you needed to do was await the OfR and submit a WS. This procedure is designed for cases such as yours i.e. a simple breakdown in communication. Your problem has been that you have tried to resolve this outwith the procedure.

Anyway, submit the appeal registration form, post the NOR and then we can look at the issues.
TINBASHER
Aha yes Neil

The PCN states "Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force" and it states a contravention time of 10.15

In their first rejection letter dated 13-07-2017 they show a picture of the sign (you probably cant see it too clearly on the scan) that shows NO LOADING 10AM TO MIDNIGHT. They also state as much in the letter.

Then in the copy of the first NoR dated 07-09-2017 that we didn't initially receive until after the Charge Certificate and Marstons letters etc it shows different pictures and the picture of the sign has been omitted. Also there is no mention of the No Loading 10am until midnight just simply Not permitted to wait or unload at this location at ANY TIME

The new NoR dated 02-01-2018 again shows the same different pictures as the first NoR and this time states The PCN was issued because your vehicle was parked on double yellow lines with double Kerb marks indicating a ban on waiting and loading at all times.

I am no expert but this is somewhat confusing... all the contractors unloaded and loaded in this area for the Formula one project other wise the job wouldn't have got done... what takes precedent the sign or the road markings? because the sign is definitely there...

Many Thanks
Neil B
QUOTE (TINBASHER @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 11:04) *
what takes precedent the sign or the road markings? because the sign is definitely there...

The TMO.
hcandersen
Pl, stop describing and post the actual documents. There is NO other way.

And you cannot have different NORs, there can only be one.
TINBASHER
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:26) *
Pl, stop describing and post the actual documents. There is NO other way.

And you cannot have different NORs, there can only be one.


I have previously posted all the Documents. There is a limit to how many Thumnails you can post here but if you look at previous posts you will see I've posted links to them all.

Here are the two NoRs.

Here is the latest one dated 2nd Jan 2018. Direct links
https://s17.postimg.org/m1ddetibj/02-01-2018_No_R.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/6sng12bsf/02-01-2018_No_R_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/o5xqfxetb/02-01-2018_No_R_2.jpg

here is the First one dated 07-09-2017 That we didn't receive until 08-11-2017
https://postimg.org/image/aiihgbdpn/
https://postimg.org/image/cabgba9y3/




hcandersen
The second letter is not a copy of the NOR, it is confirmation that the authority have received the TEC decision which includes a transposed version of the NOR. I cannot see any material difference between the NOR and the contents of this letter.

But this still begs the question as to what action the authority will now take and the ball is still in their court. Their duty is to refer the matter to the adjudicator for directions. There is a general procedure at ETA that authorities may send the disputed NOR to prospective appellants as if the 'revert' the matter. But if this is done then this must contain all the necessary info required for the owner to act upon it.

IMO, their letter does not. I do not consider that the average motorist could be expected to infer from this letter that the avenue to appeal has been re-opened with adjusted time periods and to read this letter as being 'the notice' for the purposes of an appeal - for goodness sake, if what we see here regularly is the average motorist, then they wouldn't and couldn't make this leap!

It is not for you to discover, it's their task to inform.

Unless the authority have given you additional information as regards what you should do now (this is NOT the last para. which is still effectively within quotes as being part of the now time- redundant NOR and has NO bearing on what you should do now or what happens) then you could stay still.

The future?
Scenario 1
You do nothing;
They serve a CC;
You wait for an OfR again;
The OfR is cancelled again;

Or
Scenario 2
You write to the authority, refer to their letter and ask what you should do now. This might lead to Scenario 1 or they might notify the adjudicator and advise you. The adj would then contact you direct with directions.

Other than for targeting a procedural impropriety, what other defence have you got?
TINBASHER
hcandersen, Along with their last NoR dated 02-01-2018 which I posted late last night there were also NoA forms. Just to clarify I have posted below the entire contents of the last correspondence received.

https://s17.postimg.org/m1ddetibj/02-01-2018_No_R.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/6sng12bsf/02-01-2018_No_R_1.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/o5xqfxetb/02-01-2018_No_R_2.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/srtuoafrz/02-01-2018_No_R_3.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/me4rl1y1b/02-01-2018_No_R_4.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/ey5hz9xhb/02-01-2018_No_R_5.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/t4l8uj37j/02-01-2018_No_R_6.jpg

I take it we now appeal.

I will cite PI but my main point is that due to Health and Safety considerations my guys could not have left the structural steel in a dangerous state. Parking was allowed up until 10am (PCN issued 10.15) but as my guys were unavoidably delayed by the break down of the main contractors lift they could not just leave the new structural steel staircase components in a precarious and dangerous position... I even stated I could get a letter from the main contractor to verify but that obviously fell on deaf ears at CoW. It was a genuine case of Health and Safety.

To me it appears that had CW investigated this further (which we were quite willing to cooperate with by our offer of a letter from the main contractor to confirm their lift went T*ts up) they would have realised that for the sake of 15mins vrs any potential H&S issues then some leniency could have been shown. It also appears that from their informal rejection to the NoR they have shifted from basically 15 mins over the 10am deadline to No parking at any time...

Many Thanks Tinbasher
hcandersen
IMO, you're being high-handed about this and presuming that CoW should do things which it is your task to do. It's not their duty to ask for additional evidence, it's your task to present this with your reps.

You seem to think that by capitalising Health and Safety and Precarious and Dangerous Condition etc. in some way elevates their importance to that of silver bullets. It doesn't. By the way, are these uniquely defined terms in law and, if so, what are their definitions and why did you not include these with your reps?

We stopped to unload at *** during a period when loading was permitted. We were familiar with the work involved, which was *****, and had allowed sufficient time to complete this task and move the vehicle before the loading restrictions came into effect at ****.

However, Sod's Law hove into view and our operations were interrupted because of factors beyond our control which, I submit, constitute a defence against the contravention, namely being prevented from moving out of contravention by circumstances beyond the driver's control. ( and we're only interested in the driver unless the vehicle was in the process of being loaded at the time. The crew members could stay on site, but you have to show that the driver could not move the vehicle.

If this is as simple as on the way out everyone was in an internal lift which malfunctioned and delayed the driver plus crew....

You need to add meat to your argument because I fear that unsubstantiated claims, both factually and contextually, would not win the day.

We're here to help, are you willing to take it on this basis?

TINBASHER
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:40) *
IMO, you're being high-handed about this and presuming that CoW should do things which it is your task to do. It's not their duty to ask for additional evidence, it's your task to present this with your reps.

You seem to think that by capitalising Health and Safety and Precarious and Dangerous Condition etc. in some way elevates their importance to that of silver bullets. It doesn't. By the way, are these uniquely defined terms in law and, if so, what are their definitions and why did you not include these with your reps?

We stopped to unload at *** during a period when loading was permitted. We were familiar with the work involved, which was *****, and had allowed sufficient time to complete this task and move the vehicle before the loading restrictions came into effect at ****.

However, Sod's Law hove into view and our operations were interrupted because of factors beyond our control which, I submit, constitute a defence against the contravention, namely being prevented from moving out of contravention by circumstances beyond the driver's control. ( and we're only interested in the driver unless the vehicle was in the process of being loaded at the time. The crew members could stay on site, but you have to show that the driver could not move the vehicle.

If this is as simple as on the way out everyone was in an internal lift which malfunctioned and delayed the driver plus crew....

You need to add meat to your argument because I fear that unsubstantiated claims, both factually and contextually, would not win the day.

We're here to help, are you willing to take it on this basis?


hc whilst I bow to your undoubtedly greater knowledge in these procedural matters, as a MD of a business if a supplier/subcontractor approaches me with a claim for what ever I would out of course request further substantiation before making a decision...this is obviously not the case with council parking organisations. I am not seeking a silver bullet, the simple fact is that it was a case of H&S overriding our driver (who was one of the lifting crew) rushing out and leaving the materials in a
Precarious and Dangerous Condition etc and for that requesting some leniency.

I take your point about expanding on what we basically stated in our first correspondence and will certainly detail in our Notice of appeal.

Many Thanks
hcandersen
This is a legal process and not one which you can seek to mould to your own preferences, however normal in the course of business.

And be careful in your appeal and post a draft here first.

Your posts are beginning to sound more and more like operations on site and not just unloading.

Be very careful.

This is a simple guide:
Loading and unloading is considered to be taking the items to and from the vehicle and having a delivery signed for, but does not cover packing, unpacking or assembly.

Neil B
We still don't know what the restriction really was.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.