Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN in No Return Within 1 Hour bays
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
surrounded
Hi all.

I had a PCN a couple of weeks ago that I have appealed, and my appeal has been refused.

The signage states: ‘Mon-Fri 9am-6pm, Permit Holders or 1 hour,
No return within 1 hour’.

I parked outside a friend's house for ten minutes, left, and returned an hour and five minutes after driving off.

They have refused my appeal giving the following reason:
"Whilst I appreciate that you state in your appeal that you were only parked for 10 minutes
at approximately 14:15 and then returned at 15:30; the signs clearly state that parking is
permitted for a maximum of 1 hour and not to be re-parked within 1 hour which makes a
total of 2 hours from the time you originally parked to the time you can return to re-park in this road. The situation described in your appeal is not grounds for cancellation
of this Penalty Charge Notice."

I'm not aware of anyone interpreting the no return rule in this way and believe this to be misleading. Any advice as to whether they are usually implemented in the way that they have described in the refusal? Thanks.
cp8759
Usual advice, upload the PCN (both sides in full), council photos, your representations and their rejection, and a link to the location on Google Street View. Only redact your name and address, leave in dates, times and locations. Use a site like imgur.com to upload the pics.
nextdoor

QUOTE
I'm not aware of anyone interpreting the no return rule in this way and believe this to be misleading.


Absolutely ridiculous. By their reckoning if you park for one minute or an hour at 10am, you can't return in either case till noon.

This would be a clear win at adjudication assuming they haven't folded before that.
surrounded
Thanks both.

Have uploaded the PCN, the council photos, and their response to my appeal on Imgur. See below. I can't see my original appeal as I did it via their online portal and can no longer access it.

Google Street View link: GSV

PCN front
PCN back
Response page 1
Response page 2
Council photo 1
Council photo 2
Council photo 3
Council photo 4
Council photo 5
Council photo 6
Council photo 7
Council photo 8
Council photo 9
Council photo 10

Just spotted a mistake on page 2 of their response - where it says I can take advantage of the discounted rate for 14 days from 7th May, that should say 7th June rolleyes.gif
DancingDad
And this week's prize for the most imaginative (and incorrect) reason to reject goes to East Hampshire Council (pause for applause...….)

WTF are they on?
I can think of no interpretation that sensibly says that the permitted parking time has to be added to the no return time.
They are separate restrictions, you can park for up to one hour. When you leave you cannot return for one hour.
If their TRO (traffic order) does stipulate as they say, the signage is inadequate.
I would also point out that if they reject for that reason, they cannot substantiate that you were parked for longer then permitted.
There is a specific code for returning early...22.....
But the wording does leave their reasoning up in the air.
"Re-parked in the same parking place or zone within one hour after leaving" (my bold)
cp8759
I agree with DancingDad, they have no chance of getting away with this. Furthermore, they have an 0845 payment line, this may also make the PCN unlawful. I've made an FOI request to find out what the service charge for this number is.
surrounded
Thanks. Glad it's not just me who read their refusal and thought "Erm, you what?!"...

Is there any point in me replying to their refusal to argue the point, or will I have to wait until the Notice to Owner now and a formal appeal?
DancingDad
QUOTE (surrounded @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 15:07) *
Thanks. Glad it's not just me who read their refusal and thought "Erm, you what?!"...

Is there any point in me replying to their refusal to argue the point, or will I have to wait until the Notice to Owner now and a formal appeal?



They haven't refused to argue the point.
They have given an interpretation that makes no sense whatsoever but they have considered it and indeed answered.


Waiting for NTO is the correct procedure but nothing to stop you asking for clarification on their answer.
surrounded
Well they appear to have just scored an own goal...

I emailed their parking team under my maiden name asking them to explain what the "No return" part means (didn't mention my PCN). Just got the following reply, which completely contradicts what they said in their appeal refusal:

"This means that the vehicle can be parked for 1 hour and then must be moved. You will not able to return to the parking bay until 1 hour has expired from the time you returned to the vehicle and drove it away. So it means whatever time you leave you cannot return to the same parking bay for one hour."

Will be emailing them this evening asking why the refusal has said something so different and suggesting that they revisit my appeal.
hcandersen
to the same parking bay

surrounded
Still no reply to my email to them rolleyes.gif

I expect they will just send the Notice now. If the Notice to Owner comes to my husband, but I was the one who parked, can I make the formal appeal or will it have to be done by him?

Thanks.
cp8759
QUOTE (surrounded @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 15:51) *
Still no reply to my email to them rolleyes.gif

I expect they will just send the Notice now. If the Notice to Owner comes to my husband, but I was the one who parked, can I make the formal appeal or will it have to be done by him?

Thanks.

Either by him, or you with written authority from him for you to appeal on his behalf.
DancingDad
QUOTE (surrounded @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 13:33) *
.........Will be emailing them this evening asking why the refusal has said something so different and suggesting that they revisit my appeal.


May as well, they ain't gonna win this one so you may as well enjoy it.
surrounded
I've had a reply to my email at last. From the same lady who rejected my appeal.

"I have received your subsequent challenge on 13/06/2018, to the above Penalty Charge Notice.
We are unable to accept your subsequent challenge at this time however a Notice To Owner will
be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, as registered with DVLA, and this form may be
used to make further representations against the Penalty Charge Notice.
If you would like us to consider your subsequent challenge please state this on the representation
area of the Notice To Owner,
The Notice To Owner will be sent to the name and address of the registered keeper supplied to us
by DVLA. We make the request for information 28 days from the date the Penalty Charge Notice
was issued, the Notice To Owner is sent once the case has been updated with the keeper details,
If your appeal is unsuccessful you will receive a Notice of Rejection together with details enabling
you to refer your appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which is based in Manchester and is wholly
independent of the Council. Appeals are heard at a number of venues across the country and full
details of these venues will be provided. You may have your appeal heard in person including
Saturday mornings if that is more convenient or by post. If your appeal is successful you pay
nothing, but if your appeal is refused then the full £50 will usually be payable."

Makes me think they are going to refuse the second appeal too. Else surely they would have seen sense and cancelled it already if they agree that they've made a mistake.

No Notice has arrived yet. And the amount due online is still the discounted amount even though it's well over the 14 day discount period that was offered with the rejection. I'm not paying it though!
Slapdash
I am struggling to see how any contravention can ever be fairly established.

In the council (bizarre) interpretation I can arrive at 10 depart up to and including 11. And then repark at 12.

But the council have no way of knowing when I parked. The only thing they can know is that it was sometime before I was observed.

So if I was not observed until 11.30 they are always going to be wrong.

A similar problem surely exists on the more sensible interpretation. They cannot know when I left. Only when I was observed to already have left.
cp8759
I think their response gives you another ground of appeal, failure to consider.
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 21:12) *
I think their response gives you another ground of appeal, failure to consider.

Certainly gives something.
I'm tending towards fettering their own discretion.....Unable to accept ???
But would not argue against failing to consider as well, after all they do say that "If you would like us to consider your subsequent challenge …" which is easily interpreted as will not consider at this time.


Surrounded, do not given in on this one.
We do not often see cast iron wins but this is as close as any we ever see.
surrounded
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 23:47) *
Surrounded, do not given in on this one.
We do not often see cast iron wins but this is as close as any we ever see.


Oh don't worry, not a chance I'll be giving in. They've underestimated my stubbornness!
Mr Mustard
It is normal for the traffic warden to made a note of the position of the valves on the kerb side wheels as if they were a clock face & it is unlikely that having driven off and returned that both would be in the same place, a 1 in 144 chance. They could also have photographs of the earlier parking.

It is now possible to make a free subject access request for your data so I would ask to see the valve positions and the earlier photos if any.

The council have made yet another error in saying they are unable to consider your second informal challenge as the statutory guidance of the Secretary of State is that a PCN should resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage. They are unwilling not unable.

They are plain wrong in their reason for refusal of the informal challenge.
hcandersen
Before getting too carried away with procedural improprieties, the OP posted:

Will be emailing them this evening asking why the refusal has said something so different and suggesting that they revisit my appeal.

And we’ve not seen the actual email.

IMO, an authority is not required to continue to ‘consider’ challenges which amount to no more than disagreement with their initial decision, however absurd that was. And IMO this is the line they would take with an adj because they reasonably thought the email was simply that, a disagreement.

Without the OP’s email, who can be certain anyway?

I think the OP should stop firing off requests and simply wait for the NTO.

If they feel they must write, then do this to parking at Hampshire County Council, copy their original challenge, the agent’s response and a couple of photos of the signs and ask HCC for a copy of their guidance to agent authorities on the meaning of this on-street traffic sign, and copy this to EHDC.
surrounded
I've received the NtO now. Any advice as to how to word my formal appeal? They've said I can appeal via email and I have 28 days from 5th July. Thanks.
hcandersen
Post the NTO, we need to check for compliance with the regs. Leave in all dates etc, only obscure personal info.


As regards your reps ( it’s not an appeal, this is what you might make to an adjudicator), these will set out the law and the events.

For examle, on ** (date), I parked in a parking place outside my friend’s house. The restriction was ***. I parked at approx. ** (time) which permitted me to park until ***. In the event, I left at about **** in order to ***. I returned at approx. *** and being conscious of the ‘no return’ restriction parked in a different parking place subject to the same restriction in the same road. Contrary to what you stated in your letter dated *** in response to my challenge, I was permitted to park at this location until ***, each restriction being unique to each individual parking place.

Consequently, at the time the PCN was issued I had been parked at the location stated in the PCN for no more than *** minutes which is less than ** and therefore the contravention did not occur.
Steve_999
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 11:19) *
. . . . parked in a different parking place . . .


Can't seem to find where the OP said they returned to a different parking place. just, in post #1 "I parked outside a friend's house for ten minutes, left, and returned an hour and five minutes after driving off."
hcandersen
Fair point. I suppose I inferred this, but it’s not stated by the OP.

My suggested reps should be amended accordingly if indeed the OP was in the same parking place.
Longtime Lurker
Surrounded, we really need to see the NTO to make sense of this.

If I'm reading this right, I think we've had one of these before, where the council came up with a bonkers theory that the 'no return within 1 hour' somehow doesn't start until 1 hour after you park, rather than 1 hour after you leave, but I can't find the thread. Can anyone with better google-fu find that thread? It might be a useful precedent.
TigerRob
DELETED
surrounded
Thanks all.

Yes, I re-parked in the same place in the same bay, right outside my friend's house. The street is usually quite empty during the day as everyone is out at work, but I try to park outside his still where possible.

QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 23:37) *
Surrounded, we really need to see the NTO to make sense of this.

If I'm reading this right, I think we've had one of these before, where the council came up with a bonkers theory that the 'no return within 1 hour' somehow doesn't start until 1 hour after you park, rather than 1 hour after you leave, but I can't find the thread. Can anyone with better google-fu find that thread? It might be a useful precedent.


This is exactly what they're trying to say, yes (in their rejection, anyway. In a separate email they gave the more usual explanation of the rule). Sounds like the previous case would be useful!

I have uploaded the NtO to Imgur, see links below. Apologies for the quality - their printer appears to have smudged grey all over the pages, which makes the text somewhat difficult to make out in places.

Page one
Page two
Page three
Page four
Page five

Thanks again.
surrounded
Any thoughts on the NtO?

I emailed them to ask for a copy of all photographs (in case they have any that aren't online) and the CEO's notes in relation to this PCN, and received the following back:

"If you click on the following link it will take you to all the pictures and information as requested:


https://easthants.xrxpsc.com/ocm/details.aspx "

Which is just a link to their online payment/appeal portal containing no CEO notes and only photos from the second time my car was observed. So I'll email again as a SAR asking for the notes and any further photos in particular rolleyes.gif
cp8759
I would make formal reps on the same grounds, i.e. that the "usual rule" applies and not their bonkers interpretation. I would add a line saying it would be wholly unreasonable for them to seek to enforce this PCN and you reserve the right to seek costs should the matter go to the tribunal.
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 23:34) *
I would make formal reps on the same grounds, i.e. that the "usual rule" applies and not their bonkers interpretation. I would add a line saying it would be wholly unreasonable for them to seek to enforce this PCN and you reserve the right to seek costs should the matter go to the tribunal.



And refer to your conversation...date, time, name where the usual interpretation was advised.
And to their PI in failing to consider your second representations.

surrounded
I've heard from EHDC again in response to my second request for all of their photographs and the CEO's notes. The notes suggest my valve positions were unchanged. Though why they didn't use this information to reject my informal challenge instead of going down the bizarre interpretation of the No Return rule, I do not know.

See images below. Anything of any use on there?

Letter
Case Status Report 1
Case Status Report 2
On Street Log 1
On Street Log 2
stamfordman
Hard to make any sense of the log - but they have surely shot themselves in the foot by now claiming a proper reason, which if you did leave and return, can't be true.

For only £50 this is about as much fun as you can have with a PCN.

I suspect the CEO got into a muddle with different cars.
Steve_999
Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?
surrounded
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 21:27) *
Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?


The notes say positions unchanged, and the case report gives the valve positions at observation times 1 and 2 and they have the same numbers.
Steve_999
QUOTE (surrounded @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 10:57) *
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 21:27) *
Look carefully at the "logs" provided. What evidence is there that the valve positions were "unchanged"?
Was there a note of tyre valve positions?
Or just a note stating that they were unchanged?


The notes say positions unchanged, and the case report gives the valve positions at observation times 1 and 2 and they have the same numbers.


Apologies - missed the case report first time round.
Have you any other evidence that you were not parked there for the whole time between the CEO's observations? Tyre valve positions are generally seen as quite solid evidence that a vehicle has or has not been moved.
John U.K.
Where is the CEO's contemporaneous notes of the valve positions?
cp8759
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:15) *
Where is the CEO's contemporaneous notes of the valve positions?

I suspect the CEO might enter the valve positions directly into his terminal. However, why does the case history say "In Permit bay No permit displayed" when the contravention is parking longer than permitted?

In any event I don't see how the council could pull this one off, they can't seem to make their minds up as to what the circumstances of the contravention are. Either they accuse you of leaving your car without moving it, or they accuse you of moving it but coming back too soon, at this point I would say their case is bad for duplicity.
John U.K.
QUOTE
I suspect the CEO might enter the valve positions directly into his terminal.


In which case, why are they not in the print-out, if that is what it is?

Without the contemporaneous evidence of the CEO's note of the postions each time they were observed, it is simply the CEO's word that he remembered the postions of the valves on every car he observed that day with sufficient accuracy to be able to record for this car that the valve positions were unchanged a couple of hours later. He must have a phenomenal memory?

The OP asked for the evidence, the EA has failed to provide it ( a case report written up later is not , IMHO, evidence, but hearsay).
cp8759
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 21:16) *
The OP asked for the evidence, the EA has failed to provide it ( a case report written up later is not , IMHO, evidence, but hearsay).

The on-street log looks like a print-out from the machine.
DancingDad
Case report clearly states valve positions from On Street Log.
Try as I might, I cannot see where these positions are in the log that has been supplied.

I can see that the vehicle was seen at 14.22 and valve positions entered but cannot see where.
Seems strange that they rely on logs that do not show the information that they claim

Bit that does worry is that first observation was 14.22 which is a little after 14.15 time that Op says they left ?
Mad Mick V
Get the tape measure out!

This is the Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...-Order-2016.pdf

The GSV:_

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0075963,-...3312!8i6656

Specifically states at Sch 1 that the bay has to be 2 metres wide--looks tight.

Mick
hcandersen
You have a NTO dated 3 July.

Latest date for reps - 1 August, next Wednesday.

They say you did, you say you didn’t. I don’t like asking for info out of context which, as now, leaves you trying to decipher what’s supplied. IMO, reps stating your case with a clear requirement that should they reject they must produce the record(s) upon which they’re relying is the way forward. If what’s been supplied to date is ambiguous, then tell them: l have looked at the evidence which you’ve supplied which is inconclusive/ambiguous and which does not prove the contravention.

IMO, it’s too late for tape measures, this might be added if applicable to any appeal to an adj.
Steve_999
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:58) *
Get the tape measure out!

This is the Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...-Order-2016.pdf

The GSV:_

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0075963,-...3312!8i6656

Specifically states at Sch 1 that the bay has to be 2 metres wide--looks tight.

Mick


A Polo is about 1.75m wide, so looks to me just about bang-on 2m wide if that is so.
surrounded
Thanks all. Just writing up my challenge.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:31) *
Bit that does worry is that first observation was 14.22 which is a little after 14.15 time that Op says they left ?


Think you might have misread my opening post. I arrived at 14:15 and parked for about 10 minutes, which ties in with his observation time.
cp8759
QUOTE (surrounded @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 23:45) *
Thanks all. Just writing up my challenge. Which box am I ticking as to why I'm challenging, Other?

The alleged contravention did not occur (their bonkers interpretation of "no return with one hour" + you went away and came back after more than an hour)
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority (their failure to consider your reps properly)
cp8759
You can add this to your challenge:
-------------------------
The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The telephone payment option includes a 3p per minute surcharge:

On the rear of the PCN it is stated that payment can be made by telephone by calling the payment line 0845 130 4466. The Office of Communications confirms on its website at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-an...all-really-cost that:

"The cost of calling 0843, 0844 and 0845 numbers is made up of two parts: an access charge going to your phone company, and a service charge set by the organisation you are calling.

The service charge for calls to 084 numbers is between 0p and 7p per minute
"

When calling the council's 0845 number, the caller is charged a 3p per minute service charge, which is set by the organisation being called, in this case East Hampshire District Council. In London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
"

In this instance, by imposing a 3p per minute service charge for telephone payments, the council is offering a payment method which exposes the motorist to having to pay a total amount which exceeds the statutory penalty prescribed by law. The High Court has already ruled that where one payment method attracts a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods that do not attract the surcharge is not relevant and an appeal must be allowed on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the penalty due under the statutory scheme. It follows that even if my other grounds lack all merit, the penalty charge notice must be cancelled.
hcandersen
I hope not..it’s not a challenge and reps had to be in by last Wednesday.

OP, when and how did you submit your reps?

Pl post a copy.
surrounded
Victory!

Had a letter today to say they're cancelling it. No explanation or apology for their ridiculous claim about the meaning of No Return.

Thank you all for your help. Much appreciated.
DancingDad
Someone with a little common looked at it.
And realised they were stuffed on the informal rejection.
Well done

BTW, did you include the penalty exceeds re the 0845 number ?
surrounded
No, I had already submitted the challenge. But it might help someone else so good to know!
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.