Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Code 40 Parking in Disabled Space w/o Clock
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3
RedDeath614
Hi all, we got a PCN yesterday for parking in a disabled space, without displaying the clock. Badge was displayed correctly. I came back to car (mum was still in shop) in the interim to find warden issuing a ticket. He then pointed to a sign which said there was a 3 hour time limit for disabled badges in the bay and without a clock, how would anyone know what time we had arrived? He also said I was not the badge owner so refused to discuss anything with me, which was weird. I said we came into town at 6.15pm, his ticket was issued around 6.45pm and we had driven home by 7pm. We have shop receipts to verify the times of our 2x purchases between 6.30-6.50pm but will this help or not? I was calling my mum but she's also hard of hearing so she didn't pick up and the guy had the cheek to allege I was misusing the badge as he could see no disabled person present. I did tell him we would not be paying the ticket and he dismissively said we could contest it.

I'm baffled to see a warden beyond 6pm in the city, however they must be wandering around until midnight.
I'd also say the majority of bays are no longer time limited for blue badge holders, so there is a habit where neither of us check this, but we will of course always use the clock now.

Is there any way to fight it? Can we say we displayed the clock but it had fallen off the dashboard?

Pics of ticket are attached, I can take and upload ones of the street and where we were parked if needed too.


DastardlyDick
Don't say the clock had fallen on the floor (unless of course it had). Should the porkie be discovered further down the line, it could cause all sorts of problems.

Just write to the Council saying you forgot to display it, genuine error, badge holder was with you etc etc and ask them to use their discretion on this occasion
hcandersen
+1 with minor modification:

Just write to the Council saying you forgot to display it, genuine error, badge holder was with you and you had been parked for only *** minutes etc etc and ask them to use their discretion on this occasion
RedDeath614
Thanks both - just hope this works icon_redface.gif
hcandersen
You have to see this in its correct perspective which is not what you knew or your motivation.

The CEO saw a car parked without a valid BB. They are not gifted with foresight or clairvoyance and according to the evidence they acted correctly. At its most simple level you were clearly in the wrong therefore your stance of ‘did tell him we would not be paying the ticket ..’ is not only wrong, it could be counterproductive: you were in the wrong and this should be our starting point.

Now we turn to the enforcement authority who should see both sides of the story because they have your account as well as the CEO’s notes etc. They have the council's guidance and the law. Do not antagonise them by casting aspersions or getting annoyed about the impression which the CEO gave you!

We shall see how this all unfolds.

Realistic expectations.
DastardlyDick
If they do reject your representation, post the letter up on here (with personal details obscured/redacted) and we'll have a look for errors. They will no doubt re-offer the discount, so in worst case scenario, it'll still be £35.
Having looked at GSV, I can see why CEOs are patrolling down there - vehicles all over the place - "target rich environment" for them.
RedDeath614
Hi all, I sent the reply pleading leniency and asking for discretion but it's been rejected.

They thanked me for sending a copy of BB when I did no such thing. I sent a copy of 1x store receipt to verify the time we had been in the city. Did they even bother to read my challenge or look at the receipt?

Letter is below & photos from the Council.

Any opinions? We now have two of these for the same reason & it's not an excuse but my mum has recently been diagnosed with early stage dementia on top of existing issues so it's getting harder to look after her. GP could verify if needed. It looks like she didn't realise she hadn't put the clock out on display properly & you can see there's a blank piece of paper in the space where it would ordinarily have gone. Yes I should have checked but in all honesty we were in a rush to get to shops before they closed at 7pm.

Advice gratefully received.




LCC Photos






DancingDad
"Our decision is based on our policies"
This bit ?
QUOTE
When considering a challenge/representation against a PCN issued as a result of incorrectly displayed Blue Badge or parking clock, the Council will take into account previous PCNs issued to the same vehicle or Blue Badge holder. A challenge/ representation may be accepted only if no previous similar contravention has occurred. If the challenge/representation is accepted, the letter confirming acceptance will make it clear that challenges and representations for further PCNs issued for the same or similar reason will not be accepted.

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/183862/p...-guide-2018.pdf
hcandersen
OP, your choice:
Were you in the wrong? Yes.
Was the PCN issued lawfully? Yes.
Did they consider your reps? As far as we assume what you wrote, no they did not.
Your choices? Pay or owner makes reps against the NTO.
Grounds? Procedural.
Owner’s risk? Discount not re-offered.
Mad Mick V
The key question is whether the Traffic Order specifies a clock be displayed. This is the core Order:-
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...ester/LE001.pdf
Clarence Street is noted on page 74.
It indicates at page 11 for Disabled Parking Bays:-"No Person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait or to load and unload at any time in any road or length of road to which this restriction is applied except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000” and includes similar badges issued by other European Member States. Vehicles must be parked wholly within the parking bay marked on the carriageway. No vehicle may wait for more than 3 hours and may not return to the same length of parking bay restriction within a further consecutive period of 3 hours."
Nowt about a clock being required---same at Part 400.
Whether the Order has been amended is moot so the relevant one should be requested.
Mick
DancingDad
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 15:56) *
The key question is whether the Traffic Order specifies a clock be displayed. This is the core Order:-
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...ester/LE001.pdf
Clarence Street is noted on page 74.
It indicates at page 11 for Disabled Parking Bays:-"No Person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait or to load and unload at any time in any road or length of road to which this restriction is applied except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000” and includes similar badges issued by other European Member States. Vehicles must be parked wholly within the parking bay marked on the carriageway. No vehicle may wait for more than 3 hours and may not return to the same length of parking bay restriction within a further consecutive period of 3 hours."
Nowt about a clock being required---same at Part 400.
Whether the Order has been amended is moot so the relevant one should be requested.
Mick


That puts it into a whole new ball game.
OP, get on the phone on Monday to Transprt and Streets department and get them to send you a copy of the relevant TRO.
https://www.leicester.gov.uk/transport-and-...ulation-orders/
Although if that page is up to date, the one MMV has pointed to is the latest smile.gif
RedDeath614
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 16:05) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 15:56) *
The key question is whether the Traffic Order specifies a clock be displayed. This is the core Order:-
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...ester/LE001.pdf
Clarence Street is noted on page 74.
It indicates at page 11 for Disabled Parking Bays:-"No Person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait or to load and unload at any time in any road or length of road to which this restriction is applied except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000” and includes similar badges issued by other European Member States. Vehicles must be parked wholly within the parking bay marked on the carriageway. No vehicle may wait for more than 3 hours and may not return to the same length of parking bay restriction within a further consecutive period of 3 hours."
Nowt about a clock being required---same at Part 400.
Whether the Order has been amended is moot so the relevant one should be requested.
Mick


That puts it into a whole new ball game.
OP, get on the phone on Monday to Transprt and Streets department and get them to send you a copy of the relevant TRO.
https://www.leicester.gov.uk/transport-and-...ulation-orders/
Although if that page is up to date, the one MMV has pointed to is the latest smile.gif


Awesome work Mad Mick V, thankyou! cool.gif I will call them first thing on Monday and will post up any response here...
Wretched Rectum
I'm with mick on this. Contravention did not occur. You are accused of not displaying a "disabled person's badge" but this was displayed. You did not display a "parking disc" but this is not what you are accused of.

These Regs don't appy to disabled bays (because disabled bays are TRO specific parking bays for disabled badge holders and therefore do not rely on any parking exemption) but the definitions tend to be used. It shows that the "badge" and "disc" are separate items.
hcandersen
I wouldn’t risk it.

If an order is silent then it imports any statutory/regulatory meaning.

In this case, I would not be confident that an adj would carry out the type of forensic examination we see here and conclude that despite the BB holder knowing their obligations and the dubious wording of the order that references to ‘display of a BB in the relevant position’ and the 2000 regs did not capture the intent and effect of those regs and require a disc to be displayed.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:11) *
I wouldn’t risk it.

If an order is silent then it imports any statutory/regulatory meaning.

In this case, I would not be confident that an adj would carry out the type of forensic examination we see here and conclude that despite the BB holder knowing their obligations and the dubious wording of the order that references to ‘display of a BB in the relevant position’ and the 2000 regs did not capture the intent and effect of those regs and require a disc to be displayed.



Which statute/regulation are you thinking of HCA ?
Cos I am not sure.
The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 does not prescribe a parking disc (time clock) and only dictates how the BB is displayed.
The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 does prescribe (and describe) the parking disc but applies to exemptions for waiting, not parking.


I agree that the bay being limited and signs showing that would suggest that a time clock should be displayed.
But signs must also reflect the TRO and if the TRO does not require a parking disc, assumptions from the signage cannot be used to penalise.
Mad Mick V


214033669A
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when Mr X's car was parked in a disabled badge in Temple Fortune Lane. There was a disabled badge and clock in the car. The bay is for disabled badge who may park for up to three hours. The clock in the car was set at about 12:00. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 09:51. the local authority states that the car had been parked for more than three hours. I accept Mr X's evidence which is supported by a letter from his GP surgery that the car was parked for about 30 minutes. I find as a fact that the car was parked in the bay for less than three hours.

The local authority provides a copy of the Traffic Management Order. The Order states that a car parked in a disabled bay must have a disabled badge displayed. The Traffic Management Order does not refer to any requirement to display a clock. As there is no requirement to display a clock it follows that the incorrect setting of the clock does not amount to a contravention.

I allow this appeal.

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

We are not there yet-- the 2006 Order might have been amended--so we don't know if the above applies.

If the OP can't get the updated Order I would pose the question of the Council. "Please identify and quote the traffic Order which gives you power to enforce a Disabled Bay on the basis of a missing parking clock".

Mick
Wretched Rectum
the bay is a limited waiting bay but can only be used by disabled badge holder's. The 2000 regulations do not apply here because no exemption provided by them is being claimed. Like any other limited waiting bay a ceo can take a 1st observation and come back 3 hours later to see if any car is still parked. No need for a disc clock. Was a badge displayed? yes it was so contravention alleged did not occur.
hcandersen
The order’s reference to and definition of ( for the purposes of the order) ‘disabled person’ states:

disabled person” means a disabled person provided with a disabled persons blue badge issued and used in accordance with The Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act 1970 and The Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000.‘

My emphasis.


‘Issued and used in accordance with ..Act’ which itself refers to a whole raft of unspecified regs has apparently catch-all references to using as per regulations.

I am not convinced that, however tortuously, the definition in the order would not capture the need to display a clock because the term disabled person appears in the relevant articles.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 14:39) *
The order’s reference to and definition of ( for the purposes of the order) ‘disabled person’ states:

disabled person” means a disabled person provided with a disabled persons blue badge issued and used in accordance with The Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act 1970 and The Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000.‘

My emphasis.


‘Issued and used in accordance with ..Act’ which itself refers to a whole raft of unspecified regs has apparently catch-all references to using as per regulations.

I am not convinced that, however tortuously, the definition in the order would not capture the need to display a clock because the term disabled person appears in the relevant articles.

I can understand your concern but the TRO specifically says "except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000”
and says nothing on the need for a parking disc.
Those regulations do not specify a parking disc needs to be displayed. Indeed it specifically says "and includes similar badges issued by other European Member States." not all of which will include a time clock (Scotland for instance does not habitually supply a clock)
Take a comparison with limited waiting bays generally.... Parking 1 hour, No Return for 2 hours is fairly typical. No requirement for a parking clock on those.
Could actually be discriminatory to require one of a disabled person when none required in a limited waiting bay for able bodied drivers smile.gif


I am taking the simplistic view.
Neither the TRO nor the specified legislation regarding display require a time clock.
Given that, it is for the council to show what legislation applies that allows them to penalise a driver in that bay who has correctly displayed a lawful BB.
cp8759
I agree with DancingDad, a non-disabled time limited parking bay does not require a clock and just because a time-limited bay is reseed for BB holders, does not mean that such a requirement applies.

To require a blue badge holder to display a clock in a disabled bay, the TRO must include a provision to that effect, plus the signage would need to specify that a clock must be displayed and presumably the SoS would need to authorise the sign (I'm not sure there's a "clock must be displayed" sign in the TSRGD 2016).

Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur.
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 16:48) *
…….. plus the signage would need to specify that a clock must be displayed and presumably the SoS would need to authorise the sign (I'm not sure there's a "clock must be displayed" sign in the TSRGD 2016).
...


Dunno that I would go so far to say that the signage must show that a clock must be displayed.
That, with a BB, is inherent the moment a timed restriction applies and is noted in the BB booklet (page 10 in my copy, "When you need to use a blue badge"
Booklet is guidance though and signs alone cannot be used to enforce a contravention.
The assumption is that the TRO would require a badge.
Assumptions can be challenged and when the TRO seems lacking, as this one does, must be.
This is all assuming that the TRO located is the correct one, OP must check.
cp8759
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 16:48) *
…….. plus the signage would need to specify that a clock must be displayed and presumably the SoS would need to authorise the sign (I'm not sure there's a "clock must be displayed" sign in the TSRGD 2016).
...


Dunno that I would go so far to say that the signage must show that a clock must be displayed.

If it's not a requirement under the statute that the clock must be displayed, and the standard position is that a time-limited bay does not require a clock, how would the BB holder know about the clock requirement in the TRO if the sign doesn't tell them? In that scenario, a PCN would fail under LATOR 18.
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 17:11) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 16:48) *
…….. plus the signage would need to specify that a clock must be displayed and presumably the SoS would need to authorise the sign (I'm not sure there's a "clock must be displayed" sign in the TSRGD 2016).
...


Dunno that I would go so far to say that the signage must show that a clock must be displayed.

If it's not a requirement under the statute that the clock must be displayed, and the standard position is that a time-limited bay does not require a clock, how would the BB holder know about the clock requirement in the TRO if the sign doesn't tell them? In that scenario, a PCN would fail under LATOR 18.

Standard position for a Disabled time limited bay is that it would require a clock.

This is one where it seems the TRO does not require so standard assumption does not apply.
Wretched Rectum
Even if the TRO required a disc clock to be displayed, this contravention description does not seem applicable

QUOTE
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without
displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner


The disc clock does not form part of the badge. They are completely different things.
RedDeath614
Hi peeps,

Wow, thanks for all the input on this. Really appreciate it.

Just called and asked for the most up to date TRO for Clarence Street. Should be emailed over this week.

Can I upload the full PDF document on here or can it be linked somehow via tinypic etc?

DancingDad
QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 17:38) *
Even if the TRO required a disc clock to be displayed, this contravention description does not seem applicable

QUOTE
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without
displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner


The disc clock does not form part of the badge. They are completely different things.


In terms of the contravention description they are part of the BB system and will be found sufficient by an adjudicator.
But not if the TRO does not require time clock.

Re PDF, Scribd is one site you can host I think, others will advise better.
But first check if it is the same as the linked one. Date and Title ?
RedDeath614
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:12) *
QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 17:38) *
Even if the TRO required a disc clock to be displayed, this contravention description does not seem applicable

QUOTE
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without
displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner


The disc clock does not form part of the badge. They are completely different things.


In terms of the contravention description they are part of the BB system and will be found sufficient by an adjudicator.
But not if the TRO does not require time clock.

Re PDF, Scribd is one site you can host I think, others will advise better.
But first check if it is the same as the linked one. Date and Title ?


Thanks, yes, I understand. Of course, I'll check the date and title first. If it is the same one I won't bother linking it. Hope they get back to me quickly.
RedDeath614
Hi all, I just want to know what deadline I have now for handling the response to this ticket?

Just heard from a baffled bloke at LCC Traffic Operations Dept who says he has to refer to Legal Services and has "no idea" when they will reply to the TRO request rolleyes.gif
I pushed him but he gave impression that Legal Services need "a lot of time" to "look into things" before responding.

Is my deadline 14 days - if the TRO does state a clock is needed with BB?

What if LCC Legal don't reply within my deadline? Can this info be used at possible TPT?

Should I challenge anyway on the basis of the TRO from 06/07, given that is the only publicly accessible info that can be found?
Earl Purple
So when a regular bay that can be used by anyone has a restriction of parking 1 hour no return within 2 hours (and is free) is the driver supposed to display a clock to show what time they arrived?

Never heard of it.

The enforcement officers simply check observation periods. With regards the disabled bay, if the restriction is 3 hours then check at 9am and if the car is still there after midday it has gone past 3 hours.
Mad Mick V
QUOTE (RedDeath614 @ Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 10:43) *
Hi all, I just want to know what deadline I have now for handling the response to this ticket?

Just heard from a baffled bloke at LCC Traffic Operations Dept who says he has to refer to Legal Services and has "no idea" when they will reply to the TRO request rolleyes.gif
I pushed him but he gave impression that Legal Services need "a lot of time" to "look into things" before responding.

Is my deadline 14 days - if the TRO does state a clock is needed with BB?

What if LCC Legal don't reply within my deadline? Can this info be used at possible TPT?

Should I challenge anyway on the basis of the TRO from 06/07, given that is the only publicly accessible info that can be found?



So put together a draft on the basis of advice so far and include the ground that the Council cannot enforce a Disabled Bay on the basis of a missing clock because the core TRO noted on the Council's webpage does not require a clock (parking disc) be displayed. That shifts the onus to the Council and requires them to justify their assertion that a clock is required.
Mick
cp8759
QUOTE (Earl Purple @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:05) *
So when a regular bay that can be used by anyone has a restriction of parking 1 hour no return within 2 hours (and is free) is the driver supposed to display a clock to show what time they arrived?

Never heard of it.

The enforcement officers simply check observation periods. With regards the disabled bay, if the restriction is 3 hours then check at 9am and if the car is still there after midday it has gone past 3 hours.

That is my understanding as well. A disabled driver parking in a disabled bay isn't using an exemption, he's just parking in a parking bay. If the parking bay is time-limited, the normal time-limited parking bay rules apply, unless someone can show me a statutory provision to the contrary.

I stand to be corrected but IMO to require the use of the clock, the highways authority would need both a provision in the TRO, and appropriate signage informing drivers of this additional requirement.
DancingDad
That they need to pass to Legal for a TRO request is ridiculous.
I suspect that what the baffled guy meant was that whether or not a time clock was required within the TRO would need the advice of Legal.
As far as supplying a copy of a TRO.
By law, they have to produce a copy for any citizen requesting to inspect one at council principle offices. Criminal offence to refuse.
That entails a personal visit but used to be the way to get one.
They don't have to provide a copy but nowadays, they are mostly in E Format and most highways departments are happy to email one.

Bye the bye, at the moment we have council website saying any TRO can be found within TPT library unless in the council update list.
Which this one isn't showing updated and is in TPT so entitled to rely on it, at least as far as using it in a challenge and requiring them to show different.

Not sure I agree with CP over the need for signage to show clock required, it is inherent in use of BB when there is a timed restriction and the BB guidance booklet specifically states this.
But that doesn't alter that signs (and inherent meanings) only reflect what is in the TRO and if the TRO does not require a clock, as this one doesn't, cannot enforce on signs alone.
I would also chuck in that requiring one to be used is discriminatory as no sort of clock is required in any other time restricted parking bay.
hcandersen
No sign is required to state ‘display’ when a permit or BB is being used, there is no variant to this effect neither is this a ‘permitted parking expression’, the only ‘display’ reference is ‘display ticket’.

Where did the hare regardng non-disabled bays come from?

The only implicit EA position we have is that the CEO issued a PCN and until the OP challenges and receives a response this isn’t going to change no matter how many iterations we make amongst ourselves.

Get the challenge submitted.

You say it doesn’t, they’ll say it does; so let’s get this show on the road.
cp8759
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:33) *
Not sure I agree with CP over the need for signage to show clock required, it is inherent in use of BB when there is a timed restriction and the BB guidance booklet specifically states this.

Is there anything statutory to support the bit in bold, considering the BB guidance booklet is not the law?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 15:21) *
No sign is required to state ‘display’ when a permit or BB is being used, there is no variant to this effect neither is this a ‘permitted parking expression’, the only ‘display’ reference is ‘display ticket’.

Indeed, they would need authorisation from the SoS.
RedDeath614
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:45) *
So put together a draft on the basis of advice so far and include the ground that the Council cannot enforce a Disabled Bay on the basis of a missing clock because the core TRO noted on the Council's webpage does not require a clock (parking disc) be displayed. That shifts the onus to the Council and requires them to justify their assertion that a clock is required.
Mick


Thanks MM. My question is do I just wait for the 14 day deadline to pass and then wait for the NTO to come through? Then I can make the formal appeal?

I just don't want to miss any deadlines so want to double check.

Legal Dept may have sent link to the latest TRO by the time NTO arrives.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:33) *
That they need to pass to Legal for a TRO request is ridiculous.
I suspect that what the baffled guy meant was that whether or not a time clock was required within the TRO would need the advice of Legal.
As far as supplying a copy of a TRO.
By law, they have to produce a copy for any citizen requesting to inspect one at council principle offices. Criminal offence to refuse.
That entails a personal visit but used to be the way to get one.
They don't have to provide a copy but nowadays, they are mostly in E Format and most highways departments are happy to email one.

Bye the bye, at the moment we have council website saying any TRO can be found within TPT library unless in the council update list.
Which this one isn't showing updated and is in TPT so entitled to rely on it, at least as far as using it in a challenge and requiring them to show different.

Not sure I agree with CP over the need for signage to show clock required, it is inherent in use of BB when there is a timed restriction and the BB guidance booklet specifically states this.
But that doesn't alter that signs (and inherent meanings) only reflect what is in the TRO and if the TRO does not require a clock, as this one doesn't, cannot enforce on signs alone.
I would also chuck in that requiring one to be used is discriminatory as no sort of clock is required in any other time restricted parking bay.


Yes it is ridiculous. At no point have I told Council why I want a copy of the latest TRO, I am merely exercising my right as a citizen to request one. So they are referring it to Legal because either they are too scared to send me this themselves or they are shirking their responsibility.

I have asked for an email copy or link to the latest TRO, I have specified I don't want a paper copy. So this should take even less time to do. But for some reason it will 'take a long time'.

IMO Council officers are just a waste of space.

I definitely intend to challenge this so will keep all posted. Thanks for the support.

Mad Mick V
OP----You are now o/s the 14 day period so I would just wait until they send you the Notice to Owner and then formally appeal.
Mick
RedDeath614
Thanks MM.

LCC have sent me an updated TRO from 2016, however I don't believe it revokes anything re BB holders and Clarence Street.

It's only 10 pages but better to link it than spend all day copy/pasting the pages as images and then uploading to Tinypic.

Please could someone advise how best to do this? Scribd doesn't say anything about hosting files?

BTW It's an amendment order to the existing TRO. This amendment specifies changes to a Bus Lane in another street nearby.

Thanks in advance
DancingDad
QUOTE (RedDeath614 @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:20) *
...........BTW It's an amendment order to the existing TRO. This amendment specifies changes to a Bus Lane in another street nearby.

Thanks in advance


In which case should not be an issue.
Go with the challenge based on no time clock required by TRO ????? (full title)

I'd take the tack that simple error in not setting/displaying the time clock but as BB was displayed and had not exceeded time allowed, apologies but would they cancel using discretion if nothing else.
BTW, in researching have found that the TRO does not require a time clock to be displayed so not sure there was a contravention anyway.
If they decide there was, after checking with legal dept if needs be, please detail the order, legislation or regulations that they rely on so you may consider future options.
RedDeath614
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 11:27) *
QUOTE (RedDeath614 @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:20) *
...........BTW It's an amendment order to the existing TRO. This amendment specifies changes to a Bus Lane in another street nearby.

Thanks in advance


In which case should not be an issue.
Go with the challenge based on no time clock required by TRO ????? (full title)

I'd take the tack that simple error in not setting/displaying the time clock but as BB was displayed and had not exceeded time allowed, apologies but would they cancel using discretion if nothing else.
BTW, in researching have found that the TRO does not require a time clock to be displayed so not sure there was a contravention anyway.
If they decide there was, after checking with legal dept if needs be, please detail the order, legislation or regulations that they rely on so you may consider future options.


Great - so I say this stuff when I get the NTO? I'm happy to challenge it anyway so will just wait and keep everyone posted.

Thanks so much for all the help happy.gif
RedDeath614
Hi all,

I got a notice of rejection from the council re this. I'm attaching below.

I asked them on what grounds they were enforcing the use of a clock along with a BB and could they direct me to this in their TRO but they have chosen to ignore the question rolleyes.gif

I've also just noticed that the warden has taken a photo of me next to the car and it's included in their evidence. I feel upset by this - had no idea the guy had taken photos of me as I was calling my mum and I would never have given permission for that. Can I say something about that or at least ask to have those destroyed? This photo wasn't included in their online evidence, but it clearly exists.

Next step is to go to appeal. What should I say?

This car has now been sold and the other ticket we got around the same time has been cancelled for some reason - not stated. I will post that letter up shortly too.






hcandersen
I'm confused.

PCN dated Sept;
Your penultimate post 20 Sept. before NTO issued, challenge submitted or council's position clarified;
Last post shows post-NTO NOR.

So, we've no idea whether you challenged or whether you received a reply or when the NTO arrived or what it said or what you said in reps or when these were submitted..apart from this we're fully up to speed.

And you want our advice!!
RedDeath614
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 22:03) *
I'm confused.

PCN dated Sept;
Your penultimate post 20 Sept. before NTO issued, challenge submitted or council's position clarified;
Last post shows post-NTO NOR.

So, we've no idea whether you challenged or whether you received a reply or when the NTO arrived or what it said or what you said in reps or when these were submitted..apart from this we're fully up to speed.

And you want our advice!!


I don't want YOUR advice actually, no.

Really no idea what your problem is. You seem to have a personal vendetta against me.

I've never been rude or patronising to you, yet this seems to be your perpetual stance against me.

Anyone with half a brain can read my last posts which said I would make a formal challenge and that I was using MM's reasons to challenge. Not sure why you're "confused" about this. Perhaps it's just way past your bedtime?

I'd like you not to post on my threads anymore. Thanks smile.gif
PASTMYBEST
I think 8(4)(b) might well be in play or at least it will be interpreted as such

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/683/regulation/8/made
DancingDad
I'm as confused as HCA.
If for no other reason but I have no idea what you sent as a formal challenge.
And thus have no idea if the council considered fully, ignored what you sent or made it up as they went along.
What they certainly have done is tried to make you believe that S6 of TMA is somehow more pertinent then simply being an enabling act.

Post a copy of what you sent please.
RedDeath614
Sure, thanks.

Here is what I sent before. I kept it very short and sweet - there was no space to do otherwise.

The blocked out black bit in the middle of the 'representations' box on pic 4 is exactly how I sent it in:




cp8759
I wouldn't suggest you submit anything to the tribunal without getting it reviewed on here first, or you have no chance.
RedDeath614
OK sure, thanks. Hope to hear some input soon.

If not I will just go with the reasons listed before and LCC didn't answer anything about the TRO.

Also this is technically our 'first offence' of this nature.
cp8759
Bump next week and I'll draft something
RedDeath614
Great, thanks very much CP smile.gif

Can I just clarify what the last date to file is? 15 December?
John U.K.
QUOTE
Can I just clarify what the last date to file is? 15 December?


You should be able to register the appeal with the tribunal now and in the appropriate box write something like
Full submission to follow.
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.