Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Do I have grounds to appeal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Firemansamsmum
Hi all - I am a new member directed here from Money saving expert form.

On Monday of this week I had to attend my local court to apply for an emergency non molestation order to prevent domestic abuse. As these are emergency orders I was told I would be seen immediately at 0930 and the case would take a matter of less than five minutes to be heard. I parked at 09.14 and took a ticket for 2 hours as that was all the change I had. There was no option to pay by card at the machine.

My hearing was put back due to another higher priority case and I arrived back to my vehicle at 11.29 to find I had been issued a ticket at 11.27. My ticket expired at 11.14. I know I am very slightly outside the ten minute leeway but was wondering if due to the circumstances of my being parked there whether it is classed as mitigating circumstances. On the ticket they have also listed my registration number incorrectly - putting a 0 instead of an O and also listed the colour as black when it is in fact blue.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Many thanks
Firemansamsmum
Any help at all would be appreciated - just bumping up
DastardlyDick
If you could post up the original PCN with PCN N0. and Reg. No. obscured/redacted plus a Google Street View link to the location, please.
The O instead of 0 does not invalidate the PCN, neither does the wrong colour.
Incandescent
QUOTE (Firemansamsmum @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 16:09) *
Any help at all would be appreciated - just bumping up

Heavens above, you only posted today at 10.40 !! Most of the regular people on here have jobs to go to.

Nothing you've told us so far would win an appeal at adjudication, so it's probably best if you submit informal reps to the PCN explaining what happened and ask for them to cancel on mitigating circumstances. However you are "bang-to-rights" and the council are within their rights not to cancel. However, post up the PCN here, (all sides), with PCN Number and car details blanked out. Sometimes PCNs contain fatal errors of content that makes them void, but whether one is or not is invariably decided only at adjudication and this means the discount option is lost, so if you lose you pay the full PCN amount, or nothing if you win, of course.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 16:17) *
If you could post up the original PCN with PCN N0. and Reg. No. obscured/redacted plus a Google Street View link to the location, please.
The O instead of 0 does not invalidate the PCN, neither does the wrong colour.


would it not. I would be making the argument based on the council reasoning in this case. The reg number is a statutory requirement on a PCN if its wrong for the motorist to mix them up its wrong for the council also


2180447743

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a shared use parking place in Manbey Road without clearly displaying a valid permit or pay-and-display ticket on 30 June 2018. A penalty charge notice was allegedly issued at 1252.
 
The Appellant states that he paid £2.35 for parking by phone and was returning to the vehicle as can be seen in one of the civil enforcement officer's photographs at 1248. The pay by phone parking receipt indicates that payment was taken at 11:48 AM that parking expired on 12:48 AM.
 
The Council rely upon the evidence of their civil enforcement officer who has recorded an observation period of five minutes and that no resident or visitor parking permit was seen and that there was no valid or pay-and-display ticket displayed. The Council assert that, having considered the Appellant's documentation, the incorrect vehicle registration mark MTO 4EKK – using the letter "O" was entered by the Appellant, whereas the correct registration Mark is with a zero "0".
 
While the Council are correct that the obligation to enter the correct details is on the motorist, I am concerned as to the lawful issue of the penalty charge notice in this case. The officer has recorded that the penalty charge notice was "ATV" – attached to vehicle. In the notes he asserts that "the driver removed the PCN". At paragraph 22 of their case summary the Council assert that the PCN was issued and "handed to the driver of the vehicle". In contrast, the Appellant states in his notice of appeal that no PCN was placed on his car as can be seen in all the photographs.
DastardlyDick
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 17:13) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 16:17) *
If you could post up the original PCN with PCN N0. and Reg. No. obscured/redacted plus a Google Street View link to the location, please.
The O instead of 0 does not invalidate the PCN, neither does the wrong colour.


would it not. I would be making the argument based on the council reasoning in this case. The reg number is a statutory requirement on a PCN if its wrong for the motorist to mix them up its wrong for the council also


2180447743

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a shared use parking place in Manbey Road without clearly displaying a valid permit or pay-and-display ticket on 30 June 2018. A penalty charge notice was allegedly issued at 1252.
 
The Appellant states that he paid £2.35 for parking by phone and was returning to the vehicle as can be seen in one of the civil enforcement officer's photographs at 1248. The pay by phone parking receipt indicates that payment was taken at 11:48 AM that parking expired on 12:48 AM.
 
The Council rely upon the evidence of their civil enforcement officer who has recorded an observation period of five minutes and that no resident or visitor parking permit was seen and that there was no valid or pay-and-display ticket displayed. The Council assert that, having considered the Appellant's documentation, the incorrect vehicle registration mark MTO 4EKK – using the letter "O" was entered by the Appellant, whereas the correct registration Mark is with a zero "0".
 
While the Council are correct that the obligation to enter the correct details is on the motorist, I am concerned as to the lawful issue of the penalty charge notice in this case. The officer has recorded that the penalty charge notice was "ATV" – attached to vehicle. In the notes he asserts that "the driver removed the PCN". At paragraph 22 of their case summary the Council assert that the PCN was issued and "handed to the driver of the vehicle". In contrast, the Appellant states in his notice of appeal that no PCN was placed on his car as can be seen in all the photographs.

I agree that it should not be the case that the Council can 'get away with' minor errors that the motorist cannot - unfortunately, that is the reality we have to live with.
Looking at that example, I'd say the winning argument was over the service of the PCN with the Council/CEO giving conflicting evidence.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 20:52) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 17:13) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 16:17) *
If you could post up the original PCN with PCN N0. and Reg. No. obscured/redacted plus a Google Street View link to the location, please.
The O instead of 0 does not invalidate the PCN, neither does the wrong colour.


would it not. I would be making the argument based on the council reasoning in this case. The reg number is a statutory requirement on a PCN if its wrong for the motorist to mix them up its wrong for the council also


2180447743

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a shared use parking place in Manbey Road without clearly displaying a valid permit or pay-and-display ticket on 30 June 2018. A penalty charge notice was allegedly issued at 1252.
 
The Appellant states that he paid £2.35 for parking by phone and was returning to the vehicle as can be seen in one of the civil enforcement officer's photographs at 1248. The pay by phone parking receipt indicates that payment was taken at 11:48 AM that parking expired on 12:48 AM.
 
The Council rely upon the evidence of their civil enforcement officer who has recorded an observation period of five minutes and that no resident or visitor parking permit was seen and that there was no valid or pay-and-display ticket displayed. The Council assert that, having considered the Appellant's documentation, the incorrect vehicle registration mark MTO 4EKK – using the letter "O" was entered by the Appellant, whereas the correct registration Mark is with a zero "0".
 
While the Council are correct that the obligation to enter the correct details is on the motorist, I am concerned as to the lawful issue of the penalty charge notice in this case. The officer has recorded that the penalty charge notice was "ATV" – attached to vehicle. In the notes he asserts that "the driver removed the PCN". At paragraph 22 of their case summary the Council assert that the PCN was issued and "handed to the driver of the vehicle". In contrast, the Appellant states in his notice of appeal that no PCN was placed on his car as can be seen in all the photographs.

I agree that it should not be the case that the Council can 'get away with' minor errors that the motorist cannot - unfortunately, that is the reality we have to live with.
Looking at that example, I'd say the winning argument was over the service of the PCN with the Council/CEO giving conflicting evidence.


Yes but it refutes the council claim that the slip rule should apply for them. Its a case I would be happy to make
cp8759
Can we see the PCN (both sides in full redacting just the number plate), the council photos and a link to the location on google street view. Without this we don't even know if the council has a case against you.
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.