Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Unloading Claim Rejected
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
h3lp
Hi All,

One of our vans got ticketed whilst unloading on non-restricted double yellow lines.

We appealed with supporting evidence but this got rejected because the van was near a junction.

Can anyone see anything incorrect about the council's letter before we pay?

Cheers.

Redivi
Post up all the documents, every page and a Streetview location
stamfordman
Pretty certain this is nonsense as we've seen with recent cases of Crawley going after BB holders in this way. Obstruction can be pursued by police but not by council under the yellow line parking order. If they want to ban loading there then they can be they haven't, presumably.

As per above post PCN, all your challenge and their rejection, council pics, and a google street view.

Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.
h3lp
Cheers guys,

I haven't got the copy of my first appeal to the council, but it basically stated that i was unloading and that there were no unloading restrictions in force. I also provided a job sheet supporting the unloading.

Here is the ticket, council picture and GSV :







https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.37209....46h,-23.49p,1z

stamfordman
Observation time was 5 mins which further suggests that the corner location is nonsense - did driver see the CEO?

Sounds to me like you left van to attend to leak? Was van moved after loading? They could have rejected owing to no loading going on but may well have shot themselves in the foot with the obstruction.
PASTMYBEST
What a crock of bull. The exemption applies end off. If you are guilty of an offence of causing an obstruction it is a police matter it does not nullify any exemption

Please post all the docs on an external hosting site such as imgur to make them easier to read. I cannot see you losing this and can see you getting costs awarded if the appeal is well drafted
stamfordman
OP has put on external PMB - just click on them.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 10:13) *
OP has put on external PMB - just click on them.


Ok but I would like to see ALL of the rejection, redacted of only personal detail
h3lp
No problem, here we go thank you for your help



PASTMYBEST
Send this now To Mr Simpson


Dear Mr Simpson

reference PCN number xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated the 24th of May 2019 rejecting my challenge. You state that as I was unloading near to a junction that the TMA 2004 and the TSRGD 2016 disallows the exemption afforded to parking on a double yellow line for the purposes of loading/unloading.


In order that I may consider my position, please inform me of the relevant provision in both sets of regulations that sets out this revocation of the exemption in such circumstances.



Regards
h3lp
Thank you so much!

Email sent!
hcandersen
Have you actually sent it?

If not, then wait.
h3lp
yeh i emailed it straight away.

why whats up?
hcandersen
A matter of preference.

I would have included..

..your letter dated *** in which you acknowledge that I was engaged in loading etc. which is an exemption as regards the prevailing traffic order but that you have not accepted my representations for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The TMA and TSRGD 2016 disapply the exemption when a vehicle is parked 'on or near a pedestrian crossing or junction'
2. 'The vehicle is not causing an obstruction....

..and so on..

Draw out and shine the spotlight on their stupidity. It's all grist to the adjudicator's mill which would grind Mr Simpson. They'd be lucky to escape without an award of costs against them, in fact if you play this right and they're stupid enough to continue with a NTO/NOR I would virtually guarantee an award their response and reasoning is SOOOO bad. But you have to play them, a bit like anglng except here you'd be angling for costs smile.gif

Too late now, but we could include in any formal reps.

Surely more than one the council pic!





h3lp
OK thank you for your additional insight

i'll update if i need to reload the appeal gun!
h3lp
Hi All,

The council have written and rejected the appeal.

I've linked their response - any help appreciated!

SurreyNorthern
Long time lurker, but I'm pretty sure that claiming they are 'not willing to consider further challenges at this stage' is a Procedural Impropriety, as they should always consider further reps I thought.

Wait for further feedback, just in case I am wrong.....
PASTMYBEST
You need to show us all of all the documents. When you get the NTO post that and one of us will help you write your representation
DancingDad
Personally I would write back again.

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ???? Your Letter dated ????
Thanks for the further information but I am still struggling on ascertaining what cancels the general loading exemption on yellow lines relative to position near a junction.
I need full information so I may consider further options.
You kindly referred me to Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 7, Item 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) which I reproduce in full.
"(2)The offences are—
(a)an offence under section 64(3) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) of causing a vehicle to stop on part of a road appointed, or deemed to have been appointed, as a hackney carriage stand;
(b)an offence under section 5, 11, 16(1) or 16C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (contravention of certain traffic orders) of contravening a prohibition or restriction on waiting, or loading or unloading, of vehicles;"


Could you explain what Hackney Carriage Stand was present or signed as you seem to be reliant on this?
Could you point out within Schedule 7(4)(2)(b) where distance from a corner is specified or the relevant legislation or Order which enables this section to be used?
Could you also specify which signs were present to show that the standard loading exemption was not allowed?
Many thanks for your continued efforts with this, I am sure you appreciate the need to be exact and to apply the correct legislation.
Yours....
Hugs and Kisses.


Up to you but being as they cite some legislation, I would call them on it now.
h3lp
Thank you! I love this site smile.gif

Will report back
h3lp
Hi All,

The council are still playing hardball - what's next - wait for the NTO to arrive?

hcandersen
OP, it is irritating that you leave off the tops and bottoms of letters, you must leave in all 4 corners.

For example, have the authority's replies come from the same person, who clearly has training needs?

You need to write to the Head of Parking and personalise this, plus aim for costs at adjudication if they're foolish enough to continue.

Are you the registered keeper?
h3lp
Sorry - i've checked and the letters are coming from different members of staff each time.

is there anything i should write or word differently in the letter to the head of parking?

i'm not the registered keeper.
stamfordman
Who is the registered keeper - if it's your company then it will be straightforward but if it's leased then the lease-hire company will be the RK, which makes it more complicated.
h3lp
its on finance lease to a friend.

shall i ask him if he has the V5?
stamfordman
QUOTE (h3lp @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 10:30) *
its on finance lease to a friend.

shall i ask him if he has the V5?



You can but very unlikely that he has it. This means NTO will go to lease company so you will have to try and sort out with them and they may well make an admin charge - ask friend to check procedure.
h3lp
yeh when i used to get tickets on my leased van, the lease company would send me the ticket details (and charge £20 for the privilege). I would then get the charge reversed once I won the appeal.

hopefully a letter to the "head of parking" will stop us needing to pursue it that far?
cp8759
QUOTE (h3lp @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 12:10) *
yeh when i used to get tickets on my leased van, the lease company would send me the ticket details (and charge £20 for the privilege). I would then get the charge reversed once I won the appeal.

hopefully a letter to the "head of parking" will stop us needing to pursue it that far?

Regardless, you need to get in touch with the leasing company ahead of time. Some leasing companies are known to simply pay the penalty and then demand that you pay, rather than following the proper procedure to transfer liability. You need to ensure that if an NtO is served on the leasing company, they appeal it on the basis that they are a leasing company and the vehicle is on lease to your friend. Providing the leasing company does this, the NtO will be cancelled and a new NtO will be sent to your friend, which eliminates the risk of the leasing company paying or messing up the procedure.
DancingDad
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (h3lp @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 12:10) *
yeh when i used to get tickets on my leased van, the lease company would send me the ticket details (and charge £20 for the privilege). I would then get the charge reversed once I won the appeal.

hopefully a letter to the "head of parking" will stop us needing to pursue it that far?

Regardless, you need to get in touch with the leasing company ahead of time. Some leasing companies are known to simply pay the penalty and then demand that you pay, rather than following the proper procedure to transfer liability. You need to ensure that if an NtO is served on the leasing company, they appeal it on the basis that they are a leasing company and the vehicle is on lease to your friend. Providing the leasing company does this, the NtO will be cancelled and a new NtO will be sent to your friend, which eliminates the risk of the leasing company paying or messing up the procedure.

And make sure that the leasing company has the right details for your mate, current address etc.

Right load of muppets these lot are, can't answer the question so just trot out the same company line...
If this goes to adjudication, sting them for costs, even if they enter a Do not Contest.
h3lp
Thanks - do you think i'm better just letting this run it's course to adjudication then?

Or one more crack at getting them to back down pre-NTO?
stamfordman
QUOTE (h3lp @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 16:51) *
Thanks - do you think i'm better just letting this run it's course to adjudication then?

Or one more crack at getting them to back down pre-NTO?


You must make formal reps to the NTO or pay. Adjudication is the step if they reject reps.

It's a shame they've not backed down before the NTO because now you have to involve the lease company but can't see having another crack now is going to work.

See:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process
cp8759
I would take this all the way. They've mis-stated the law and that is a procedural impropriety.
h3lp
Hi All,

NTO has arrived.

Can someone please advise me on what my representation should be given what's been communicated so far.



Thank you!
hcandersen
its on finance lease to a friend.


So pl be exact. Who has received the NTO, you or someone else? If not you, then it's not 'your representations'.
PASTMYBEST
What's the date of the NTO and who is it addressed too
h3lp
16 07 19 is the date on the letter and it's addressed to the lease company.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (h3lp @ Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 20:37) *
16 07 19 is the date on the letter and it's addressed to the lease company.



Then only the lease company can make representations. Unless you get written authority to act on there behalf or they do what they should and make representations on the fact that as a lease company they are not liable and that you exercise the rights and reasponsibility of owner
h3lp
Yeh the email from the lease company also came with a third party authorisation letter, giving the driver the right to make reps.
h3lp
Can anyone advise on what our reply should be?

Are we best of just repeating what we've already stated?
hcandersen
Post this letter pl, just omit personal details but leave in all dates etc.

I very, very, very much doubt that it is what you think it is.

From what you imply, THEY and not you are still on the hook for the penalty. And if you are tardy or just plain ignore, which you are entitled to do because they cannot require you to act for them, then they could end up with Lawrence Grix of the Sheriffs are Coming fame knocking at their door in a few months because THEY remain liable.

Post this letter pl.
h3lp
Thank you hcandersen,

there were two letters - one sent from the lease company to the council, and one from the lease company to the keeper...

both below thank you again.





hcandersen
You do NOTHING because there is nothing for you to do.(Far from their letter authorising YOU, it authorises the council(?))

Letter 2 dated 18 July headed Dear Customer tells you they have given details to the council for them to transfer liability to you.


You do NOTHING until you receive a NTO in YOUR name.

In the spirit of a customer wishing to provide their lease company with the highest level of service ( biggrin.gif ) write back, thank them for dealing with the matter quickly and say that you will keep the copy NTO for information and await a NTO in your name. In the meantime, would they please confirm that their letter to Plymouth ... dated 18 July which was copied to you is their submission to that authority to transfer liability.
(I won't go in to why the last part is important just yet because you do not have a NTO).
cp8759
Sorry to have to call you out on this hcandersen, but your advice on this occasion is dangerous. If the OP acts on your advice, there are only two possible outcomes:

1) The lease company will pay the PCN and seek to recover the money from the OP, or
2) The council won't receive any representations and will, in due course, issue a charge certificate (which the lease company will no doubt re-charge to the OP).

Trying to be a smart-arse and writing to the lease company on the basis that they should know what they're doing will achieve nothing if, as in this case, the person at the other end doesn't know what they're doing. Furthermore, while it's badly written the intent of the letter addressed to the council is clear, the lease company want the council to communicate with the nominated person. The letter also helpfully confirms that the nominated person has the full use of the vehicle.

h3lp, you need to respond to the Notice to Owner using the "not the owner" ground, and naming yourself as the owner. Also include a copy of the letter from the lease company to the council. This should result in the NtO being cancelled and a new NtO being issued in your name.
h3lp
OK thanks for the input.

The letter from lease company says we should now make our appeal directly to the council (with their letter of authority accompanying it)?

Can I get clarification on what our next action should be?

Cheers.

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (h3lp @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 11:35) *
OK thanks for the input.

The letter from lease company says we should now make our appeal directly to the council (with their letter of authority accompanying it)?

Can I get clarification on what our next action should be?

Cheers.



So you have authority to make representations on behalf of the lease co (NOT IN YOUR OWN RIGHT) and the council will respond to the lease company, what then?
hcandersen
@cp ??

You misgivings are way out:
) The lease company will pay the PCN and seek to recover the money from the OP, or
2) The council won't receive any representations and will, in due course, issue a charge certificate (which the lease company will no doubt re-charge to the OP).


The die has already been cast; the lease company have written to the council and the OP. The OP is merely acknowledging receipt and confirming the meaning and purpose of the letter to the authority.

You seem to have a problem with the straightforward and this action is exactly that, the response of a genuine person who received the two letters.

I have revised my view. It is ESSENTIAL that the OP writes to the lease company.

You seem to forget that if the OP does nothing then the council may indeed ignore the letter from the company and issue a CC. IMO the ONLY way of averting this is to write to the lease company because we know that the details in that letter do not comply with the mandatory elements required to transfer liability, contrary to your thoughts that all that's required is a clear intent to transfer liability - since when did this become the regulatory standard? Therefore BY DEFAULT the OP could be taken out of the enforcement process and find themselves lumbered in the contractual one.

Only the OP can avert this possible outcome and they can't do it by sitting on their hands.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 22:31) *
The die has already been cast; the lease company have written to the council and the OP.

No, the lease company has done no such thing.

The lease company has simply notified the OP of the penalty, and it has provided a letter addressed to the enforcement authority, which the OP can use as a Letter of Authority when he writes to the council, should he chose to challenge the penalty.

If there were any doubt that the lease company might have actually sent the third party authorisation letter to the council, any such doubt is dispelled by the letter to the OP clearly stating in relation to the Letter of Authority "You will need to send this with your appeal".

I stand by my advice in post 43, the OP needs to write to the council so he can get a new NtO issued to himself.
h3lp
i need to do something about this one - is there a tribunal service on this forum to decide which of you is right? biggrin.gif
hcandersen
The first of the two posted letters seems clear: it is addressed to Plymouth City Council and it is signed by LeasePlan. There is nothing to suggest this has not been sent to the council. And here is the problem: it is unclear. You think it's been sent to the OP, I don't. But whichever, the OP must find out or possibly lose by default.

I suggested he started with LeasePlan for the very obvious reason that the ball is in their court. They could phone them, in fact this might be preferable. All they need to establish is exactly what LeasePlan have sent to the council e.g. only the letter dated 18th, nothing! It's simple fact finding and should be dealt with as such i.e. no 'overtones'. And once they and we know, then we can advise.

For example, if only the letter then we know that this does not comply with the regs as regards transferring liability, but the OP doesn't want to split hairs on this point at the moment, what they want is a NTO in their name. So, do the authority intend to accept this, what else might they need, could the OP assist etc?

But I think this must start with LeasePlan with a light touch.
cp8759
QUOTE (h3lp @ Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 06:53) *
i need to do something about this one - is there a tribunal service on this forum to decide which of you is right? biggrin.gif

You could just call the lease company, and ask them to confirm which of the following is correct:

1) The letter addressed to the council has only been sent to you, and their intention is that if you want to challenge the penalty, you should send this letter to the council, or

2) The lease company has already sent the letter of authority to the council.

IMO the only logical conclusion is 1, but it should only take a 30 second phone call to find out.
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.