Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: x3 PCNs - Parked in special enforcement area adjacent to footway
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
j4ck100
Hi

I parked my car just behind the lamp-post seen here on Monday evening and then was traveling on work so did not return to the vehicle until Thursday when you can imagine my horror seeing x3 tickets piled up on the windscreen!

I have been parking in this space many times and in fact a resident came out of his house when i was removing the PCNs from the windscreen and said he couldn't believe it as he parks there (and streetview shows a van parked close-by too)

Alas i am now informed that parking on a section of carriage way that is raised to meet the pavement is prohibited

I guess i have no problem in paying the 1st PCN if I was indeed parked illegally, though it would be painful if i would have to pay all 3 given the car didn't move and i had no chance to rectify.

Thoughts welcome please, thanks




stamfordman
Wrong contravention - should be a code 28. So a good chance of getting all 3 cancelled and 2 in any case as a continuous contravention.

The tactile paving though is there on both sides for a crossing. You must watch out for these.
Steve_999
Are all three PCNs for "Code 27" like the one you have posted up? Great if so as wrong contravention!
stamfordman
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 22:52) *
Are all three PCNs for "Code 27" like the one you have posted up?



good point
mike5100
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 22:48) *
Wrong contravention - should be a code 28. So a good chance of getting all 3 cancelled and 2 in any case as a continuous contravention.

The tactile paving though is there on both sides for a crossing. You must watch out for these.

That's important. It does seem unfair that the OP got 3 tickets with no chance to rectify, but surely he and the neighbour must already know that people in wheelchairs are going to have difficulty getting across the road if cars park in that position -unless I'm misinterpreting the picture
Mike
Incandescent
Can somebody explain the difference 27-28, because if I was an adjudicator, the description seems to perfectly match what the driver has done. Right across a very obvious crossing point.
hcandersen
It does seem unfair that the OP got 3 tickets with no chance to rectify,

Not really. Given the nature of the contravention, there would be no need for a CEO to note valve positions so why would day 2 CEO see this as a continuous contravention? (we all know of drivers who think it's a jolly wheeze to place an empty PCN envelope on their windscreen when they park in contravention).

We should not mistake the CEO's actions for the totally separate role of the authority when it considers reps, possibly on the basis of continuous contravention. It would be unfair to pay 3 penalties, but that's different from getting 3 tickets.

OP, a word to the wise: do not leave your car for extended periods without checking. Next time you could find it in the pound.

Anyway, looking to the future:
Would they cancel all 3? Unlikely.
Therefore we need to ask - are you the registered keeper and are your DVLA V5C details up to date?
j4ck100
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 10:42) *
It does seem unfair that the OP got 3 tickets with no chance to rectify,

Not really. Given the nature of the contravention, there would be no need for a CEO to note valve positions so why would day 2 CEO see this as a continuous contravention? (we all know of drivers who think it's a jolly wheeze to place an empty PCN envelope on their windscreen when they park in contravention).

We should not mistake the CEO's actions for the totally separate role of the authority when it considers reps, possibly on the basis of continuous contravention. It would be unfair to pay 3 penalties, but that's different from getting 3 tickets.

OP, a word to the wise: do not leave your car for extended periods without checking. Next time you could find it in the pound.

Anyway, looking to the future:
Would they cancel all 3? Unlikely.
Therefore we need to ask - are you the registered keeper and are your DVLA V5C details up to date?


All 3 PCNs are 'contravention 27'. I guess posters above are referring to the fact that the carriageway is raised to meet the footway which should be a 'section 28'. 'Section 27' seems reserved for when the carriageway/footway is lowered.

I am the RK however I have just moved house and therefore the vehicle is registered at my parents address.

Thank you.
AdeyG
Deleted post
Steve_999
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 12:13) *
. . . . . . .
All 3 PCNs are 'contravention 27'. . . . . .


If that's the case it should be fatal to the PCNs.
Michael Gibson
I speak daily to Kingston CEOs - they have been told not to issue code 28.
stamfordman
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:19) *
I speak daily to Kingston CEOs - they have been told not to issue code 28.



Why?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:52) *
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:19) *
I speak daily to Kingston CEOs - they have been told not to issue code 28.



Why?


Kingston policy cannot usurp the regs
Michael Gibson
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:52) *
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:19) *
I speak daily to Kingston CEOs - they have been told not to issue code 28.



Why?


Kingston policy cannot usurp the regs


Absolutely. They can't enforce raised carriageway contraventions then!
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:52) *
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 13:19) *
I speak daily to Kingston CEOs - they have been told not to issue code 28.



Why?


Kingston policy cannot usurp the regs


Absolutely. They can't enforce raised carriageway contraventions then!


Not with a code 27
j4ck100
Thanks for all of your helpful messages.

There appear to be differing opinions on whether I will be liable to pay these notices - what is my best route forward now please?

Thank you.
cp8759
If all the penalties were issued for code 27, you are liable for none of them. Send informal reps for all three (I'd send 1 letter and quote all 3 PCN numbers).

--------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I now understanding parking at this location is prohibited, it is quite apparent that this is a location where the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footpath. Accordingly a PCN should have been issued with code 28, rather than 27.

Furthermore, the vehicle did not move at any time between the date of issue of the 1st PCN and the 3rd PCN, indeed I was away during this period. It follows that in any event only one contravention occurred, so the council had no powers to issue a 2nd and 3rd PCN for the same contravention. It follows that at the very least, PCNs 2 and 3 should be cancelled.
mike5100
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 10:42) *
It does seem unfair that the OP got 3 tickets with no chance to rectify,

Not really. Given the nature of the contravention, there would be no need for a CEO to note valve positions so why would day 2 CEO see this as a continuous contravention? (we all know of drivers who think it's a jolly wheeze to place an empty PCN envelope on their windscreen when they park in contravention).

Good point. (and thanks for the tip - never thought of that one biggrin.gif )

BQ68
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/4029 p33-34
j4ck100
Thank you, I shall write an informal letter and see where that takes me.

Interestingly in scanning the CEO handbook helpfully posted above, I note the exemption listed for both code 27 & 28

EXEMPTIONS
• A vehicle parked outside a residential premises by or with the consent of the occupier of the premises. (NOT in the case of a shared driveway).

If I am reading this correctly then a resident is permitted to park where I parked? How is a CEO to know which vehicles are residents or am I interpreting the exemption incorrectly?

Thank you.
Steve_999
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 22:40) *
Thank you, I shall write an informal letter and see where that takes me.

Interestingly in scanning the CEO handbook helpfully posted above, I note the exemption listed for both code 27 & 28

EXEMPTIONS
• A vehicle parked outside a residential premises by or with the consent of the occupier of the premises. (NOT in the case of a shared driveway).

If I am reading this correctly then a resident is permitted to park where I parked? How is a CEO to know which vehicles are residents or am I interpreting the exemption incorrectly?

Thank you.


That exemption is only applicable when the dropped kerb (or raised carriageway) has been provided for driveway access. If you look at the photos you will notice the tactile pavement by your car which clearly indicates this raised carriageway is provided to assist pedestrians and wheelchair users in crossing the road.
j4ck100
Letter sent as below:



Dear Sir / Madam,

With reference to the following 3 PCNs received on my Silver Mercedes parked on Avenue South with Registration Number XOXO:

QT0XX100XX
QT0XX743XX
QT0XX981XX

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I now understand that parking at this location is prohibited, it is clear that this is a location where the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footpath. Accordingly a PCN should have been issued with code 28, rather than code 27 as was the case.

Code 27 is reserved, I understand, for locations where a footway, cycle track or verge is lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. It is clear that this is not the case at the location, and this is clearly shown in the photographic evidence provided by the Civil Enforcement Officer.

Furthermore, the vehicle did not move at any time between the date of issue of the 1st PCN and the 3rd PCN, indeed I was away during this period. This is clear from the photographic evidence supplied.

It follows that in any event only one contravention occurred (‘Continuous Contravention’), so at that at the very least, PCNs 2 and 3 should be cancelled.


Yours sincerely,

j4ck100
Letter received today, bit confusing due to omissions & incorrect PCN numbers stated.

Initially jumped for joy as I read it as all 3 had been cancelled.

Phoned in to double check and the first PCN has been upheld and subsequent PCNs cancelled.

They have essentially ignored the 27 vs 28 point and the lady on the phone stated the fact there were tactile markings on the ground meant it was irrelevant whether the PCN was issued under code 27 or code 28 - I have no idea whether this is right but I suspect not?

They have extended the reduced payment window until the end of the month for PCN #1.

I worry as without being at the location, it is difficult to interpret from the photos that this is a raised carriageway and not the (much more common) lowered footway.

Advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

Thanks


PASTMYBEST
So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would
j4ck100
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:38) *
So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would


If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:38) *
So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would


If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.


if we could promise you it would not be a fight would it. What we can say is that a PCN must state why the CEO believes a PCN is due. And a code 27 does not do that because the kerb is not lowered. But adjudicators can be a funny lot
j4ck100
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 15:22) *
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 14:38) *
So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would


If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.


if we could promise you it would not be a fight would it. What we can say is that a PCN must state why the CEO believes a PCN is due. And a code 27 does not do that because the kerb is not lowered. But adjudicators can be a funny lot



Thanks and understood, I guess what I’m trying to get at is the strength of the ‘wrong code’ argument. Can the adjudicator look at it and say yes it was the wrong code but you still weren’t permitted to park there etc

What’s the process from here if I decide to challenge, and is it a one-shot affair i.e. if I ‘lose’ that’s it and tough luck?

Thanks
PASTMYBEST
Next step is a notice to owner from the council. This is sent to the registered keeper as per DVLA records. Is this you and are the details up to date?. You can then make a formal challenge against the NTO. if this is rejected then you can appeal to the adjudicator. Theres a good chance they mess up the response to the formal challenge and give another ground for appeal
cp8759
One key point to remember is that the adjudicator is independent of the council, the council doesn't get to issue the penalty and also decide whether you should pay it. On top of that, it's common practice for councils to re-offer the discount if they reject a formal challenge, because they want to discourage you from appealing to the tribunal.
j4ck100
OK so 2nd letter finally recieved in response to the first PCN which they believe is still valid.

They have referenced a dropped kerb in this letter and whilst i appreciate that glancing at the photos the CEO has provided indicate that it looks like a dropped kerb, it isn't, it's a raised level of road that meets the kerb.

As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

Thanks,
Jack




cp8759
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 09:30) *
As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

We cannot give you a 100% guarantee, there's always the risk that a maverick adjudicator might make a ludicrous decision. But it should be fatal because quite clearly the kerb is not lowered, as the council's own photos show.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 11:39) *
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 09:30) *
As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

We cannot give you a 100% guarantee, there's always the risk that a maverick adjudicator might make a ludicrous decision. But it should be fatal because quite clearly the kerb is not lowered, as the council's own photos show.


They are adamant it is a dropped kerb, aren't they. All grist for the mill when the penny drops
j4ck100
OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?


Thanks
stamfordman
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 12:51) *
OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?


no, £110 is max unless you miss deadlines.

To sound a contrary note I think if this were me I might pay this one at discount having got two cancelled partly because of time and also car was in contravention.

But there is a good chance council won't contest an appeal to tribunal if they reject your formal reps.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 12:58) *
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 12:51) *
OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?


no, £110 is max unless you miss deadlines.

To sound a contrary note I think if this were me I might pay this one at discount having got two cancelled partly because of time and also car was in contravention.

But there is a good chance council won't contest an appeal to tribunal if they reject your formal reps.


If it were you, you would get some stick, don't you think rolleyes.gif
hcandersen
OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!
Incandescent
It is such a blatant parking contravention, with "knobbly" paving stones by the crossing, that I reckon an adjudicator will jump through a hoop to reject an appeal.
cp8759
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 13:37) *
It is such a blatant parking contravention, with "knobbly" paving stones by the crossing, that I reckon an adjudicator will jump through a hoop to reject an appeal.

I think an adjudicator taking that approach would risk having his decision attacked on the basis of irrationality.
j4ck100
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 13:16) *
OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!


There are few certainties in this life, and I understand that! I was just trying to get a view on the odds of a successful appeal here. It's very interesting as there are clearly differing opinions here as to what will happen at tribunal - it's not clear cut.

An offence was clearly committed but a procedural error has occured in processing. Can anyone point me towards guidelines for an adjudicator? Does said adjudicator have the power to say ''I understand there was a processing error (27 vs 28) but the contravention stands as you were clearly in contravention regardless'' ?

Thank you.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (j4ck100 @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 14:31) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 13:16) *
OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!


There are few certainties in this life, and I understand that! I was just trying to get a view on the odds of a successful appeal here. It's very interesting as there are clearly differing opinions here as to what will happen at tribunal - it's not clear cut.

An offence was clearly committed but a procedural error has occured in processing. Can anyone point me towards guidelines for an adjudicator? Does said adjudicator have the power to say ''I understand there was a processing error (27 vs 28) but the contravention stands as you were clearly in contravention regardless'' ?

Thank you.


the PCN MUST state the reason the CEO believes a penalty is due. In you case it says parked adjacent to a DK. But it was not was it. so you have not been served a valid PCN. That the council do not pick up on that is further grist to the mill

There are case when an adjudicator says a contravention occurs but not the one stated

2170429213
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction). The location was Rushmead and the alleged contravention occurred at 12.24pm on 22 June 2017.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the Council. These show that there was a blue sign attached to a post on each side of the road at the junction from which vehicle registration K33YVS exited. The driver of the car would not have seen these signs as they were facing in the opposite direction from the one in which the car was being driven. There is no evidence that the car was driven past any blue sign visible to the driver.
It would appear that the car may have been driven through a No Entry sign at the entrance to Rushmead. However, a No Entry restriction is not the same as the restriction conveyed by the arrow on a blue sign. It follows that the PCN was issued for the wrong alleged contravention. A driver cannot fail to comply with a sign that cannot be seen.

j4ck100
Righty ho

I’m hoping I’ve not made a serious error here

I sold the vehicle in question approximately 4 weeks ago and informed RBK parking services of this. I requested that all correspondence inc. NTO be sent on to me and not the new RK.

I’ve since received this letter stating that it’s not possible to divert the NTO.

Is it now the vehicle’s new owner’s responsibility to nominate me as the driver at the time of the offence?

Thanks

cp8759
The council is wrong, there is no requirement to send the Notice to Owner to the person shown as the registered keeper. Regulation 19 says:

19.—(1) Subject to regulation 20, where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9 or 9A; and

(b) the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (“a notice to owner”) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.


Therefore if you supplied evidence to them showing that you were the owner at the time of the contravention, they have no lawful authority to go an serve an NtO on someone else. The fact that their IT procedures do not cater for this scenario is just though luck for them.

So, when you wrote to the council did you provide them some hard evidence to show you were the owner of the vehicle? Such as copies of purchase and sale receipts for the car, insurgence documents, DVLA tax reminders or similar?
j4ck100
Council has sent me the Notice to Owner after all of that!

Should my formal representation be near exact replica of my informal representation? Do I need to add anything else?

Thanks.
Michael Gibson
A side note here... I'm an estate agent in Surbs and chat to CEOs a LOT.

They don't even know about code 28. this is as clear cut as anything could be.

Start a Stage 1 formal complaint. Happy to help - Pm me if you like.
cp8759
Draft formal representations, makes sure to keep all italics exactly as I've used them below.

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

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I now understanding parking at this location is prohibited, it is quite apparent that this is a location where the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footpath. Accordingly a PCN should have been issued with code 28, rather than 27.

I refer you to the London Councils Standard PCN Codes v6.7.7 which provides the following wording for code 28:

Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised
to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge


Furthermore, the vehicle did not move at any time between the date of issue of the 1st PCN and the 3rd PCN, indeed I was away during this period. It follows that in any event only one contravention occurred, so the council had no powers to issue a 2nd and 3rd PCN for the same contravention.

I refer you to the decision in Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (2170557869, 09 February 2018) where the tribunal ruled that:

"In this case the restriction on footway parked
imposed by Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) is a continuous one,
i.e. it applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without any breaks, in the same way as double yellow lines indicate a
prohibition on waiting at any time. It follows that it cannot be alleged that a vehicle which remains stationary in the
same position has been parked repeatedly in contravention of such a restriction. Consequently PCNs may not be
issued repeatedly – the first PCN issued to a vehicle parked in contravention for such a “continuing” contravention is
the only one that can be validly issued. The only valid further enforcement action that an Enforcement Authority may
take once one PCN has been issued is to remove the vehicle.

This means that the PCNs subject to this appeal, being the second and third in time, were not valid PCNs, and
therefore may not be enforced.
"

The prohibition imposed by section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is also in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It follows that because the vehicle was only left stationary on one occasion, only one PCN should have been issued. Therefore PCNs 2 and 3 must be cancelled in any event.
GayWolf
Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (GayWolf @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 12:50) *
Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3


Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.
Michael Gibson
I'll get you a very low level shot of the road, showing the raised carriageway. Which bit of Avenue South were you parked on?
mike5100
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:09) *
QUOTE (GayWolf @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 12:50) *
Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3


Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.

That's an interesting analogy PMB but if I'm driving from Newcastle to Edinburgh and get caught speeding on 3 different cameras is that still one offence. (If they are on 3 different roads does that make it different from if I got caught 3 times on the A1)?
Mike
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (mike5100 @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 15:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:09) *
QUOTE (GayWolf @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 12:50) *
Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3


Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.

That's an interesting analogy PMB but if I'm driving from Newcastle to Edinburgh and get caught speeding on 3 different cameras is that still one offence. (If they are on 3 different roads does that make it different from if I got caught 3 times on the A1)?
Mike

Curse it make a difference, different road different set of facts, same if you slow down to the limit and then speed up again it is two or more offences. In the same way as if this OP had moved his car, it would be two parking offences
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.