Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: contravention 12r
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Dandd
Yet another parking ticket based on Contravention 12r - Parked in a residential or shared use parking place or zone without a valid permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit.

Ealing Council seem to be on a mission to grab as much money as they can before a second lock down.

There was no marking on the road (it seems the surface has been re-done recently and marking still not applied). Can they actually issue PCN without residential bay marking and what would be my best strategy to appeal? Any comments and advice very welcomed.

Pls see the photograph.




Incandescent
What about signs, are there none either ?
stamfordman
We can't work this out without the PCN, council pics and location.

Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like as space on forum is limited.
Dandd
Sure, I'll upload the PCN and council pics shortly.
It's Ealing council btw.
hcandersen

They cannot enforce without road markings - we can forget about this being a Res or Permit Holder only zone (and therefore not requiring or permitting markings) because if it was then the sign is superfluous, incorrect and of no evidential value.

But if there's collective stupidity in parking services then prepare for any challenge to be rejected.

stamfordman
Works have obviously obliterated the bay markings. They were there last year.

Contravention time also 2 mins or less from end of restricted time.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4994792,-0....6384!8i8192


Dandd
Thank to both contributors to my case.


Is ''2 mins or less from end of restricted time'' actually a legit reason for appeal?
stamfordman
London Councils guidance is not to issue in less then 2 mins before a restriction ends but don't bother with this - the lack of road markings is the strong ground.
Draft a challenge and post here first.
Dandd
Thank you stamfordman. Would post the draft later on.
Dandd
Here is my draft for appeal:


Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PCN xxxxxxxxx

I believe that the quoted contravention did not occur as I parked the vehicle on Cranmer Avenue (W13) when there were no markings on the road, indicating any form of residents’ or shared parking space or zone requiring a permit. Also, there was no sign in close proximity (at least 3 car lengths) in either direction, indicating restrictions.

Hopefully my appeal will be taken under serious consideration and the PCN cancelled.

Sincerely yours

Kiss kiss kiss
Dandd
Any thoughts on the draft?
PASTMYBEST
Same as your other thread permit bays are different to resident or shared use and code 12 is wrong it should be 16Parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid permit
stamfordman
I wouldn't make any reference to signs or the code. That part of the road is unmarked and unsigned. I would refer the council to its own pictures and enclose the one you took that I noted.
Dandd
Thank you 'PASTMYBEST' and 'stanfordman'. I actually went back to the road and found out that there are ''permit holders only'' restriction signs but they are very far apart (more than 60-70 metres between on the side where my car was parked).

In this case shall I challenge the PCN on the ground that there were no parking bay markings on the road only?

Like:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PCN xxxxxxxxx

I believe that the quoted contravention did not occur as I parked the vehicle on Cranmer Avenue (W13) when there were no markings on the road, indicating any form of residents’ or shared parking space or zone requiring a permit.

Hopefully my appeal will be taken under serious consideration and the PCN cancelled.

Sincerely yours
xxxxxxxxxxxxx




How does it sound?
stamfordman
Change when to where - where there were no...

Add "I enclose a picture I took at the time showing clearly that there were no markings."

and enclose the pic I've picked out in post #7.

None of their pics show this clearly which is probably deliberate.

Dandd
Thank you stamfordman.

Here is the final draft:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PCN xxxxxxxxx

I believe that the quoted contravention did not occur as I parked the vehicle on Cranmer Avenue (W13) where there were no markings on the road, indicating any form of residents’ or shared parking space or zone requiring a permit.
I enclose a picture I took at the time showing clearly that there were no markings.
Hopefully my appeal will be taken under serious consideration and the PCN cancelled.

Sincerely yours
xxxxxx


If no objections within the next 48 hours, I will be sending this as my informal challenge.
stamfordman
Remove the comma after road.


Dandd
Thanks stanfordman, it has been done smile.gif
Dandd
Hi,

I received a rejection letter to the informal challenge:

https://ibb.co/kyNqPRc
https://ibb.co/Cv1h88S


Reason for rejection: '' There is a sign where you parked that explains that the bay you parked in is for people with a permit''.

I don't see a bay on any of the pictures. Are Ealing Council/Managing Company complete bonkers or they have a point?

Any opinions on this and next step of action?
stamfordman
Failure to consider the substance of your challenge. Did you enclose your pic? If they just look at theirs the lack of bay markings is not apparent.

May be worth telling them again rather than wait for NTO.
cp8759
They've blurted out a standard response without even looking at the pictures, in simple terms the people who send these letters out are thick as s*it. Just wait for the NtO.
Dandd
I'm very tempted to write back to them and point at the lack of marking but their rejection letter states that there is no point to make further challenges before NTO.

Do you think is worth trying?

An yes, I did enclose a picture clearly showing lack of any markings in my initial challenge.
hcandersen
I'd rattle their cage ...

Phone the council and find out the contact details of their Monitoring Officer (every council is required by law to have one) and send the following.


Dear Sir,
Unlawful Enrichment

On *** I was issued with a penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged contravention involving a parking place. I have submitted a challenge which the council have rejected. The next stage would be for a formal demand to be sent to the owner of the vehicle demanding payment. At this stage the council would be attempting to enrich themselves unlawfully in respect of my case. In addition, given that the council rejected my challenge in the first instance this would indicate that Civil Enforcement Officers are still issuing fraudulent penalty charge notices to other motorists knowing full well that they are unenforceable. This would indicate that your unlawful enrichment is on an industrial scale.

May I suggest you intervene in this matter before it gets out of hand. With respect, although parking services, as Enforcement Authority, are discharging a quasi-judicial function with which other officers of the council should not interfere when it becomes apparent that this power is being exercised illegally, constitutes maladministration and could cause significant repetitional harm to the council as a whole then I respectfully suggest you have cause and an obligation to investigate.

For information, the reason the council may not issue penalty charge notices at this location is because none of the parking places is marked with any mandatory road markings, it therefore become irrelevant what traffic signs might be on display, a motorist is under no obligation to consult these.

Details:
PCN ***********
Location: **********
Earliest date of issue of Notice to Owner demanding penalty: 13 Sept.

Regards,
PASTMYBEST
I agree with HCA's stategy, but it must be remembered it is in tandem with the appeals process not instead off so when the NTO arrives it must be dealt with
Dandd
hcandersen,

this is one very angry letter smile.gif

But I'm willing to send slightly revised version of it and post the result back here.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Dandd @ Tue, 18 Aug 2020 - 18:10) *
hcandersen,

this is one very angry letter smile.gif

But I'm willing to send slightly revised version of it and post the result back here.


It's supposed to be angry Tax payers should expect better and the monitoring officer needs to be aware of your angst
h00vertime
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 18:53) *
Same as your other thread permit bays are different to resident or shared use and code 12 is wrong it should be 16Parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid permit


is this actually a tried and tested get out of jail for this?? as i have a been issued a code 12 for what people on hear said should be 16 but the council have said the code issued was correct and the PCN stands
cp8759
QUOTE (h00vertime @ Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 02:03) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 18:53) *
Same as your other thread permit bays are different to resident or shared use and code 12 is wrong it should be 16Parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid permit


is this actually a tried and tested get out of jail for this?? as i have a been issued a code 12 for what people on hear said should be 16 but the council have said the code issued was correct and the PCN stands

What the council says is neither here nor there as it's not up to them.
Dandd
After following the advise of stamfordman and pointing again at the fact that there was no marking on the road clearly shown on my picture, today I received the following letter:

https://ibb.co/PQvXQWB

I reckon this letter makes everything simple and down to the following question: Are bay markings compulsory and the signs indicating Controlled Parking Zone invalid without them or markings are just additional futures and signs are perfectly valid without them?

Is anyone proficient in this?
stamfordman
Well they are being ridiculous and have damned themselves with their own words, that there doesn't need to be bay markings. The simple fact is that if they rely on a bay sign it has to be for a marked bay. And in fact they say they are relying on a CPZ but that would mean you'd have to be on a yellow line. And it's not any other type of zone (I presume).

Maybe I'm missing something but but I think we're all agreed this is daft.

Gert
Just to echo what's been said. The total absence of bay markings means the PCN is indefensible at ETA. A PCN can be cancelled for the lack of the terminal lines so no lines at all is a non starter.

The CPZ comment is irrelevant. Are Ealing's decision makers in-house or contractors? Poor decision.

Pay the discount or wait for the Notice to Owner and formally challenge. If they reject again, an appeal should win and they may not contest or if very daring chance their arm with ETA.

Their ETA success stats will give an idea how cautious they are, or how unconcerned about the London league table they are.
cp8759
Just wait for the Notice to Owner at this point, I can't see the council winning, in fact I suspect they won't contest if it gets to the tribunal.
Dandd
Thank you all for the comments and opinions.

Gert, excuse my ignorance on the subject but what ETA stands for?
cp8759
QUOTE (Dandd @ Wed, 2 Sep 2020 - 09:25) *
Thank you all for the comments and opinions.

Gert, excuse my ignorance on the subject but what ETA stands for?

Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
Dandd
Thank you smile.gif
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.