Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: parking ticket tear off slip
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
snowno
Hi, my wife has just come back from seeing Cinderella at the Wimbledon Theatre with the kids, and one of the Ugly Sisters gave her an early Christmas present, a PCN.

My question:

Is Glacier2's reply in http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t25440.html still valid in regards to the change in legislation earlier this year.
snowno
Got the scanner here are the images




Just to clarify Glacier2 wrote on a topic by Penykz the following:

Secondly and most important, the direction to turn over for payment info and NTO info is printed on the tear off slip. It has been ruled that the tear off slip does not form part of the PCN. Therefore the PCN does not comply with strict requirements of the RTA 1991. You will win on this ground. MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05) is the authority here. Moses/barnet is good to support the strict requirements of RTA1991.

This post was in Dec 2007 and I know the regs have changed since then, does the above argument still hold, or do I need to go and start checking signs
Thanks in advance
The Rookie
Why take off your name and address and then leave ID all over it, at least be consistent!

We need the rear, not the front twice!

I can't see a PTO on that at all!

Simon
southpaw82
More to the point, what relevance do you think it will have?
snowno
Got the photos think I might have a chance

1. Is the Merton Council badge allowed ?





These are both ends of the group of parking bays, one end is hardly visible, both have the yellow line end missing.
2. Are these invalid ?







This is the outside edge of the bay the next image shows what the line markers were trying to do.
3. Does it look the correct width ?





These are the posts at the different ends of the road.
4.Are there some signs missing ?



I think I know the answer to question 2 but need to clarify my other questions.
Thanks in advance
dave-o
Soem awfully faded end lines there.

And what the hell is with those double side dashes? Never seen anything like that......
snowno
They appear to be bay markings laid years apart, the line nearest to the kerb is the newest, and along the road they gradually converge until you get really thick lines
dave-o
It's clearly meant to be one of these:



The double side dashes are confusing and should have been removed.

Also the bay seems a bit narrow. Perhaps you could go back with a tape measure?

Which bay were you in? The one with the ghost-like end markings?
Neil B
On the issue of the logo on the sign. It was debated a few months ago as T Hamlets do the same. General consensus was that it shouldn't be there but don't recall a firm conclusion.

What is certainly wrong is the zone identifier tile. a) I don't think use of the word 'zone' is prescribed.

b) The tile is way out of place. It should be directly below the P symbol.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/workin...andvari4394.pdf



snowno
Which bay were you in? The one with the ghost-like end markings?
[/quote]

Yes, if I remember correctly it is a group of 3 bays, my wife was in the middle one, the picture of the tyre and thick bay line to be exact.
On the point of the double side dashes they were the next group of bays along.
Will be going back with tape measure at some point.

What is certainly wrong is the zone identifier tile. a) I don't think use of the word 'zone' is prescribed.

b) The tile is way out of place. It should be directly below the P symbol.


Thanks Neil, your link states that " 'p' symbol and permit identifier are treated as one symbol for allignment",
I think I will going around different streets in Merton to see if other signs are similar and post results.

The question on missing signs, should there be CPZ signs on both ends of the road
Thanks in advance
dave-o
There should be CPZ signs at all possible enttrances to the zone. The zone may be more than one road.
snowno
Thanks Dave-o, thats what I thought, the signs then are also missing
dave-o
Are you sure they are not at a different location? Remember a zone is an area, not a single street.
snowno
I didnt realise that, will have to go back and see, but maybe as neil says the 'zone' is marked incorrectly on the sign, it might invalidate the whole area.
Will post again with more info
clark_kent
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 12:21) *
On the issue of the logo on the sign. It was debated a few months ago as T Hamlets do the same. General consensus was that it shouldn't be there but don't recall a firm conclusion.

What is certainly wrong is the zone identifier tile. a) I don't think use of the word 'zone' is prescribed.

b) The tile is way out of place. It should be directly below the P symbol.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/workin...andvari4394.pdf


No debate needed, the use of both the zone and authority are clearly prescribed in sch. 16

(1) A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

(2) The size of the code letter or letters and the code letter patch may be varied and may be in any contrasting colours.

(3) The name of the traffic authority may be added.
Neil B
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 12:21) *
On the issue of the logo on the sign. It was debated a few months ago as T Hamlets do the same. General consensus was that it shouldn't be there but don't recall a firm conclusion.

What is certainly wrong is the zone identifier tile. a) I don't think use of the word 'zone' is prescribed.

b) The tile is way out of place. It should be directly below the P symbol.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/workin...andvari4394.pdf


No debate needed, the use of both the zone and authority are clearly prescribed in sch. 16

(1) A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

(2) The size of the code letter or letters and the code letter patch may be varied and may be in any contrasting colours.

(3) The name of the traffic authority may be added.


Ah, right. Thanks for that. So do you mean it is fully compliant then? As prescribed by TSRGD? i only ask cos i've noticed that you are very often quite selective in the information that you impart.


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

PS by the way "Several" - yes I'm quoting you, = Nil. 

Anorak
Is the bay inside a CPZ or is it just a case that the local roads are limited to those able to display a resident's permit? Your photos do not show where the sign was in relation to the bay, can you specify?
snowno
Drove around for half an hour and the zone 'W4' has CPZ signs with the same restricted times on all approaches bar one. I drove my car legally and on public roads to her parking spot without seeing a CPZ sign(its obviously the route she took).
Found the following on this website:

link http://web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbconsul...0challenge.html

Quite simply, all roads must be marked and all entry points signed, when they are not, there is no CPZ meeting the requirements of the legislation.

So, with a defective CPZ the controls within it fall back to the wording of the Traffic Regulation Order and each road marking will stand on its own and be reliant upon its own individual time plate. In the absence of plates at the entry to a zone (notionally or actually) or at the point of marking the restriction will become unlawful or unenforceable


Do I have a strong case ?

Is the bay inside a CPZ or is it just a case that the local roads are limited to those able to display a resident's permit? Your photos do not show where the sign was in relation to the bay, can you specify?


The road is on my understanding within a CPZ , although the above I think makes it invalid, the permit sign shown would have dented my back door if the kids could work out the child lock, my wife parked right next to it.
Having gone down again this evening(no photos) the bays are even more of a mess, hope to get plenty of photos tomorrow.


Neil, the reason I asked the question about the council logo, is because somewhere on this site, I think in relation to a kensington & chelsea resident bay, someone posted a reply stating that the logo makes the sign invalid, I could not find that post hence the question.
However I searched for your post on T Hamlets and the link is:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=268290

Hope this helps

If time permits will get plenty of photos tomorrow

Just a little teaser: If the council sign has no copyright, could I copyright it and get them to remove it for breach of copyright

Can someone tell me how to put other peoples posts in boxes with 6699 at the top and blue writing, pms only so as not to confuse this post Thankyou
clark_kent
I thought CPZ entry signs are only needed for yellow lines and bays without time plates so cannot see how if one was missing it would affect your bay which clearly has a timed restriction?
dave-o
Clark does have a point.

Still, those bays were painted by Jackson Pollock.
snowno
Here is a group of different parking signs in Merton, they are consistent in that they all have the Council Logo, although the Zone ID moves around a bit.




No debate needed, the use of both the zone and authority are clearly prescribed in sch. 16

(1) A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

(2) The size of the code letter or letters and the code letter patch may be varied and may be in any contrasting colours.

(3) The name of the traffic authority may be added



Curiously Clark, both the Council Logo and Zone ID are both stickers, which I assume makes them non-pemanent.
Does sch. 16 or any reg. allow this, if so maybe you could do away with stickers and use a felt tip pen, or maybe get Banksy to spray on a marking in the dead of night.
snowno
As promised some more photos of the bay

Dont think those double white lines are allowed


How the bay progresses, my wife was parked where the blue car is



Other end of bay, line not 600mm





Line not 50mm
clark_kent
QUOTE (snowno @ Tue, 30 Dec 2008 - 14:10) *
Here is a group of different parking signs in Merton, they are consistent in that they all have the Council Logo, although the Zone ID moves around a bit.




No debate needed, the use of both the zone and authority are clearly prescribed in sch. 16

(1) A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

(2) The size of the code letter or letters and the code letter patch may be varied and may be in any contrasting colours.

(3) The name of the traffic authority may be added



Curiously Clark, both the Council Logo and Zone ID are both stickers, which I assume makes them non-pemanent.
Does sch. 16 or any reg. allow this, if so maybe you could do away with stickers and use a felt tip pen, or maybe get Banksy to spray on a marking in the dead of night.



Yes the regs do allow for timeplates to be printed on pvc and applied to alloy backing plates most are, this may ruin your illusion of someone somewhere painting each one by hand but thats how its done. It is very hard to paint the reflective backing most traffic signs use which is why pvc is used. Maybe if you had spent more time looking at the timeplates BEFORE you got the ticket it would have saved you an awful lot of bother?
Anorak
CK..it was his wife that was using vehicle at the time......regardless of the sign, that bay certainly does not appear to be as prescribed.

Due to the erratic bay markings it is hard to tell the length of the bay. You would need to see the TRO/TMO to ascertain the intended correct measurement of the bay but any bay over 30m is I believe meant to have more than one sign.

If they are separate bays then each bay needs to be individualy signed.
nimh999
QUOTE (snowno @ Mon, 22 Dec 2008 - 14:20) *
the direction to turn over for payment info and NTO info is printed on the tear off slip.



QUOTE (snowno @ Tue, 30 Dec 2008 - 14:10) *
the Council Logo and Zone ID are both stickers, which I assume makes them non-pemanent.
Does sch. 16 or any reg. allow this, if so maybe you could do away with stickers and use a felt tip pen, or maybe get Banksy to spray on a marking in the dead of night.
With both of these I think you are clutching at straws and if these were the only two points you were going to adjudication on then you would have a good chance of losing. You have to show prejudice.

The direction to turn over. I have been there and done that. The adjudicator asked me if I turned the PCN over and I said yes. No prejudice then.

Remove the tear off slip. Is all of the information required of a PCN on the PCN front and back? If no then it is invalid. If yes then it is valid.

With regards to the self adhesive part of the stickers including the Council Logo. If the sign is not complete because someone has peeled off some important information then the sign may be invalid and it's free parking until rectified. The council logo as I see it is irrelevant except where two council borders meet and different restrictions apply maybe on two sides of the road or where two sides of the road have pay and display meters from different councils. Otherwise I am not convinced that the logo visible or not is relevant. Once again you need to show prejudice.

Your best bet as I see it is the poorly marked bays with a yellow line running through them. This in my opinion makes them invalid and you should win if it goes to adjudication. But by all means throw everything in. Some peoples view is that the adjudicator will be become stupified if there is too much information in front of him/her and find in the councils favour.
snowno
Thanks Anorak and nimh999.
I do find this site addictive and am spreading the word.
The original post regarding the tear off slip was the night my wife came home with the PCN, so at that time that's all I had to work with.
I can see where I went wrong in the line Penalty charge Notice continued overleaf, which is shown on the PCN.
My still confused argument, was that on the tear off slip(which does not form part of the PCN), the instructions (my possible actions highlighted in purple) say:
Please detach this slip I tear off slip and lose the PCN
complete the details on the reverse My wife's name on that one and no housekeeping for a month
and return it with your payment to the address shown overleaf What address ? oh well better wait for the NTO

That was my simple and muddled thinking on that night I now know better.

Yes the regs do allow for timeplates to be printed on pvc and applied to alloy backing plates most are, this may ruin your illusion of someone somewhere painting each one by hand but that's how its done.


I am sure because you say so, that the main body for a resident bay timeplate is printed on PVC and applied to alloy backing.
This is now changing to non metal to beat the scrap metal thief's.
The process as I understand it is to print the prescribed signage on reflective material and then to adhere that permanently to a non-corrosive backing.
You did not address the validity of the stickers which ID the zone or the council logo, the ones that are in Merton are not attached to an alloy or permanently adhered, but are just stickers, which could be peeled off by any passing vandal.
Can you supply the regs

I am waiting for NTO to make formal reps, the marking for the bays are all over the place.
The following link brings up the controls for Zone W4. If you want to look at the Merton Council diagram and the bay my wife was parked in then
1. Find the Zone W4 enclosed in a circle
2. Travel East South East or 3:17 by the clock to the first Permit Holders sign(even these have got the Logo)
3. Pelham Rd which is not marked, is directly below, this diagram suggests the bay runs from No 82 to No 102


Zoom in to find circled Zone W4
http://www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport-...pdfw4-oct07.pdf
southpaw82
Nimh999 - there is no lawful requirement to show prejudice. This was made quite clear in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet). Whilst it might be useful to convince the adjudicator it is not a requirement.
nimh999
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 31 Dec 2008 - 03:27) *
Nimh999 - there is no lawful requirement to show prejudice.

Agreed, and this is why I said this
QUOTE (nimh999 @ Tue, 30 Dec 2008 - 23:42) *
Is all of the information required of a PCN on the PCN front and back?


snowmo's original query was in regard to
QUOTE (snowno @ Mon, 22 Dec 2008 - 14:20) *
the direction to turn over for payment info and NTO info is printed on the tear off slip.


where the address to send the payment is on the rear of the PCN but the request to turn over is in the tear off slip.

So is the PCN the front and rear of the PCN minus the tear off slip?

Does putting the address to send the payment on the rear of the PCN make the PCN invalid when there is no request to turn over (because the tear off slip has been removed with he request to turn over)?

I believe the next logical question will be; Has the appellant been prejudiced?

Unless someone can find a Judicial Review which has already answered the question.
snowno
Not meaning to be pedantic, but I have just noticed an error on the envelope in which the PCN was enclosed, (image below) one of the characters on the VRM is wrong.
As mentioned before I am going for the bay markings as reps on the NTO, but opinions are welcome on the following points.

1. If I looked at the envelope, and clearly the VRM was not the same as the cars registration, if I then disposed of the envelope, without looking within, would this somehow invalidate the following NTO.

2. On the envelope it states "It is a criminal offence to interfere with this notice", I looked at the TMA 2004 index and couldn't find a reference for this statement, (although I'm sure its there) however now knowing that the tear off slip does not form part of the PCN, I'm also guessing that the envelope doesn't either.
So should it say It is a criminal offence to interfere with the notice enclosed\within or similar.

3.And finally, on the envelope it states:

Reduction of
50%
if payment is received
within 14 days

This wording and similar has been torn apart many times on this website, when given as instructions on a PCN.
Does it have any implications when referencing the enclosed PCN.

The devil is always in the detail.



Reverse side is just an address for Merton Parking so not posted


Also this link may come in handy http://www.morelock.co.uk/traffic/permanent%20traffic.htm


meaty
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 12:21) *
On the issue of the logo on the sign. It was debated a few months ago as T Hamlets do the same. General consensus was that it shouldn't be there but don't recall a firm conclusion.

What is certainly wrong is the zone identifier tile. a) I don't think use of the word 'zone' is prescribed.

b) The tile is way out of place. It should be directly below the P symbol.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/workin...andvari4394.pdf
The drawing in that diagram is wrong. The logo should be on the right as per diagram 660.3. The size of the code letter may be varied but not the location. Therefore IMO this sign is valid

I got my dad off 2 tickets in residents bays in westminster a few years ago on this point, rendering all their bays invalid (although it didn't go to adjudicator). I also got an email from the DfT confirming this point.
Anorak
I'm unable to be certain whether the sign is to diagram 660 or 660.3 as I believe all the detail on the sign is permitted in both.

The zone identifier tile is controlled by item 39 within schedule 16 of the TSRGD.

A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

Perhaps because they use the phrase "varied as appropriate" it means that the use of the word "Zone" is permitted as well as allowing the tile to be positioned wherever.

The same section of the TSRGD also permits the authorities name to be added to both diagram 660 and 660.3

The name of the traffic authority may be added.

This does not give any guidance on positioning of the authorities name.

Neither the directions nor the permitted variants mentioned in connection with the diagrams to 660 and 660.3 are specific with regard to positioning of the authority name and zone identifier. Therefore, it means we have to rely on the working drawings but it would seem that they do not illustrate every permissable variant. Therefore, at the end of the day unless there is an obvious error, for something to be deemed non prescribed it will take an adjudicator's decision.

If PePiPoo bods cannot be 100% certain then it is likely nor can the council bods and just submitting an appeal on the legitimacy of the sign may knock their confidence enough to not want to take the risk at adjudication of an unfavourable decision that means that they cannot enforce until a correct sign (or possibly several) is in situ and meanwhile losing lots of money for the sake of one single penalty charge.
Chimaera
QUOTE (meaty @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 02:19) *
The drawing in that diagram is wrong. The logo should be on the right as per diagram 660.3. The size of the code letter may be varied but not the location. Therefore IMO this sign is valid.
I got my dad off 2 tickets in residents bays in westminster a few years ago on this point, rendering all their bays invalid (although it didn't go to adjudicator). I also got an email from the DfT confirming this point.


I'm not convinced - perhaps this has been changed since then. The Traffic Signs Manual, chapter 3 gives examples (in figure 7-2) of permitted variation to diagram 660.3, one of which has the zone on the left.
Neil B
QUOTE (meaty @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 02:19) *
The drawing in that diagram is wrong.


I'm open to suggestion of course but what is your basis for saying that? Is it out of date?

QUOTE (meaty @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 02:19) *
The logo should be on the right as per diagram 660.3. The size of the code letter may be varied but not the location. Therefore IMO this sign is valid


??? As above. on what basis have you reached the conclusion it is a 660.3 sign when it can only be a 660? There being a world of difference between 'Permit holders only' and 'Resident permit holders only'. My reasoning being that there are two different signs for two different situations/restrictions.


-----

Incidentally - just as indicative examples of Merton capabilities - look how many of the example signs he showed are non-prescibed. 







QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 11:26) *
QUOTE (meaty @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 02:19) *
The drawing in that diagram is wrong.


I'm open to suggestion of course but what is your basis for saying that? Is it out of date?

QUOTE (meaty @ Fri, 2 Jan 2009 - 02:19) *
The logo should be on the right as per diagram 660.3. The size of the code letter may be varied but not the location. Therefore IMO this sign is valid


??? As above. on what basis have you reached the conclusion it is a 660.3 sign when it can only be a 660? There being a world of difference between 'Permit holders only' and 'Resident permit holders only'. My reasoning being that there are two different signs for two different situations/restrictions.



Ah! I see it now. Ignore all of the above. Just read the small print for 660.3 sign which may indeed say only 'Permit holders only'.


My mistake - although the 660 working drawing still raises some questions?

meaty
Ahh just noticed the difference. I got my dad off under the 1994 regs and in the 2002 regs the 660 can have a code letter added without a location specified. Anorak I think your point "I believe all the detail on the sign is permitted in both" is correct. Either way I think this sign is still valid
snowno
Just got the NTO through the post, as previously stated i am appealing on the bay markings being non compliant.

Any other mistakes?


southpaw82
Have you shown us the NTO?
snowno
Yes, scanned both sides as above
southpaw82
Wasn't showing for me. Looks ok to me.
snowno
On the 'HOW TO CHALLENGE' section on the NTO it states:
Representations may be made online at www.merton.gov.uk/pcnappeals

Just went to http://www.merton.gov.uk/pcnappeals and as you can see it clearly states that reps against the NTO must be in writing.

So online reps at the NTO stage are impossible.
Does this confusing run around invalidate the NTO for future Merton PCNs.

The answer if positive may help future PCNs for this borough.
snowno
I may have the wrong regs but according to:

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
PART 2
REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS IN RELATION TO NOTICES TO OWNER

3) A notice to owner served under regulation 19 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under that regulation, include the following information—

C the address (including if appropriate any email address or FAX telephone number, as well as the postal address) to which representations must be sent and the form in which they must be made;

link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073482_en_2#pt2

It does not state that you may appeal online, which is possibly why Merton Council have got a get out clause.

But going through other london councils, they give you that option.

Links are http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/forms/appealpcn.cfm
https://forms.camden.gov.uk/cus/servlet/ep....h=211&ut=AX

Have found a recent westminster nto giving the option to pay online
link http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=Pr...=30&t=35328

To clarify this post, it seems the regs give different options on challenging the NTO, none of which is the option to challenge online except by email.

Anyone got any comments on the above

If online reps are allowed then is the below option from Westminster online fettering:

The contravention occurred whilst the vehicle was under the control of someone without the owner's consent. You will have to supply the crime reference number and the name of the Police Station to which the theft of the vehicle was reported.
snowno
My wife has just got the NOR, with the councils own pictures




The link for the PATAS case is http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...d%20version.pdf

I appealed this PCN by email after not being able to do so online(see above post).And I was informed after supplying some pictures that the council would liase with the Highways team and conduct a site visit to ascertain the true scale of the problem.
They have admitted that the bay is defective
, but are going with the "lrifles"(sic) argument.
Im just researching my defense, are the below judgements a good place to start

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind


MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305
If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed.


Thanks in advance
southpaw82
The above cases refer to criminal offences and in those cases strict compliance is required. There is an argument that under the decriminalised system only substantial compliance is required. I recently won a case using the above cases but going on to draw it into the decriminalised system using Letts v Lambeth and Burnett v Buckinghamshire. The latter case is particularly useful as it says:

“Therefore, any regulation of parking by a local authority under its powers under the the 1984 Act must be signed so that the motoring public knows of that regulation.”

And

“Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of the motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the [TSRGD].”

You'd also need to include an argument as to how the errors in the markings in your case are more than de minimis.
snowno
Thanks Sp82, those cases add to the fight, just found another case which states:

However, save for de minimis variations, the design of signs, and marked-out bays on the road,
must comply with the regulations


The link http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/BO05375E.pdf

What on the day is trivial or important, seems to be down to the adj. in charge of the case.
The council have provided 2 images I have over 20, each of which could be trivial in isolation, but hopefully taken as a whole will become important.

Any comments on the NTO from numerous councils, giving the option to appeal online would be welcome.
How I understand the regs its not allowed except by email.


Veni, vidi, valet = I came, I saw, I parked cars
southpaw82
What makes you think reps can't be made online?
snowno
Its just me researching my new hobby fighting unjust PCNs.
I maybe wrong, and would defer easily to yourself and the other posters that have helped me get justice on this forumn, but my reasons that I found posted weeks ago are:

I may have the wrong regs but according to:

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
PART 2
REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS IN RELATION TO NOTICES TO OWNER

3) A notice to owner served under regulation 19 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under that regulation, include the following information—

C the address (including if appropriate any email address or FAX telephone number, as well as the postal address) to which representations must be sent and the form in which they must be made;

link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073482_en_2#pt2

It does not state that you may appeal online, which is possibly why Merton Council have got a get out clause.

But going through other london councils, they give you that option.

Links are http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/forms/appealpcn.cfm
https://forms.camden.gov.uk/cus/servlet/ep....h=211&ut=AX

Have found a recent westminster nto giving the option to pay online
link http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=Pr...=30&t=35328

To clarify this post, it seems the regs give different options on challenging the NTO, none of which is the option to challenge online except by email.

Anyone got any comments on the above

If online reps are allowed then is the below option from Westminster online fettering:

The contravention occurred whilst the vehicle was under the control of someone without the owner's consent. You will have to supply the crime reference number and the name of the Police Station to which the theft of the vehicle was reported.
Someone please tell me how to do the quote thingy so I dont have to highlight in blue?
southpaw82
QUOTE
(including if appropriate any email address or FAX telephone number)


I think the "if appropriate" makes them examples.

I think it does fetter you.
snowno
Back to junior law school for me.
When I did my research I found a number of London councils were the same as Westminster.
Merton council, although advertising the procedure did not allow reps to be made online.
It could have been a possible point to be put towards the adj. in the future, but I noticed that Superman was reading this thread and will more than likely email every council tomorrow morning, telling them the errors of their ways
clark_kent
QUOTE (snowno @ Thu, 5 Mar 2009 - 22:53) *
Back to junior law school for me.
When I did my research I found a number of London councils were the same as Westminster.
Merton council, although advertising the procedure did not allow reps to be made online.
It could have been a possible point to be put towards the adj. in the future, but I noticed that Superman was reading this thread and will more than likely email every council tomorrow morning, telling them the errors of their ways


No far too busy to bother telling people things that are not relevant, Councils do not have to accept emails if they don't want to so feel free to chat about it at the next of your many appeals. I just like reading this thread because it always makes me laugh at peoples comical parking, why would anyone park in a bay worn or not that states Permit holders only sun 2-6pm and then be upset they got a PCN, especially if you look at the map of the CPZ and realise the next street is mon-sat only, lol. You may consider a worn bay to be to blame but personally I'd be sending the wife to the opticians.



Its a bit obvious you have to admit!
dave-o
QUOTE (snowno @ Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 01:01) *
what is the best and quickest way to view the TMO



Going to the council offices and taking photocopies.
snowno
Finally got the TMO link:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=6eb3177...04e75f6e8ebb871

Anorak or other, I dont really understand what to look for, in relation to 'permit holders' and 'resident permit holders', could you have a look and please advise Thankyou
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.