Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Correspondence and PATAS appeal
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
fuel__2001
I informally challenged a PCN within the specified time, and the next thing i had was an NTO coming through my door.

I appealed againt the NTO, also stating i never recieved any correspondence for my informal challenge, allowing me the option to still pay at the reduced rate if i wanted to.
The NTO was rejected, however there was a copy of the original letter of rejection of the informal challenge, that i never recieved.
The council stated in the NTO rejection that 'correspodence before the NTO stage is at the discretion of the council, and any informal discount or challenge is not required by law'

Is this correct???

Do you think its worth pursuing and going to PATAS the fact that i never recieved any correspodence of the informal challenge. Or should i just cough up £50 as they have offered me the reduced rate again.

On a side note i collect all my mail from the sorting office (royal mail collect service), therefore none of my mail goes missing, which made me think that the original letter of rejection never got posted.
strollingplayer
QUOTE (fuel__2001 @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 12:26) *
I formally challenged a PCN within the specified time, and the next thing i had was an NTO coming through my door.

You mean you informally challenged it. The formal stage starts with the NTO.

QUOTE
The NTO was rejected, however there was a copy of the original letter of rejection of the formal challenge, that i never recieved.
The council stated in the NTO rejection that 'correspodence before the NTO stage is at the discretion of the council, and any informal discount or challenge is not required by law'

Is this correct???

Yes. They can re-offer the discount, but this is entirely discretionary. That's why the first part is known as an "informal challenge".

QUOTE
Do you think its worth pursuing and going to PATAS the fact that i never recieved any correspodence of the formal challenge. Or should i just cough up £50 as they have offered me the reduced rate again.

"Cannot predict now." Show us everything, and someone might be able to find a reasonable grounds for challenging the ticket. Act fast - the adjudicators can be strict with the appeal window.

QUOTE
On a side note i collect all my mail from the sorting office (royal mail collect service), therefore none of my mail goes missing, which made me think that the original letter of rejection never got posted.

You are making the assumption that mail cannot get lost before it reaches your local sorting office.
clark_kent
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 12:51) *
QUOTE
On a side note i collect all my mail from the sorting office (royal mail collect service), therefore none of my mail goes missing, which made me think that the original letter of rejection never got posted.

You are making the assumption that mail cannot get lost before it reaches your local sorting office.


As pointed out this is not true collecting mail is no different to it being stuck through your door the letter could have been delivered to the wrong address rather than left to be collected. I received a letter today intended for 23 I'm 73 number 23 may collect their mail but I would still have got the letter as they thought it said 73.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 12:51) *
You mean you informally challenged it. The formal stage starts with the NTO.

"Cannot predict now." Show us everything, and someone might be able to find a reasonable grounds for challenging the ticket. Act fast - the adjudicators can be strict with the appeal window.


Doh, Ive edited the original post - thanks for the grammer check!

I dont have a scanner to be able to upload all the correspondence.

I reckon ive appealed enough PCN's this year and got off plenty with a dash of begging, technicalities, dodgy signage and a yarn or 2 spun.
I'll probably bite the bullet and cough up as time isnt on my side to pay at the reduced amount and i dont have the equipment to hand so you guys can help me to a reasonable standard.

Its only through visiting this site a few years ago did it give me the confidence to challenge every PCN i got, even if i was in the wrong.

Cheers and a Merry Christmas biggrin.gif
strollingplayer
QUOTE (fuel__2001 @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 13:18) *
I reckon ive appealed enough PCN's this year and got off plenty with a dash of begging, technicalities, dodgy signage and a yarn or 2 spun.
I'll probably bite the bullet and cough up as time isnt on my side to pay at the reduced amount and i dont have the equipment to hand so you guys can help me to a reasonable standard.

You could always take a photo or even type it up as a last resort. London authorities cocking up somewhere along the way is right up there with death and taxes by all accounts.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 13:26) *
You could always take a photo or even type it up as a last resort. London authorities cocking up somewhere along the way is right up there with death and taxes by all accounts.


Not quite sure what happened with the photos and image shack but here they are, 1 photo is on its own the rest are in an album. I took them with my camera phone.




http://img27.imageshack.us/g/pcnfrontlower.jpg/

To be fair i did put the bike on an island within a car park - oh well no hope in trying to get off paying if i dont have to. Perhaps you guys might see something i havent spotted.

Dont worry about the vehicle reg on the PCN as its been written off since the PCN was issued

Cheers
PRg
If the council looked at this thread they would still be able to identify you from your registration, the person you dont want identifying you.
clark_kent
QUOTE (fuel__2001 @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 14:25) *
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 13:26) *
You could always take a photo or even type it up as a last resort. London authorities cocking up somewhere along the way is right up there with death and taxes by all accounts.


Not quite sure what happened with the photos and image shack but here they are, 1 photo is on its own the rest are in an album. I took them with my camera phone.




http://img27.imageshack.us/g/pcnfrontlower.jpg/

To be fair i did put the bike on an island within a car park - oh well no hope in trying to get off paying if i dont have to. Perhaps you guys might see something i havent spotted.

Dont worry about the vehicle reg on the PCN as its been written off since the PCN was issued

Cheers


Restricted area.....who says? In what way was it restricted it wasn't in a bay which usually on the signed regulations but its very hard to restrict an area in a car park as there are no legal road markings to do so. ps out of bay is a cheaper fine to.
strollingplayer
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 15:06) *
Restricted area.....who says? In what way was it restricted it wasn't in a bay which usually on the signed regulations but its very hard to restrict an area in a car park as there are no legal road markings to do so. ps out of bay is a cheaper fine to.

Wrong contravention + overcharged? If that's the case, it would be an easy win.
Teufel
once the nto is served then that must be appealed - any appel to the pcn becomes irrelevant
strollingplayer
We need to see the NTO.

Presumably, the contraventions on these much match up (otherwise you have an NTO for a contravention for which no PCN has been issued).
fuel__2001
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 15:29) *
We need to see the NTO.


Ok try this

http://img137.imageshack.us/g/ntofrontedit.jpg/
buttonpusher
And the other 2 pages? The blurb is important as well.
strollingplayer
It's got the same wrong contravention on it, which charges higher than the one you should have been picked up for. I think this might be a clear-cut win at adjudication, though I'd wait for one of the eagles to confirm this first.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 15:58) *
And the other 2 pages? The blurb is important as well.


Damn - To late as ive already sent that off when i appealed against the NTO

For what its worth, here is a picture of where i recieved the PCN whilst in the car park



fuel__2001
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 15:06) *
Restricted area.....who says? In what way was it restricted it wasn't in a bay which usually on the signed regulations but its very hard to restrict an area in a car park as there are no legal road markings to do so. ps out of bay is a cheaper fine to.


Do you think i got grounds here to apeal at PATAS. Would a restricted area be defined as 'any area marked with diagonal yellow lines or hatching. The areas are normally in front of doorways, work areas or areas where the parking of a vehicle may be dangerous or cause an obstruction'

QUOTE (Teufel @ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 - 15:26) *
once the nto is served then that must be appealed - any appel to the pcn becomes irrelevant



Im not sure what context your refering to as ive already appealed against the NTO. Do you mean that i wouldnt have grounds to appeal at PATAS regarding the issuing of an incorrect code on a PCN? eg i shouldve been issued a code 86 (out of bay)


Ive got until the end of the day to either pay at the reduced rate or appeal at PATAS. Do you think i wouldnt stand a chance at appeal. Ive never been to PATAS so its new teritory for me. What are your thoughts.

Cheers
dave-o
QUOTE (fuel__2001 @ Thu, 24 Dec 2009 - 11:20) *
Ive got until the end of the day to either pay at the reduced rate or appeal at PATAS. Do you think i wouldnt stand a chance at appeal. Ive never been to PATAS so its new teritory for me. What are your thoughts.



If you have recieved an NTO then you have missed the discount period already.

I don't believe you've posted up details of your formal appeal or notice of rejection yet.

If Strollingplayer's post is correct then you have an appeal.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 24 Dec 2009 - 11:32) *
If you have recieved an NTO then you have missed the discount period already.

I don't believe you've posted up details of your formal appeal or notice of rejection yet.

If Strollingplayer's post is correct then you have an appeal.


The council has reoffered me the discount period until today. I never recieved a reply to my original informal challenge prior to recieving the NTO, therefore i was not able to take advantage of the discount period.

The notice of rejection is further up the thread in the pictures somewhere.

I was just waiting for someone else to confirm what strollingplayer had said, as it seemed Teufel was saying someting else and i was just trying to get some clarity.
Barkley
Is this a public road or a car park? If the former, then a bike getting ticket there is fair game, but NOT so if an off-street CP that doesn;t provide Solo M/c spaces.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (Barkley @ Mon, 28 Dec 2009 - 15:21) *
Is this a public road or a car park? If the former, then a bike getting ticket there is fair game, but NOT so if an off-street CP that doesn;t provide Solo M/c spaces.


Its a council owned car park that doesn't provide any M/C bays.

I am going to appeal the NTO on the grounds of - incorrect PCN code, there was no signage or line markings to say I was parking in a restricted area. I believe I should've been charged the lower rate for parking outside marked bays.

Is there anything else that springs to mind about this PCN in a car park before i put the letter in the post?
Barkley
An extremely useful representation/appeal is that this is a CAR park. You would naturally be expected to recieve a ticket for parking a 'Bicycle' in a space designed for cars. The signage would be important to see what it states with regard to the parking of solo M/c's because if there is no mention of this, it would be an unfair omission because you could be dammed if you did park within a marked bay, and dammed if you don't (as you;ve just discovered).


There are also Councils that because they have made no provision for Solo M/c Parking, they waive their right to collecting a fee, and if there is a spare parking place available, either on or off street, then you can park there without payment and no feat of a wrong vehicle class ticket.

There is also a side issue, and others may have a view on this. Bikes parked 'behind' a line on a pavement, are often ticketed because the pavement is classed as part of the roadway, and therefore it's TMO will cover pavement parking. But of off-street car parks, this is not an issue, there was no pavement, and it lookes as though you were parked on a grassy verge, with no part of your bike overhanking the line or the road, and not causing an obstruction.

If I was in your situation, I'd check out what the requitrements are on Solo M/c's, because if none are mentioned you'll be in a good position with the Adjudicator.
bama
get the Traffic Order (search on here for TRO) for the Car park.
strollingplayer
QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 30 Dec 2009 - 00:37) *
get the Traffic Order (search on here for TRO) for the Car park.

For car parks, it would be a Parking Places Order, I think.
bama
it may also be called an Off-Street Order.

searching for TRO will bring up salient points re obtaining a Traffic Order which applies no matter what it is called.
Thats why I called it a Traffic Order rather than a Traffic Regulation Order.
fuel__2001
Tried to call the council today to get the TRO.

Unfortunately they are on holiday until 4th January. Nice and convenient for them eh!
bama
the TRO should be at the council's principal office, is that office closed ?

if not march in and ask for it - they are PUBLIC documents.
fuel__2001
QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 30 Dec 2009 - 21:21) *
the TRO should be at the council's principal office, is that office closed ?

if not march in and ask for it - they are PUBLIC documents.

The irony is that's where I got issued the PCN, in the carpark within the civic centre grounds - lol

Can you believe it there not open until 4th January, unless you have an emergency.




fuel__2001
Here are the PDF's i got from the council this morning. This larger file is the main TMO document, although the car park isn't actually listed within 

[link removed]


There is a mention of motorcycle parking, but only in the context of in designated spaces.



The smaller file is for the actual car park, although it only contains information regarding a price increase

[Link removed]

Ive removed the links as the site had to much spam/pop ups/confusing links. If anybody wants to see the files then PM me and i will pass them on




Im going to draft a letter this evening, so any more input will be welcome.
bama
the council is screwed. PM to follow. What is the drop dead date for your appeal to the NTO ?
fuel__2001
Monday 11th January is the date the PATAS Appeal needs to be on their desk.

Cheers for taking the time to look.
bama
check your email. appeal sent.
fuel__2001
Had to read that a few times to get my head round it.

Seems they've dug themselves a substantial hole to fall into.

Im very grateful for you taking the time out to help. I will send it off tomorrow (if i can get out) and come back and post how it went.
bama
don't miss the date. fax it if you have to.
post will be unreliable so I would fax/email it anyway 'due to the inclement weather'.
send both documents that I provided. plus a copy of the smaller pdf that you sent me.
that will be enough.

fuel__2001
I've got a date set for my hearing which will be 18th February.

I initially opted for a postal verdict, however after being steered toward a number of different cases and more information regarding the independent nature of the tribunal, I made a phone call this morning and changed the postal verdict to a personal hearing instead.

I'll post back in 3 weeks with the outcome.
fuel__2001
I better get a shifty on otherwise im going to miss my PATAS hearing today!

I will post back later with a result, even if i don't get a decision today.
Unimexsol
Good luck. From the correspondance sounds as if you've a good case.
fuel__2001
slam dunk for me!

Appeal upheld but not on the basis of the TRO. I will post up the full decision when i get home. It was to do with the wording on the pcn.
bama
It was always a slam dunk but not finding on the TRO makes the hairs on my neck rise.

The appeal text totally demolished the TRO, and only addressed the TRO (unless the OP changed it).

can supply more info about the appeal text if/when the OP okays publication

sounds like its a handy decision for the council, no embarrassment and no refunds.

meanwhile keep an eye out for more Hounslow off-street PCNs..
dave-o
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 18 Feb 2010 - 12:31) *
not finding on the TRO makes the hairs on my neck rise.
......
sounds like its a handy decision for the council



Par for the course then.....
bama
Mostly.

Lets wait and see the written decision, I suspect it may be perverse.

How can a decision be based on the contents of a document that is void ab initio whatever its contents may be.
fuel__2001
The adjudicator firstly read the other other adjudicators report i was using as evidence and made a comment about them now being in 'the upper chamber'! Havent a clue what he meant by that, other than he obviously knew him.

Next he went onto read my appeal text which i left totally unaltered. The adjudicator smiled/smirked and he knew where i was going with my appeal, he raised his eyebrows significantly. He asked me whether i wanted to add anything or where i saw the case going. I went back to the TRO and restated what i had used in my appeal letter.

'Theres no need to go into detail on the TRO as the PCN is invalid as they used incorrect wording' he said, and he was quite happy to rule on that.

He did mention if his decision did get overturned I could then use the original text as the basis for another appeal, and he almost winked hehehe.

So although the TRO didnt get slammed im sure that makes all Hounslow PCN's invalid due to the wording.








bama
He very carefully stepped around the TRO by narrowing it to this contravention didn't he ?
he avoided 'unenforecable Traffic Order'.

fact is the TRO used in this is utter bollocks and all off-street tickets issued under it are void ab intio.
and the TRO can't create ANY decrim contravention.

Even if they fix their PCNs (wonder if they have ?) while its still that TRO all their off-street PCNs are still tat.

If any regulars want the appeal text then PM me. probably best not to publish for prying eyes at other councils that have crap TROs. we may be able to sharpen it up so they find it harder to rule like this.

Edit addition"

Adjudicator claims breach of 1(g) viz:-
"(g) that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice was served;"

must be based on the printed date ? ? ? confirm/deny at will
londonicon
just tagging on
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.