Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No ticket and no photographic evidence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Jules4
Hi. I received a Notice to Owner in respect of an PCN that I categorically did not receive. I replied saying that I had never been issued with a ticket and further, that there was no photographic evidence on line of my vehicle which was allegedly parked on a yellow line. Westminster replied saying that they cannot cancel the PCN as it was issued because their CEO observed my vehicle for 27 mins parked on a single yellow line during restricted hours. They say that the PCN was handed to the driver (which it was not) and therefore it was properly served. Further, they confirm that there is no photographic evidence relating to the case and say that photographic evidence is not the primary source of evidence relating to PCNs. The primary source of information is the notes made by their CEO, which of course state that he property issued the PCN and because it was supposedly handed to me the CEO was unable to take photographs.
How do I stand on this? I absolutely did not receive a ticket, and there is no evidence observing my vehicle. Basically they are saying that its my word against the CEO's and they are taking his word because he made notes.
I would be grateful for some guidance.
Thanks
emanresu
Westminster are on another planet.

Follow the procedures all the way to the Appeal and you'll be fine. Shame that you'll have to go through all the paperwork but that's Westminster's method, trying to trick you into paying.

I assume you've made the informal appeal? Wait for the NTO and make it formal .i.e. No PCN served.
southpaw82
 
QUOTE (emanresu @ Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 16:56) *
I assume you've made the informal appeal? Wait for the NTO and make it formal .i.e. No PCN served.


How would the OP make an informal appeal when no PCN was served? They already have the NTO. If they've made an appeal in respect to the NTO then the adjudicator is the next stop.
Jules4
Hi.
I received the Notice to Owner, completed it and sent it off. They replied back by letter enclosing a Notice of Appeal, which I am in process of completing, but I wanted to check on here the right way of appealing.
Thanks
southpaw82
It would help if you showed us the NTO (if you still have it), the notice of rejection and any photos of where you were parked. A copy of the PCN would be useful.
Jules4
Southpaw, thank you.
Here is the rejection letter and notice to owner. There was no PCN as one wasn't given and there are no photographs.

Link to docs you wanted

http://img109.imageshack.us/g/scan0001.gif/
southpaw82
Ask the council for a copy of the PCN. Take the photos yourself. A single yellow line will require a time plate - either relating specifically to that line or as part of a controlled parking zone.
J_Edgar
Surely if the CEO had time to observe the vehicle for 27 minutes then he must have had time to properly serve the PCN.

That alone makes the CEO's version of events seem improbable.
Jules4
J. Edgar, you have made a very good point - thank you
The Rookie
Just to clarify, is it possible you/the car in Q was parked there? As has been said an obs perios of 27 minutes with no photo's and no alleged service onto the vehicle stinks!

Simon
dave-o
Challenge the council to provide
-Copy of original PCN
-Photos of contravention
-Copy of CEO's notes
for the adjudication. Watch them drop out shortly before adjudication citing an un-named technicality.
clark_kent
QUOTE (J_Edgar @ Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 19:05) *
Surely if the CEO had time to observe the vehicle for 27 minutes then he must have had time to properly serve the PCN.

That alone makes the CEO's version of events seem improbable.



Why? Regardless of the observation time the PCN still takes the same amount of time to issue and serve the CEO is not meant to spend 27 minutes taking photographs.
strollingplayer
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 13:27) *
Why? Regardless of the observation time the PCN still takes the same amount of time to issue and serve the CEO is not meant to spend 27 minutes taking photographs.

The usual reason a PCN does not appear properly served at the time is because of a drive-off, or an unauthorised removal. The former clearly wasn't the case, and the latter should be easy for the council to prove. Otherwise, if they have observed the vehicle at least twice, they have had ample opportunity to issue the PCN, affix it to the windscreen, and then take the small number of photographs required. At worst, their batteries run out, and they should be carrying spares in case that happens.
clark_kent
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 13:27) *
Why? Regardless of the observation time the PCN still takes the same amount of time to issue and serve the CEO is not meant to spend 27 minutes taking photographs.

The usual reason a PCN does not appear properly served at the time is because of a drive-off, or an unauthorised removal. The former clearly wasn't the case, and the latter should be easy for the council to prove. Otherwise, if they have observed the vehicle at least twice, they have had ample opportunity to issue the PCN, affix it to the windscreen, and then take the small number of photographs required. At worst, their batteries run out, and they should be carrying spares in case that happens.



Why? As I have already pointed out the length of observation is not in itself a reason to invalidate the CEOs story. The observation period is the time BEFORE a PCN is issued, it does not mean it was observed for 1 minute and the CEO had 26 minutes to issue and serve the PCN. It is not beyond reason that the CEO observed the vehicle parked returned 27 minutes later parked in contravention and was just issuing the PCN when the driver returned took the PCN and drove off. The OP says this did not happen and as I was not there cannot say if thats is the case or not but from an independant point of view the 27 minutes obs adds nothing to either sides case. According to you logic it would be impossible to issue a reg. 10 drive away PCN for overstaying a 3 hr bay as the CEO had 3 hours to issue and serve the PCN.
J_Edgar
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 13:27) *
Why? Regardless of the observation time the PCN still takes the same amount of time to issue and serve the CEO is not meant to spend 27 minutes taking photographs.

The usual reason a PCN does not appear properly served at the time is because of a drive-off, or an unauthorised removal. The former clearly wasn't the case, and the latter should be easy for the council to prove. Otherwise, if they have observed the vehicle at least twice, they have had ample opportunity to issue the PCN, affix it to the windscreen, and then take the small number of photographs required. At worst, their batteries run out, and they should be carrying spares in case that happens.



Why? As I have already pointed out the length of observation is not in itself a reason to invalidate the CEOs story. The observation period is the time BEFORE a PCN is issued, it does not mean it was observed for 1 minute and the CEO had 26 minutes to issue and serve the PCN. It is not beyond reason that the CEO observed the vehicle parked returned 27 minutes later parked in contravention and was just issuing the PCN when the driver returned took the PCN and drove off. The OP says this did not happen and as I was not there cannot say if thats is the case or not but from an independant point of view the 27 minutes obs adds nothing to either sides case. According to you logic it would be impossible to issue a reg. 10 drive away PCN for overstaying a 3 hr bay as the CEO had 3 hours to issue and serve the PCN.


I was not suggesting this as an appeal point but it would be interesting to see from the CEO's notes what if anything transpired during those 27 minutes. My expectation for the OP's contravention would be for a Westminster CEO to be gagging to issue the PCN asap.


clark_kent
QUOTE (J_Edgar @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:38) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 13:27) *
Why? Regardless of the observation time the PCN still takes the same amount of time to issue and serve the CEO is not meant to spend 27 minutes taking photographs.

The usual reason a PCN does not appear properly served at the time is because of a drive-off, or an unauthorised removal. The former clearly wasn't the case, and the latter should be easy for the council to prove. Otherwise, if they have observed the vehicle at least twice, they have had ample opportunity to issue the PCN, affix it to the windscreen, and then take the small number of photographs required. At worst, their batteries run out, and they should be carrying spares in case that happens.



Why? As I have already pointed out the length of observation is not in itself a reason to invalidate the CEOs story. The observation period is the time BEFORE a PCN is issued, it does not mean it was observed for 1 minute and the CEO had 26 minutes to issue and serve the PCN. It is not beyond reason that the CEO observed the vehicle parked returned 27 minutes later parked in contravention and was just issuing the PCN when the driver returned took the PCN and drove off. The OP says this did not happen and as I was not there cannot say if thats is the case or not but from an independant point of view the 27 minutes obs adds nothing to either sides case. According to you logic it would be impossible to issue a reg. 10 drive away PCN for overstaying a 3 hr bay as the CEO had 3 hours to issue and serve the PCN.


I was not suggesting this as an appeal point but it would be interesting to see from the CEO's notes what if anything transpired during those 27 minutes. My expectation for the OP's contravention would be for a Westminster CEO to be gagging to issue the PCN asap.





Agreed, but it is most likely the CEO issued for overstaying the 20 mins allowed in the TMO to unload so it is most likely casual observation and he had left to patrol elsewhere and returned as soon as was practical after the 20 mins had expired.
Jules4
I have filed the appeal based on the fact that it was my word against the officers, and they have no photographic evidence to back up their evidence. I and also have raised the 27 min issue. I will just have to see how I got on, but thanks so much for all your replies. You have been very helpful
dave-o
Have you specifically challenged the council to produce the evidence i mentioned?
Jules4
Dave-o - yes I have asked them to produce those documents. I will report back on the outcome.
The Rookie
If the CEO spotted the car and came back 27mins later, that isn't 27mins obs time is it, its 2xwhatever minutes?

If it was a single 27mins, it stinks of 'something wrong', if it wasn't and the CEO was off elsewhere there are 2 aspects, why is it claimed as 27mins, and secondly it could be 2 seperate lots of loading/unloading in which case no contravention.

Either way, if something looks fishy, stinks fishy and is related to a London council, best odds are its fishy!

Simon
Glacier2
CEO notes will be telling in this case.
usignuolo
There were so many problems in London with "virtual" tickets being issued, by attendants to meet targets, that it is now the case that they are all issued with cameras to take a photo of the ticket on the windscreen to prove it was issued. As Westminster cannot produce this I assume they are just trying it on.
Glacier2
A photo is not needed to prove a contravention. The CEO notes will be used together with their copy of the PCN. The adjudicator will look at both sides and make a decision based on the evidence before him/her.
usignuolo
Very unusual in London at least, to get a ticket without the attendent taking supporting photographic evidence. Too many cases in the past of them making up tickets to meet targets discredited "their word for it (plus notes)". Anyone else got any recent experience of Westminster trying it on in this way?

This may also be of interest - it appeared in Labour Matters on 9 December 2009 (Westminster Labour Party website)

Allegations of ‘parking ticket targets’ are to be the subject of a Westminster City Council audit investigation, following concerns raised by Labour Councillors after the recent Channel 4 ‘Confessions of a Parking Warden’ programme revealed that some parking wardens in Westminster said that they were under pressure to maximize the number of parking tickets they issue each day.

Now, following pressure from Labour Councillors, the Council’s Chief Executive, Mike More, has told Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group:

“I and my senior management team accept that this is an issue which requires continual vigilance, and will therefore include a review of ticket issuing in the audit programme for next year, to check that the measures now being taken have been effective in removing any suggestion of an inappropriate target-setting ‘culture’.”

Councillor Dimoldenberg said:

“There is widespread concern that the Council’s parking policies are more about raising money than simply enforcing the parking regulations and the recent TV programme has fuelled those very real concerns. We hope that the forthcoming Audit investigation will expose any attempts to re-introduce parking ticket targets by the back door.”

clark_kent
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 9 Jan 2010 - 08:33) *
If the CEO spotted the car and came back 27mins later, that isn't 27mins obs time is it, its 2xwhatever minutes?

If it was a single 27mins, it stinks of 'something wrong', if it wasn't and the CEO was off elsewhere there are 2 aspects, why is it claimed as 27mins, and secondly it could be 2 seperate lots of loading/unloading in which case no contravention.

Either way, if something looks fishy, stinks fishy and is related to a London council, best odds are its fishy!

Simon



No he is observed parked in the same location for 27 minutes how do you think they issue '30 parked beyond permitted time' for 2 or even 4 hour bays camp out next to the car for a couple of hours? laugh.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 © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.