Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: two tickets within 1hr 45 mins of each other
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
jim_tim
Hi, I was in a rush the other morning and had to deliver something to an academic building in a city centre. I thought i would only be 10-15 mins so I stupidly parked my car in a residents only bay about 50 metres away from the building i was delivering to - this was about 9.20 am. Anyway, there was an exhibtion going on in the building and i offered to help set things up, completely forgetting about my car (which again i understand is very stupid). When i eventually got out of the building at 11.30am I'd pretty much guessed that I wouldn't be lucky enough to have escaped a parking fine. However, when i returned to my car two PCN's had been issued! one at 9:45 (observed from 9:40) and another at 11:28 (observed from 11:23).

Now I totally accept the initial parking fine, but two cautions for the one offence seems harsh. I'm aware that you can receive two seperate PCN's if the car hasnt moved over a period of 24 hours but i was not aware that you could get two so soon after each other! Is there a limit? Could the parking attendant just have churned out lots of penalty charges through the course of the day if the car had not moved?

One other thing that may be of note is that the two charges were issued by two seperate officers.

Any advice/clarity would be extremely welcome - I do worry that I'll have to pay the two fines because surely the second parking attendant wouldn't have been dumb enough to not see the first fine slapped on my windscreen and to not know the rules of their job.
emanresu
It may be that #2 was issues as #1 had been taken off.

If you post a copy of 1 of them - scrubbed - we can see what you are up against. IMHO the second one will be cancelled assuming its for the same contravention.

jim_tim
I have attached the two tickets. They were both on my windscreen right next to each other.



emanresu
Who is the Enforcement Authority (EA)? I assume Liverpool but can't see it on the front.

Is there a back to these? One will do.


From this one there should be a top to it. Have you removed it?
jim_tim
Sorry my scanner cut off the top but yes it was in Liverpool. Here's the top and the back of the ticket. I'm still unsure whether I have to pay for the two fines or not. As I say I'm more than willing to pay the first fine but the second one seems excessive.




emanresu
If you do a search on the site for "within 24 hours", you will see that this often happens for a number of reasons. You get a PCN for each contravention per contravention period. So you need to establish what the restrictions were for that street at those times of day. The parking department should be able to email you the Traffic Management Order for the street / area so it can be checked.

In the meantime send in two separate letters using the two separate PCN numbers (1 day apart?). Don't cross reference them.

Ask why that PCN was issued and under what restrictions. Also ask for the CEO's notes and any other information that would help you understand why they believe there was a contravention.

They may c*ck-up the replies which will allow you to appeal both of them, especially if one of them was bogus. Post up both replies when you get them.

clark_kent
The reason you got two is that one was issued for the wrong location!
jim_tim
Hahaha..... yes indeed I was. I had not noticed that - what a plonker! What would be the best course of action to take now - I actually don't know what street I was parked on but I shall find out. I certainly did not move the car to another location to receive another penalty notice on another street.

Thank you for being much more vigilant than I have been :-)
emanresu
Still need to get the CEO notes and the TRO if you want to find out the basis of their claims. You can use the 14 days to get the information / make informal appeal(s).
Neil B
What are the CEO numbers -- and why are they obscured incidentally?
jim_tim
Right ok, so I've discovered that I was parked on Great Orford Street in Liverpool which marries up with the second parking ticket - so i'm quite happy to take that one on the chin because I accept I shouldn't have been parked in a residents only bay.

However, the first parking ticket that was issued at 9:45am I have a problem with. This was issued for Great Newton Street and I have never parked on this road, never mind the time and date which the ticket states.

So basically the first ticket is completely incorrect but the second one is fair enough.

Would you still recommend that I send two letters enquiring about both seperately?

Also the CEO numbers are pixelated because I thought I saw them this way on another thread and thought it was the thing to do :-/
Neil B
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Sun, 3 Apr 2011 - 21:28) *
Also the CEO numbers are pixelated because I thought I saw them this way on another thread and thought it was the thing to do :-/


Oh ok - let it stay a secret then.
Gan
Was it possible to read the location through the envelopes ?

If so, and the first ticket was for another location, it might explain the second but surely the dimmest CEO would wonder why anyone would drive around with an envelope stuck to his windscreen.

jim_tim
Right, I've sent the two letters asking why the PCN was issued and under what restrictions, and I've also asked for the CEO's notes. Hopefully they will get back to me in the next couple of days as there are only 6 days left of the 14 day period.

I shall post their replies here as soon as I receive them.

Thanks for everybody's help up to this point :-)
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Thu, 7 Apr 2011 - 10:15) *
Right, I've sent the two letters asking why the PCN was issued and under what restrictions, and I've also asked for the CEO's notes. Hopefully they will get back to me in the next couple of days as there are only 6 days left of the 14 day period.

I shall post their replies here as soon as I receive them.

Thanks for everybody's help up to this point :-)





No, the 14 days is not really relevant now if they were your informal appeals (was it made clear?). If you look at the PCN, as you appealed in time the Council may (if they feel like it!) re-offer the discounted penalty if they reject your appeal.

Just post a pic of the rejection letter(s) if you get them, along with one of the NtOs (if you get 2 the same). Keep everything in a separate file for each of the two PCNs. Any rejections and NtOs will just mean it will be time for Round Two of the fight!
jim_tim
I assumed that if the council rejected the plea and that I was still inside the 14 day period that I could still pay the half price penalty - is this not true? I 'm thinking of just calling them now and saying that I accept that one offence has been committed but the initial parking ticket was given for an offence on a street that I have never even driven down!

I thought I was using the 14 day period to make an informal appeal to see if that would get me anywhere and hopefully that they would throw out one of the tickets that was incorrectly issued.
hcandersen
To raise this point again - post the CEO numbers. Methinks NeilB's tongue was in his cheek in his last post.

We don't seem to have dealt with this point, but IMO two PCNs from the same authority for the same offence is unacceptable, and potentially unlawful and also possibly illegal. It cannot be finessed by saying that the location was wrong on the first PCN. FFS, the motorist could have paid both - just because we can rationalise the position doesn't mean the average motorist can. And two payments would have been accepted by the authority's system without a murmur because they had unique PCN numbers which is the only check the system makes.

This is a gross procedural impropriety as a minimum.

The only acceptable courses would have been:
1. PCNs served by same CEO - to remove the first PCN.
2. PCNs served by different CEOs - to not issue the second.

As regards 1, this would have caused the CEO some embarrassment with their superiors in order to avoid which he/she deliberately placed the motorist in jeopardy. Unlawful? Certainly. Illegal? Potentially.

As regards 2, certainly a Procedural Impropriety. How the hell would CEO 2 know that PCN 1 was for the wrong location? Is this the result of discussion with CEO 1? Is this a conspiracy to defraud the motorist?

IMO, nail them on this and do not get sidetracked by other issues.


HCA
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 08:47) *
To raise this point again - post the CEO numbers. Methinks NeilB's tongue was in his cheek in his last post.

We don't seem to have dealt with this point, but IMO two PCNs from the same authority for the same offence is unacceptable, and potentially unlawful and also possibly illegal. It cannot be finessed by saying that the location was wrong on the first PCN. FFS, the motorist could have paid both - just because we can rationalise the position doesn't mean the average motorist can. And two payments would have been accepted by the authority's system without a murmur because they had unique PCN numbers which is the only check the system makes.

This is a gross procedural impropriety as a minimum.

The only acceptable courses would have been:
1. PCNs served by same CEO - to remove the first PCN.
2. PCNs served by different CEOs - to not issue the second.

As regards 1, this would have caused the CEO some embarrassment with their superiors in order to avoid which he/she deliberately placed the motorist in jeopardy. Unlawful? Certainly. Illegal? Potentially.

As regards 2, certainly a Procedural Impropriety. How the hell would CEO 2 know that PCN 1 was for the wrong location? Is this the result of discussion with CEO 1? Is this a conspiracy to defraud the motorist?

IMO, nail them on this and do not get sidetracked by other issues.


HCA


Ta wink.gif

yep precisely - and yep I was practicing a bit of 'don't want help - fine bi bi'.

OP's last post last night was no more inspiring!
jim_tim
Neil..... practiSing a bit of 'don't want help - fine bi bi'

What?? As mentioned earlier I didn't know exactly what information should be withheld, so I just went with precidents I'd seen on the website. Of course I want help otherwise I wouldn't be writing on this forum.

If it was explained to me what relevance the CEO numbers have then all confusion would have been avoided.

Anyway, on that subject:

Parking ticket 1 CEO number - LV173
Parking ticket 2 CEO number - LV229


HCA, thank you for the advice.

2. PCNs served by different CEOs - to not issue the second.

This must be what happened rather than option 1. I did mention in my original post that the two PCN's were issued by two different officers. I can only assume as you say that there has been some sort of communication between the two or that the wrong location on the first PCN was visible through the plastic wallet and the second officer has tried to correct this.


I'm still waiting for replies from Liverpool city council but as soon as I get them I shall upload them here.

Once again, a big thank you to those who have helped thus far :-)
hcandersen
Thanks.

I know it will come as a surprise to those authorities which exhibit a silo mentality and who either don't understand or don't want to understand that they are part of the council, but their duty to act fairly sits miles above their obligations, powers and duties in the TMA etc.

HCA
emanresu
To answer the question posed in #16, yes you can still pay one at the half rate within the 14 days.

But HCA has come up with a line of argument that could mean not having to pay either of them. My money would be with HCA but it is always the your (the OP) decision.
Neil B
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 12:35) *
Neil..... practiSing a bit of 'don't want help - fine bi bi'

What?? As mentioned earlier I didn't know exactly what information should be withheld, so I just went with precidents I'd seen on the website. Of course I want help otherwise I wouldn't be writing on this forum.

If it was explained to me what relevance the CEO numbers have then all confusion would have been avoided.
I don't have time to witter and explain things before I get an indication that matters will be pursued and simple questyions answered.

BUT >>>>

I did mention in my original post that the two PCN's were issued by two different officers.

You did indeed and I missed it, my fault because that is what I needed to know and, of course, I apologise.
jim_tim
Right it is now the 14th day since i received the two PCN's. I'm still waiting to hear anything from the council after I sent two letters to them for the two seperate offences 8 days ago. Will my 14 day period (to pay £35 instead of £70) be extended?

I'm confident about getting the first ticket thrown out because i've never parked on the road it states but the second one was issued for the right road although the officer should really have thought that the first ticket was correct unless as stated above he knew otherwise.

I guess I just want some advice on my options really. The way I see it, is as follows:

OPTIONS:

1. Pay both of them up today for the reduced rate of £35 (which i'm not going to do out of principle) Overall penalty £70
2. Pay the second one today as it was issued for the right road and continue to challenge the toally incorrect first PCN. Overall Penalty £35
3. Continue to challenge both of them and hopefully get them both cancelled and obviously having to pay no charges
4. Or worst case scenario - continue to challenge both of them and lose and pay both of them at the full £70. Overall Penalty £140

Any suggestions and advice would be greatly appreciated :-)
emanresu
Well 1 and 4 are non-starters. Why would you pay the "wrong" one at the full £70.

Its £35 for the correct one and some paperwork - or £0 and some paperwork. Depends on how busy you are.
jim_tim
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 17:25) *
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 12:35) *
Neil..... practiSing a bit of 'don't want help - fine bi bi'

What?? As mentioned earlier I didn't know exactly what information should be withheld, so I just went with precidents I'd seen on the website. Of course I want help otherwise I wouldn't be writing on this forum.

If it was explained to me what relevance the CEO numbers have then all confusion would have been avoided.
I don't have time to witter and explain things before I get an indication that matters will be pursued and simple questyions answered.

BUT >>>>

I did mention in my original post that the two PCN's were issued by two different officers.

You did indeed and I missed it, my fault because that is what I needed to know and, of course, I apologise.





Apology accepted..... I understand there must be lots of people new to the forum, such as myself, that ask what seem like daft questions to yourself. It must be tedious answering the same questions over and over again but as I did state that the two tickets were issued by two seperate officers I was a bit bemused by the relevance of the numbers.

Anyway confusion cleared up and I appreciate the apology :-)
jim_tim
Emanresu,

Thanks for the quick reply.

Yes I'm totally up for fighting both of them if there is a clear infringement with the second one. I'm just slightly worried about that one. Would the basis for challenging that one be purely because the second officer shouldn't have known the first was incorrect?

The actual ticket itself in isolation is correct because it was placed on a car that was incorreclty parked - fair enough. However, the events leading up to that ticket being placed on my car are unusual and I just want to be clear on this before I fight it on the next stage.

My other concern is that the second officer was aware that a ticket was on my car 1hour 30 mins before he issued his ticket and maybe in the area I was parked in allows CEO's to issue tickets every hour or so or whatever........ I don't know I'm just speculating - as you might have guessed I'm pretty inexperienced with PCNs.

I just want a solid argument to dispute the second ticket before I fight it 100%.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 08:47) *
To raise this point again - post the CEO numbers. Methinks NeilB's tongue was in his cheek in his last post.

We don't seem to have dealt with this point, but IMO two PCNs from the same authority for the same offence is unacceptable, and potentially unlawful and also possibly illegal. It cannot be finessed by saying that the location was wrong on the first PCN. FFS, the motorist could have paid both - just because we can rationalise the position doesn't mean the average motorist can. And two payments would have been accepted by the authority's system without a murmur because they had unique PCN numbers which is the only check the system makes.

This is a gross procedural impropriety as a minimum.

The only acceptable courses would have been:
1. PCNs served by same CEO - to remove the first PCN.
2. PCNs served by different CEOs - to not issue the second.

As regards 1, this would have caused the CEO some embarrassment with their superiors in order to avoid which he/she deliberately placed the motorist in jeopardy. Unlawful? Certainly. Illegal? Potentially.

As regards 2, certainly a Procedural Impropriety. How the hell would CEO 2 know that PCN 1 was for the wrong location? Is this the result of discussion with CEO 1? Is this a conspiracy to defraud the motorist?

IMO, nail them on this and do not get sidetracked by other issues.


HCA


I liked it when I first read it but unfortunately I can see a fatal flaw.

As I now realise separate CEOs (sorry delay) then it is entirely legitimate as fas I can see for the second PCN to be issued.

Events -
2nd CEO finds car parked in contravention. It already has a PCN from another location. 2nd CEO has no way of knowing if the first PCN is correct or issued in error.
If 2nd CEO DID have that info then obviously the first PCN should be removed or, effectively, it would constitute an attempt to defraud the motorist - asking for two penalties instead of one ---- BUT - 2nd CEO does not have that info. It is entirely possible that the vehicle HAD been parked at the other location beforehand.

I conclude that although we know the first PCN is incorrect, the 2nd CEO could not have known that, was justified in leaving it in place and justified in issuing the second PCN - from his point of view.

Actually, for the CEO to have 'assumed' the first PCN was issued in error and hence remove it, would probably be unlawful.

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

Obviously I hope someone can shoot me down on that one!!! huh.gif
jim_tim
Yes Neil. This is the way I see it too. Obviously I hope there is some way around it but I fear if I don't pay the second one today it will go up to £70. So in effect I could have just paid both penalties immediately for the same cost which seems a shame if I can get the first PCN cancelled.

At least if I pay the second one today and get the firts ticket cancelled the overall cost would be £35. Obviously if there is a way to throw out the second one then I would be totally up for challenging it. But, at the same time I don't wanna have to pay £70 down the line when £35 could be paid today.

I think I'll give it some time today before I decide what to do. The telephone number is 24hr so I assume I could pay just before 12 tonight. Actually on that subject I'm wondering have I missed the 14 day period anyway - The ticket was issued on Wednesday 30th March at 11:28am. Do they include that day as the 14 day period - if so I think yesterday (tuesday) was the 14th day icon_redface.gif
hcandersen
Good to have thoughts challenged, but I would still argue for my point. It's not just whether the second CEO had a lawful reason for issuing his PCN, it's that he left the first PCN in situ thereby exposing an unwary motorist to an unlawful PCN. It cannot be acceptable to "guess" that the other PCN might have been in respect of a contravention issued lawfully in another location - come on, what are the odds on this?

CEO No. 2 arrives at car and observes:

a. It's parked, potentially in contravention;
b A PCN has been "served".

So. what should he do? Issue a PCN - for what and why?

The only way a CEO could issue a PCN is if he could establish that the other PCN was invalid (it has been known for motorists to keep PCNs and envelopes and place under windscreens to fool CEOs), in order to do which he would have had to contact his supervisor (can't serve 2 on the same day for the same contravention). In which case his notes would reveal all. And if it was invalid by dint of it being a motorist fraud, the CEO should have removed it and served his PCN. End result, only 1 PCN on the vehicle. Or,

If the PCN was invalid by dint of his colleague c*****g up, then IMO it would be unlawful to serve a PCN unless the c*****d up PCN was removed. Result, 1 PCN on the vehicle. (personally, I don't think the second PCN could be served, but it's arguable)

But he left the first PCN on the vehicle and that's an act of commission and is deliberate. As the CEO acts for the council, then the council is liable.

I know of no lawful reason how the second CEO could serve his PCN and still leave the first one in situ the result of which could have been that the motorist was prejudiced and could have paid both.

If the OP doesn't think he's on a winner here then, to be honest, I begin to doubt the veracity of his account.

HCA


jim_tim
HCA,

Thank you for the above post. You have no need to doubt my story - it is exactly how I have described in my original post. It's not a case of whether I believe I'm onto a winner or not - it is more a case of exactly what you have said above "I don't think the second PCN could be served, but it's arguable".

I may have exceeded the 14 days anyway so I'm going to see what the council say when they finally get back to me. Hopefully they'll realise what you have stated above and decide that the whole thing has been a huge cock up!

I can see both sides of the argument - I guess i just feel guilty because i know I was incorrectly parked. However, having read your argument again I think I shall fight this all the way. There does seem to be mistakes made by both CEOs - so if there is scope to get both fines cleared then why pay up?

I shall post the council's response as soon as i receive it.

Cheers for the advice again though - I feel more confident about this with each post you make. :-)
hcandersen
OK, fine. I'm a firm believer in the adage that the more convinced you are, the more convincing you'll be, should it get to adj - and I've been known to test an OP's conviction here. Better here than at adj.

But don't forget that as we know beyond reasonable doubt, let alone balance of probabilities, that the first PCN was served by the council then it's not whether the second PCN was served OK, it's clearly unlawful under administrative law, let alone the TMA, for the CEO to leave the first PCN on your car and in effect be party to a demand by the council for 2 penalty charges when he knew, or should have known, that only 1 was lawful.


HCA
Neil B
First and foremost, OP has missed discount and stated an intention to continue so we will at least have an outcome. Discussion of likely chances pale in importance for the moment but-

I feel I have to respond to such 'definite' statements as -

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 13 Apr 2011 - 16:07) *
I know of no lawful reason how the second CEO could serve his PCN and still leave the first one in situ


I gave one and also noted that it would be unlawful for the CEO to remove the first PCN.

You've given examples of other possibilities and there may be many more but in order for the CEOs actions to be correct it only takes one possible scenario, where their actions were correct, for the 2nd PCN to be lawfully issued and the 1st left on the vehicle.

The CEO would not need to believe the 1st was invalid, as you say, but, in the example given, have no reason to believe it invalid.

I fail to see, where there are various possible circumstances, you reach a definite conclusion.

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

Where I see some possibilities are in your reference to contacting the Supervisor. It might be argued that the CEO should have done that.

Had they not then a possible argument the CEO did not have a full reason to believe his/her actions were correct and lawful. Perhaps particularly so given the similar Street names.

Had they done so and discovered the other CEO had never patrolled the other street then I would agree the 1st PCN should not have been left in situ.

-- but again, these are possibilities and unknowns and I see no definites.

From the limited evidence in front of me, I see no reason the second PCN should not have been issued AND the 1st left behind.
jim_tim
does anybody know how long a reply off a council would normally take? ...... I thought that I may have had a response from them by now
jim_tim
I've still not heard anything from the council..... is this normal? It's now over a month since I received the fines.
Gan
Quite normal; it's only the formal appeal at NTO stage that has a time limit.

Legally they don't have to reply to an informal appeal at all
jim_tim
Right, so the council have finally got back to me. However I am still clueless as to where I stand on this. As suggested on here several weeks ago, I sent out TWO seperate letters dealing with each seperate PCN asking for the CEO's notes etc.

I received the following letter first on the 3rd June dealing with the SECOND PCN which I was initially happy to take on the chin because it was issued for the right address and the right infringement. However, as others have metioned already, whether this was lawfully issued is debatable as the photos in the letter clearly show that a PCN was already on my windscreen which can only have been for the same infringement, as I had not been parked anywhere else!

Problems and confusion has arisen because the first PCN that was placed on my windscreen was for a road that I have never even driven down nevermind parked!! The only logical explanation for this is that the second CEO has became aware that the first PCN was incorrect - I have still not had any information on how this was achieved. I can only assume he's had a look inside the ticket or spoke to the initial CEO who issued the first incorrect ticket.

FIRST LETTER RECEIVED 3rd JUNE:

jim_tim
I didnt receive anything else in the next few days after the above letter, so I thought that they had just realised that the initial PCN was a c*ck up and were sticking by the SECOND PCN issued for the correct infringement. I thought that this may be a reasonable compromise as I do fully acknowledge that I was incorrectly parked in a residents only bay and would've been satisfied just paying one fine of £35.

However, I received the following letter yesterday stating that I need to pay the fine that was a total c*ck up and that they want the full amount of £70!! They haven't even responded to my informal request like they have for the second PCN. I am not too pleased about the circumstances how the second PCN came about but the first PCN issued for the wrong road is just a total joke and I am absolutely furious that they expect me to pay £70 for it!!

SECOND LETTER RECEIVED ON 8th JUNE:




Help/Advice is extremely welcome and I would again like to thank those that have helped thus far.
emanresu
Ah... you now see why were here.

They have no scrupples (or even ability) when it comes to PCNs. They likely know they've c**ked up but they will use the system to make you work for it. They are wrong. You are right but they have the resources behind them to make you squirm.

Take a deep breath and re-read what has been said before and we'll help you construct the argument. No matter how reasonable you think you have been - you are now in the system.
jim_tim
Emanresu, cheers for getting back to me.

As Neil B has stated already, he believes the second PCN issued was legitimate and I am worried that if I try to get the second one cancelled i run the risk of ending up having to pay the full £70 rather than paying £35 now. However, HCA and yourself have stated that I may be able to get both of them thrown out.

What is clear in my mind at the moment is that I refuse to pay the fine for the first ticket. As I have already mentioned I have never even been down the road in question. For this reason I find it very difficult to believe that they could have photographic evidence of my car parked on Great Newton Street!!

Also the photos provided clearly show that there have been two tickets placed on my windscreen and its funny how they've not treated both PCNs in the same manner. My only thoughts are that their argument will be that I got the first ticket parked on Great Newton Street then left that ticket on my windscreen then drove to Great Orford Street and parked for a while there and picked up another ticket - Maybe this is what the second CEO thought too.

Do they have to provide photo-evidence for the first ticket? If so they may have trouble with that :-p
jim_tim
ok, so I am definately going to dispute the first ticket - without question. A bit of advice about the whole episode involving both tickets would be very welcome.

I'd like to know if by law they have to provide photographic evidence of my car parked on Great Newton Street (which is the misatke made by the first CEO) and whether it is lawful or not for the second CEO to give me another ticket knowing that one had already been issued - taking into account that it was issued incorrectly.

Neil B and HCA have discussed the last point a while ago but it would be interesting to hear whether their thoughts have changed given further developments (ie. the council standing by their mistakes). I'd also be very appreciative if anybody else could chip in with their penny's worth.

All comments at this stage are extremely welcome :-)
Neil B
Just catching up. I'll try and post later.
Neil B
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Tue, 14 Jun 2011 - 14:21) *
Neil B and HCA have discussed the last point a while ago but it would be interesting to hear whether their thoughts have changed given further developments (ie. the council standing by their mistakes). I'd also be very appreciative if anybody else could chip in with their penny's worth.

All comments at this stage are extremely welcome :-)


HCA has not been around for a few days which is a shame. Unlikely to get a response unless maybe you PM him?

I still have to stand by post#27. I can't fault the CEO. If he had no info about the first PCN he can't lawfully remove it.

I wish HCA was around because maybe we could then understand how to convert his assertions into ammo. I can't at the mo.

L'pool clearly being intransigent as you recognise and I'd luv to stuff 'em on both - but can't.

-

Dunno if anyone can make anything of the CEO notes. I can't make head nor tail of them. but important in the circumstances.
jim_tim
Neil,

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes I shall try to PM him. As i'm not particularly knowledgeable about such things I would be more inclined to go with your understanding of the second CEO issuing the ticket because I would not know how to go about trying to throw out the second one, and as you say I am lacking a bit of ammo with regards to this ticket.

The first ticket however is a complete joke. What's the process involved with trying to get this one cancelled? As i've mentioned above they have no way of proving that i was ever parked on that road (because I never have been parked on that road!). I would feel a lot more confident about getting this one cancelled if I could have it confirmed that they need photo evidence to pin it on me.
Neil B
QUOTE (jim_tim @ Wed, 15 Jun 2011 - 14:26) *
The first ticket however is a complete joke. What's the process involved with trying to get this one cancelled? As i've mentioned above they have no way of proving that i was ever parked on that road (because I never have been parked on that road!). I would feel a lot more confident about getting this one cancelled if I could have it confirmed that they need photo evidence to pin it on me.


They have failed to respond to your challenge. They are not required to take pics but lack of them is very much in your favour.

Your reps to NtO must include the question of why no response to informal - which appears to mean they have failed to consider it - unlawful.
I think your overall version of events is borne out by L'pool behaviour now and an adjudicator would have sufficient doubt that the contravention ever occurred. You don't even have CEO notes for that one - obstructive.
jim_tim
right, so I guess the next thing to do is write a letter to the council asking why my informal appeal was ignored and make it clear that I intend to dispute the first parking ticket. i shall make it clear to them that I believe 100% that I have never been parked on the road in question.
bama
HCA is on holiday
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.