Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN in Cardiff with Blue Badge
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
matchstick
Hi, hope someone can help with a Parking Ticket issued in December 2011. I had parked outside my sisters house (in my car) on a double yellow line in front of a bus stop, with my mum and her blue disabled badge.

On returning to the car it was dark and tipping down with rain, so as soon as I managed to get the kids in and drove away, I put the wipers on and caught something out of the corner of my eye coming off the windscreen. My son said it looked like a yellow ticket but wasn't sure. Couldnt stop anyway to look for a bit of paper in the rain so thought I should ring on Monday to the Council to check if I had been issued with a PCN.

With Xmas etc, it was January before I rang and was told, YES you had a PCN, and because of the delay it had gone from £35 to £70. Asked about appealing and was told to write in with details etc. I hand wrote a letter explaining the above with a copy of the badge number etc and said it was possible the badge had been left on the passenger seat instead of dashboard and could they waive the PCN or at least get it reduced to £35. This was the 10th January 2012.

I received a letter within a week saying it had been received and will be dealt with in due course.

Received a letter on the 26th April 2012 basically saying that the enforecment officer didnt see a badge, it wasnt displayed properly so they are satisfied that the PCN was served correctly and also would keep the penalty at £70. This really annoyed me, basically saying it was my word against the EO and they were not prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt.

I have now received a Notice to Owner (NtO) dated 11th June 2012. Not sure if I can post images directly here so I have provided links to photobucket. I have scanned all pages except the back of page 1 which says how to pay.

http://s1174.photobucket.com/albums/r609/matchstickman3/

I have to reply 11/07/12 to have an appeal considered. Any suggestions on what to write back to them with ?Reading other posts I can see that I should go back to the site and take pictures of the road markings and also the bus stop sign if there are any parking restrictions on there.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Neil B
Your deadline is 10th incidentally.

I take it they offered no pictures? Did you ask for or get the CEO notes?

We will need the original PCN.

Not looked at the NtO yet but you have used the right method to post images btw.
matchstick
Thanks for the clarification on the deadline.

There are pictures on the photobucket link. Some of them are fuzzy, I assume from the original picture being taken in the rain.

I haven't asked for the CEO notes, didn't know that any were available. As I mentioned, the original PCN was lost when I put my wipers on. Is this something I could get a copy of in the meantime and extend the deadline for appeal ?

I noticed on the back of page 1 of the NtO (which I haven't scanned), it says if the representations are received in time and the Council do not reply within 56 days, then the notice will be cancelled. Does a similar time period apply to my original appeal on the 12th January ? I make it 105 days elapsed between them receiveing my appeal and them writing back to me.

Thanks
SchoolRunMum
Was the NTO received more than 6 months after the PCN?
matchstick
Hi.

As I mentioned, I havent seen the PCN, so should I request a copy ?

In the NtO, it says;

PCN dated 10/12/2011

NtO dated 11/06/2012

so by my reckoning, this makes it one day more than 6 months. I will take pictures of the bus stop tomorrow and scan the NtO as well. Advice very gratefully received, as the 10th of July is looming and I need to either pay, or get a reply in.

Many Thanks

Doh !

Just noticed I have scanned the NtO (which is on the link in my first post)

Any thoughts ?
matchstick
Just found this lovely post by Neil B.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...0&start=100

====================================

From what i gather so far, you already understand this >

1/. That date of notice and date of service are different.

2/. That under the legislation LLA 2003, you have 28 days beginning date of Notice to pay - BUT 28 days beginning date of service (later) to make reps.

-----
Then we have the contentious statement on the front of the PCN.

QUOTE
If you fail to pay the penalty charge or to make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice a charge certificate may be issued..


The sentence talks about two things; Making payment or making representations but it gives only one period of time.

The period given is correct for representations and wrong for payment. They should not be talking about both things in one sentence with one timescale.

The real period for payment is 28 days beginning date of the notice

So, the potential for prejudice is that anyone getting such a PCN is told they have longer to pay than they actually legally have - and it follows might then pay late.

====================================

If you see the scan of my NtO, it says;

This notice will be taken to have been served on the second working day after the day of posting (as shown above) unless you can show that it was not.

Then it says;

NOTE: If you do not pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the 28 day period specified above (i.e. by 11/07/2012) the Council may increase the original penalty charge by 50% to £105 and take steps to enforce payment.

This seems to be exactly what Neil B. is talking about. That is two different dates are required on the NtO

NtO posted on 11th June 2012. 28 days from this date is the 9th July 2012.

NtO taken to have been served on 13th June 2012. 28 days from this date is the 11th July 2012 as stated in the NtO.

Could someone please check my dates and correct as needed. I would like some help in drafting a letter of appeal as well.

Thanks in advance.
matchstick
Re-reading my NtO, it says;

A penalty charge of £70 is now payable...not later than...the date on which this Notice is served

Neil B. said in his post that under the legislation LLA 2003, you have 28 days beginning date of Notice to pay.

Do you see the difference ? The NtO says date SERVED (which is the 13th June) but legislation says BEGINNING date of Notice (which is 11th June).

Does this mean that the NtO is contrary to legislation ?

(NUTS...Just realised that LLA is London Local Authority and not necessarily enforceable in Wales).

The acts qouted on the specific grounds for appeal are;

-Traffic Management Act 2004
-Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventons (2008) representations and appeals
-Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventons (2008) general provisions

Any more advice ?
bama
for a TMA reg 9 PCN they have six months from service of the PCN to serve the NTO
show us the PCN and the NTO - with the dates (obscure personal details on the images)

it sounds like they are outwith the dates even just going buy the creation date of the NTO.
makes you wonder how their admin/systems allow an out of date NTO (i.e. unlawful) to be created doesn't it ?

once we have confirmed the dates on the paperwork I am sure there will be some very nice text you can send the LA.
I can think of some smile.gif
maybe even copy to the head of legal/the section 151 officer smile.gif smile.gif
Neil B
QUOTE (matchstick @ Mon, 2 Jul 2012 - 23:06) *
Just found this lovely post by Neil B.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...0&start=100

====================================

From what i gather so far, you already understand this >

1/. That date of notice and date of service are different.

2/. That under the legislation LLA 2003, you have 28 days beginning date of Notice to pay - BUT 28 days beginning date of service (later) to make reps.

-----
Then we have the contentious statement on the front of the PCN.

QUOTE
If you fail to pay the penalty charge or to make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice a charge certificate may be issued..


The sentence talks about two things; Making payment or making representations but it gives only one period of time.

The period given is correct for representations and wrong for payment. They should not be talking about both things in one sentence with one timescale.

The real period for payment is 28 days beginning date of the notice

So, the potential for prejudice is that anyone getting such a PCN is told they have longer to pay than they actually legally have - and it follows might then pay late.

====================================

If you see the scan of my NtO, it says;

This notice will be taken to have been served on the second working day after the day of posting (as shown above) unless you can show that it was not.

Then it says;

NOTE: If you do not pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the 28 day period specified above (i.e. by 11/07/2012) the Council may increase the original penalty charge by 50% to £105 and take steps to enforce payment.

This seems to be exactly what Neil B. is talking about. That is two different dates are required on the NtO

NtO posted on 11th June 2012. 28 days from this date is the 9th July 2012.

NtO taken to have been served on 13th June 2012. 28 days from this date is the 11th July 2012 as stated in the NtO.

Could someone please check my dates and correct as needed. I would like some help in drafting a letter of appeal as well.

Thanks in advance.


Well, as you've realised in your other post, none of that applies to you as it concerned moving traffic legislation in London.

I think you should edit out those two posts so that anyone reading doesn't get confused about the real issues in your case.

----
As Mum and bama have said, it looks like the NtO is served out of time.

The six months is an absolute time limit both technically and in terms of them acting reasonably. For the latter, without good reason, it's way out of time. The 'technical' one day over just makes it easier.

--
In answer to your earlier question, no, there is no time limit on responding to informal challenges -- but still a requirement to act reasonably. It doesn't much matter now anyway.


QUOTE (bama @ Tue, 3 Jul 2012 - 00:37) *
for a TMA reg 9 PCN they have six months from service of the PCN to serve the NTO
show us the PCN and the NTO - with the dates (obscure personal details on the images)


There's a photobucket link hidden in the middle of opening post. NtO confirms the dates.
hcandersen
Cardiff is in Wales, so forget all England-only regs.

What the hell are the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Wales) Regs 2008 (these are cited at the top of the NTO)? I cannot find any such regs.

I can find the The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (General Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2008, which came into effect on 31 March 2008, but these were revoked on 22 May 2008 by the The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (General Provisions) (Wales) (No. 2) Regulations 2008 - a bit of a c**k-up on the admin. front methinks.

In any event, those regs cited by the authority do not, IMO, exist. And so:

with what authority has the council served the NTO?
how would the recipient know whether it was compliant (in general terms) as they do not have any legal frame of reference.

In this case, the period of 6 months doesn't exist because it would appear in the cited regs.

And the NTO fails to comply with the "adjudication" regs because it doesn't mention that if the council reject reps an appeal may be made to an adj (or if it does, I cannot find it).

Procedural Impropriety I think.

HCA
matchstick
Thanks for the replies. I will scan the backs of the pages in my (late) lunch break. I also have some pictures of the bus stop where part of the double yellow line has a lump of mortar / cement over it.

Will get back to you all in about an hour.

Thanks again
matchstick
Right, managed to get those scanned and uploaded. I've changed the titles a bit to make it easier to refer to.

Here is the link; http://s1174.photobucket.com/albums/r609/matchstickman3/

Pictures of bus stop don't show any parking signs but the prescence of a double yellow line makes it obvious "no parking here" I think. In picture Bus 4, it looks like the line has been ended correctly (with a car parked over it this morning).

Picture Bus 2 does show the double yellow obscured with cement. Would this be sufficient to challenge the NtO ?

I've added the NtO page 2 which shows the way to pay.

Also added the rejection letter which annoyed me so much, reject pages 1 and 2.

hcandersen - you mentioned the missing regulations. I too had difficulty finding all the sections they qouted, and an even harder time trying to find a 6 month limit between PCN and NtO. It does mention on NtO pg.2 about an independant adjuicator.

Also the dates you mentioned "31 March 2008, but these were revoked on 22 May 2008". How can they be revoked before they came into force ? Is this the c**k up you wrote ?

I look forward to replies when I get home tonight ! Cheers
hcandersen
But these are not the regs referred to in the NTO. So, although they exist, the taxing question is: what's their relevance?


HCA
bama
typo in the NTO. smile.gif
matchstick
Does the typo then render the NtO invalid and if so, then which of the boxes with grounds for appeal would I tick ?
bama
Thats the $64k question.
If an 'independent adjudicator' made a finding of fact on that it would invalidate lots of NTOs.
For some reason (which can only speculate on) and based on seeing lots of cases on here it appears that the adjudicators are very loathe indeed to make a finding that broadens the scope beyond the single PCN as that kind of finding is very rare indeed despite numerous cases where such 'big points' are raised..
that doesn't mean its not usable, we have seen many times a case that has such a big point where it seems to the observer that some effort is made to find in favour of the appellant on some other lesser point that restricts the decision to just the scope of the PCN. and by finding for the appellant it means there is no recourse to Judicial Review so it 'kills the case'. The result being that the 'big point' does not get addressed and the council can carry on regardless. they may in the fullness of time correct the 'big point', then again they may not.

I call it 'Adjudicator chess' for a reason....
matchstick
So if I use the 'BFG' (Big xxxx Gun) of a typo invalidating the NtO, they may hopefully decide to accept the lesser point in order to avoid creating a precedent ?

When I say lesser point I refer to the obscured yellow lines unless there is something else anyone can suggest.
bama
you would more than probably also have to raise the 'minor' points
still awhile yet to deadline for NTO response
gather together a draft set of reps and post them up for comment/refinement
hcandersen
OP.
The regulations which Cardiff quote at the top of their NTO (CEPR (Wales) General Regs 2008) don't exist - there have never been regs with that title. The original regs were made on 31 March 2008, but were clearly a legal disaster and so no sooner were they made, they were revoked by the (Amendment) regs which, as I understand it, are part of the suite of regs which govern parking enforcement in Wales. In England we have the General regs, The Appeals regs and regs for uniforms, adjudicators, penalties etc.

As far as your NTO is concerned, you are none the wiser about what regs apply and which provisions you are entitled to check to see that the process is being implemented correctly. And their letter dated 23 April is b******s because the TMA does not provide any legal basis for serving PCNs, it's only role in this regard is as enabling legislation which allows the SoS to make regs, and it's those regs which are elusive in Cardiff.

But the elephant in the room is that whatever regs apply will only provide 6 months from service of PCN to service of NTO, and you're beyond that so prima facie the NTO is void as the council does not have the legal power to serve it, even if it knew what regs apply.

HCA
bama
agreed. the six months is the patent out.

matchstick
Thanks for the replies, very valid points from all.

So far I have;

1. PCN never received and was never told that I was allowed to receive or view a copy (so never actually served on me)

2. Yellow lines on that section of road (see photo) are broken and so make the illegal parking claim invalid

3. Date between PCN being 'served' and NtO (text of NtO says add two days unless proved otherwise) is more than 6 months and so has passed the limit set by TMA reg 9 (does the TMA still apply in Wales if they have their own regulations ?) and passed the boundaries of reasonableness anyway (but see next point).

4. I am unable to find the regulations quoted on the NtO and so cannot check if there is a time limit of 6 months and in any case cannot use them to establish if I am being prosecuted within the legal requirements.

If they Council reject all of the above points, would I be allowed to make the same case to the Adjuicator ? (I know I'm getting ahead of myself here).
bama
QUOTE
(does the TMA still apply in Wales


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/notes/division/2
I would add to point 3 (and make it point 1 in the list)

The NTO is clearly unlawful as its creation date, much less its service date, exceeds the six months limit imposed by the TMA.
As a statutory creature the onus is on the council, and on all its employees who are public servants, at all times to act lawfully and only do things that are expressly or impliedly allowed by statute.

The council and its employees have failed in their public duty and breached their trust with the public.

I expect a written signed attributable apology from a duly appointed Officer of the Council within 14 days of your receipt of this document. I also expect a full and factual explanation of why the Council's back office systems and procedures have caused an unlawful document to be sent to the public.


smile.gif

chances of the written apology are so close to zero as to be insignificant.
However it sets up the S.151 complaint smile.gif smile.gif
hcandersen
The TMA is enabling legislation which means that it empowers the SoS and Welsh ministers to make regs: English regs for England and Welsh for Wales. They are as different as chalk and cheese in law so don't look at any other threads which will inevitably refer to English regs, you'll confuse yourself and us.

Reg 9 applies to English regs and does not apply in your case. If we knew what regs they were applying, we could find the right number (I think it's reg 5 in Wales).

You did receive a PCN - the fact that you didn't pick it up but washed it into oblivion is not the council's fault. So "I didn't receive a PCN" won't wash, neither would the PCN itself.

Yellow lines - forget it. It smacks of desperation. You've got a silver bullet, don't cloud the issue with froth.

3 & 4 - now you're talking. You really should make 3 more punchy - date of service of PCN X; date of service of NTO Y; Y - X > 6 months. They're b******d. And 4 - the regs cited by the council in the NTO are not extant and therefore the authority which the council are seeking to draw from those regs does not exist.

HCA
matchstick
Bit busy at work yesterday so no chance to reply then.

bama - blimey, you don't take any prisoners do you ? "a written signed attributable apology from a duly appointed Officer of the Council". I like it !

HCA - I see your point about the TMA reg 9 applying to english regs only, so is it best not to mention that in my reply but still make the point about 6 months even though its unclear whether that is the case in wales ?

I'll do a draft letter and post it up here later, although I don't think I can match bama's vigorous attack biggrin.gif =

= matchstick
bama
It is not an attack. It is merely holding public servants to be accountable for the failure to follow their inescapable duties and for their failure to act lawfully.

It only seems like an attack as public servants always try to dodge this. Don't fall into that mindset.
The public should hold their servants to proper standards, if we do not them who will.
My text merely gives them the opportunity to purge their transgressions and to do so honourably and with integrity.
If they don't (stop laughing at the back !) then it can become interesting... smile.gif

the 56 days applies (of course it does) see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/60...gulation/5/made
which are linked to from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2008/614...n/2/made#f00005

and so does the six months for service
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/60...ulation/12/made
matchstick
OK, here is the draft letter to reply to the NtO. Not sure about point 2 as Neil B. mentioned before that there is no time limit for informal representations, which is what the first appeal letter would have been.

Comments and amendments gratefully received.

Cardiff County Council
PO Box 47
Cardiff CF11 1QB
Thursday, 05 July 2012

Ref PCN: xxxxxxxxx
Served on : 10/12/11 by CEO xxx

Dear Sirs,
I believe that the above numbered PCN should not be paid on the grounds of procedural impropriety by Cardiff County Council.

1. More than 6 months have passed since the date of service of the PCN and the date of service of the NtO.

Date of PCN served: 10/12/11
Date of NtO: 11/06/12 and allowing for 1 working day to be served (as stated on the NtO), make the date 12/06/12
The NtO is clearly unlawful as its creation date much less its service date exceeds the six months limit imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004, and certainly exceeds any boundary of reasonableness as required.

2. More than 56 days passed between the initial representations and your reply.

Date letter initial appeal letter received by Council: 12/01/12
Date of rejection letter: 26/04/12
As set out in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions [CEPR] (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2008, Part 2, Regulation 5, you are required to reply within 56 days.

3. The regulations referred to in the NtO do not exist.

The regulations under which you are seeking to enforce the NtO are printed at the top of the first page, namely;
The Traffic Management Act 2004, s78
CEPR (Wales) General Regulations 2008
CEPR (Wales) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2008(as amended)

And later you refer to the same regulations when setting out grounds for appealing if there has been a procedural impropriety.
The CEPR (Wales) General Regulations 2008 are extant and so cannot be used to enforce the PCN which you issued. You have referred to these regulations in the NtO but they have been replaced with CEPR (Wales) (No.2) General Regulations 2008, which you have NOT referred to.

[I really like this bit. Nice one bama !] laugh.gif

As a statutory creature, the onus is on the council, and on all its employees who are public servants, at all times to act lawfully and only do things that are expressly or impliedly [implicitly ?] allowed by statute.

The council and its employees have failed in their public duty and breached the trust of the public.

I expect a written, signed and attributable apology from a duly appointed Officer of the Council within 14 days of your receipt of this document. I also expect a full and factual explanation of why the Council’s back office systems and procedures have caused an unlawful document to be sent to the public.
Yours sincerely,

matchstick
bama
QUOTE (matchstick @ Thu, 5 Jul 2012 - 17:19) *
OK, here is the draft letter to reply to the NtO. Not sure about point 2 as Neil B. mentioned before that there is no time limit for informal representations, which is what the first appeal letter would have been.

Comments and amendments gratefully received.

Cardiff County Council
PO Box 47
Cardiff CF11 1QB
Thursday, 05 July 2012

Ref PCN: xxxxxxxxx
Served on : 10/12/11 by CEO xxx

Dear Sirs,
I believe that the above numbered PCN should not be paid on the grounds of procedural impropriety by Cardiff County Council.

1. More than 6 months have passed since the date of service of the PCN and the date of service of the NtO.

Date of PCN served: 10/12/11
Date of NtO: 11/06/12 and allowing for 1 working day to be served (as stated on the NtO), make the date 12/06/12
The NtO is clearly unlawful as its creation date much less its service date exceeds the six months limit imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Penalty Charge Notices, Enforcement and Adjudication) (Wales) Regulations 2008, and certainly exceeds any boundary of reasonableness as required.

2. More than 56 days passed between the initial representations and your reply.

Date letter initial appeal letter received by Council: 12/01/12
Date of rejection letter: 26/04/12
As set out in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions [CEPR] (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2008, Part 2, Regulation 5, you are required to reply within 56 days.

3. The regulations referred to in the NtO do not exist.

The regulations under which you are seeking to enforce the NtO are printed at the top of the first page, namely;
The Traffic Management Act 2004, s78
CEPR (Wales) General Regulations 2008
CEPR (Wales) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2008(as amended)

And later you refer to the same regulations when setting out grounds for appealing if there has been a procedural impropriety.
The CEPR (Wales) General Regulations 2008 are extant and so cannot be used to enforce the PCN which you issued. You have referred to these regulations in the NtO but they have been replaced with CEPR (Wales) (No.2) General Regulations 2008, which you have NOT referred to.

[I really like this bit. Nice one bama !] laugh.gif

As a statutory creature, the onus is on the council, and on all its employees who are public servants, at all times to act lawfully and only do things that are expressly or impliedly [implicitly ?] allowed by statute.

The council and its employees have failed in their public duty and breached the trust of the public.

I expect a written, signed and attributable apology from a duly appointed Officer of the Council within 14 days of your receipt of this document. I also expect a full and factual explanation of why the Council’s back office systems and procedures have caused an unlawful document to be sent to the public.
Yours sincerely,

matchstick

hcandersen
Not extant, not extant (a real Eats, Shoots and Leaves if ever there was one).

You've said "are extant", you mean are not extant. I assume you've looked up "extant" and know what it means?

I'm not certain that bama wants his thoughts communicated to the council - why? (but it's his call).

It can only serve to get their backs up. Would you appreciate someone writing to you in such terms? I wouldn't, and I worked in this strange world for a long time. Stick to facts and argument, not personal opinion.


HCA
bama
It may get their backs up - but why ? and so what ?
they should be grateful to be given an honourable way out.
Barring an atrocious adjudication (which I can't see with such a clear feck up on the dates, they would be inviting further appeal and a JR) the LAs case is dead in the water. So what can they do about having their backs up ?
There is no abuse in my text whatsoever.

If they fail to acknowledge and show remorse for their unlawful act then I would carry on at them.

If we don't hold them to proper standards then who will ? And lets face it we are not talking about esoteric high standards and abstract concepts, just about the council obeying the law.

As I have often said never beg a servant, merely inform and instruct.

Of course its the OP's case and his 'stake'.
hcandersen
They're not servants. I never considered myself to be anyone's servant.

The fact that someone's employed in the public sector, funded by taxpayers, doesn't, IMO, give those not employed in that sector to take a "I look down on him.." approach. Try it on a soldier in one of the units withdrawn from Britain's ORBAT and see what you get. I've got a steel bowler in the loft if it would help.

But each to their own.


HCA
bama
Sorry, but Local Authority employees are unequivocally public servants.
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml

Its not looking down on them at all, its treating them appropriately and holding them to the duties and obligations that are are paid for from the public purse. Its not a master/slave thing or a superiority thing. Its a do your job and do not breach your trust with the public thing. I would argue that its a duty of the public to do so.
hcandersen
You posted "servant" and you then quote "Servant".

Yes they're Servants, but not servants.

HCA
bama
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Jul 2012 - 06:50) *
You posted "servant" and you then quote "Servant".

Yes they're Servants, but not servants.

HCA


err, where ? you mean in the link ?
"Last, but not least, a great many public servants work for local authorities"
leaving aside the possibility/correctness of servant being used as a proper noun (which I think not) the issue is their unlawful demand for money. some would argue Fraud under S.2

I hope it is clear now that used the 's' word in its meaning of one in the service of another rather than its meaning of subordinate.
matchstick
HCA - I like new words, but misread when I looked up extant. I thought it said NOT in existence, whereas of course it means;

Adjective: Still in existence; surviving, so you are of course correct in saying are NOT extant i.e. are Not in existence

Also you said;

You posted "servant" and you then quote "Servant".

Yes they're Servants, but not servants.


Got to say I cant see the difference apart from the capital 'S' and lowercase 's'.

I was initially of the same mind as you, regarding bama's strongly worded paragraph, but the more I reread it, the more sense it made. There are many public servants who have a real sense of civic duty and do their jobs accordingly. Equally there are some who lose sight of that fact and need reminding. The problem with indirect communication (like a letter or email) is that you don't know who is reading it, and a bad public servant would just ignore it, and a good one will be irritated by it.

However, I think the effort should still be made as its only by pointing out whats wrong that corrections can (hopefully) be made. In my case I was quite prepared to pay the inital £35 and avoid the hassle, but since they refused to be understanding about the reasons for my losing the PCN, they made a rod for their own backs.

Back to the PCN. Any thoughts on point 2 ?

(and thanks for a really interesting thread !)
hcandersen
Exactly.

Capital S connotes a defined term, so one has to go somewhere to find that definition. In this case, there's one in the doc posted: Public Servants....

It's simply a definition, it doesn't imply or confer any role or relationship between parties.

HCA
bama
Its just a proper noun when capitalised (passing over the first word of a sentence thing)

matchstick, you got it re the text.
A good public servant (working in parking) who has actual goals and intent of fulfilling their duties and will know that they (the individuals concerned and the LA collectively have acted unlawfully and should in my opinion jump at the chance to purge the 'sins' of the LA. I don't see why it would get their backs up at all.
Why would they not react properly and cease their unlawful actions ?
Especially as their only defense to the unlawful demand for money (or fraud ?) is incompetence.
And that opens a whole other can of worms !
They can kill it off with a well worded apology and the promise and execution of action that stops the council issuing further unlawful demands for money. It would be wrong to say explicitly in the text 'just apologise and I will forget about it' as that would make the writer complicit. Pointing out the problems and the way for them to make good via proper reactions is the right thing to do in my opinion.

I am not taking e-bets that they will do the right thing but lets give them the chance to repair things and build bridges.
it may be that the individual concerned does care about these things but is prevented by culture and climate in their organisation. Thats yet another ball of wax.
If they chose not then its time for further consideration....
matchstick
Thanks for all the assists. I can see that a VERY good grasp of the english language is required. I thought mine was in the upper echelons, but I've been pleased to be educated.

Apologies for bama for copying word for word his text, but it was so good, I couldn't have improved on it.

Any errors are of course mine, despite rereading and editing.

I have today sent the recorded delivery letter as posted up here, and faxed a copy as well to the council HQ.

I will of course let you know how they respond.

Fingers crossed !

= matchstick
bama
I shoulda said:
No "Dear Sir" at the start.
and no "Yours" at the end
matchstick
SUCCESS !!

Had a reply a few weeks ago allowing the appeal on the grounds of being timed out (i.e. over 6 months)

http://s1174.photobucket.com/albums/r609/m...eplyREACTED.jpg

Not surprisingly they failed to mention the fact that they have got the wrong CEPR regulations quoted on the parking ticket and went for the easy part of the appeal. Incidentally, does that mean that all parking tickets issued in Cardiff are illegally served, or simply that they would be impossible to enforce ? That would mean an awful lot of refunds being issued...

Thanks to all who posted for their help and insight, fantastic work all round.
SchoolRunMum
Well done!

Potentially this could cause them all sorts of problems if you were to get the PCN flaw publicised in the local press...
hcandersen
..and bama and I are hopefully reconciled, so all's well with the world. biggrin.gif

HCA
bama
didn't know we had had a spat ! (this is an intellectual thing not an emotional thing)

good result for matchstick but it was always going to be a win.
Should keep on their case re a written full and factual explanation of them sending an unlawful demand for money to the public. if they do not do that (or just give the run around) I suggest going for the S.151 complaint
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.