Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Standard charge ticket from wycombe council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Jetlag
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentHi all, wonder if anyone can help. I parked in a council pay and display carpark & purchased a ticket and put it on the dash, it was not a sticker. On return I had a standard charge ticket issued by a Parking officer. I found my ticket on the floor it had fallen off and would not have been easy to see. I emailed a photo of the ticket & asked for the ticket to be cancelled. I received a reply headed 'Parking on Private Land under Contract Terms & Conditions 2014' basically saying the onus is fully on the driver to display the ticket.
I then looked on this forum and saw a letter that Forum member Bogsy had used which had had success so emailed that to the council. What I didn't realise is that this letter is for PCN tickets, whereas mine is a SCT . the council replied telling me as much and saying the penalty still stands. They also went onto say 'before a Charge issued under such circumstances can be waived, the motorist must comply with three criteria. Firstly, it must be the first SCT issued to the vehicle for this reason. Secondly, a copy of the pay and display ticket purchased at the time must be provided. Thirdly, that pay and display ticket must be shown to have been present in the vehicle at the time. If a pay and display ticket can be seen in the vehicle, albeit partly hidden or face down, and it is identifiable as the copy ticket that has been provided, the Charge may be waived.
On this occasion you are only able to comply with the first two criteria. If a copy of a pay and display ticket were to be accepted when it had not been visible in the vehicle, it would allow opportunities for abuse of, and subsequent breakdown of, the pay and display system. Having considered the circumstances, I regret that you have provided no grounds under which the Charge may be waived.'

It really guts me that I had a ticket but I'm still being fined £40.

Does anyone know are there any other avenues I can try to get this ticket cancelled? Any help would be very gratefully accepted.
Gan
Standard charge tickets are still issued by a few councils under the Road Traffic Regulation as criminal offences
They're enforced by the magistrates

They don't have the statutory process and appeal system as the Penalty Charge Notices issued under civil law and enforced as debts

If their letter doesn't mention another appeal stage, if unpaid it goes to the magistrates where it's going to be expensive and time-consuming even if you win
No real alternative to paying it
Mad Mick V
Rabbit off here!

That car park is noted in the Wycombe District Council (Off Street Parking Places) (Civil Enforcement) Order II 2008 and it looks like it issues PCNs under the Civil Enforcement Regs.

On the TPT website!

I was led to believe that to get CE there could not be a dual system in operation. In other words in submitting their request for CE powers the County had to demonstrate that all car parks would subscribe to that legislation.

Mick
DancingDad
Post up all the etc and rejection letter pls.
At the moment this is reading more like a private parking ticket then anything else.
Neil B
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 29 Apr 2014 - 22:53) *
I was led to believe that to get CE there could not be a dual system in operation. In other words in submitting their request for CE powers the County had to demonstrate that all car parks would subscribe to that legislation.

Mick

Originally IIRC they could continue off street under RTRA 1984 and use CPE for on-street; I think it would be where the enforcement authorities differed, i.e., as here, WDC vs whatever County Council or Borough it came under.
It probably made sense based on the separate ownership of land - each locale owning its own car parks.

Not sure if it's changed though so you may be right. the TRO suggests you are.
DancingDad
Whether it is rtra1984 or tma 2004 the relevant legislation should be on the notice.
However the stc says private land and the rejection supposedly says contract law??
If that's the case this is not the difference between criminal or decrim legislation it is civil law as implied contract and the stc is a speculative invoice.
I'm not 100% so want to see paperwork.
Bogsy
I recall that this topic came up a few months ago. By order Wycombe has been designated as a civil enforcement area.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2344/contents/made

Therefore, off street car parks within Wycombe that are regulated by an order made pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as this car park appears to be) must be enforced under the TMA 2004. Meaning a PCN must be served and any appeal must follow the TMA 2004 regulations.

Wycombe appears to be acting unlawfully. Go get'em!
hcandersen
Post all of the ticket, including the back.Leave in the location and dates.Can you obtain a pic of the tariff/notice board at the car park?
Jetlag
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
Hi all, thanks for all the interest and info. Here's the pics of the tickets front and back I'm going to the car park tomorrow so will get a photo of the tariff/notice board. I got the ticket on the 14th April. Called them straight away and was told to email a photo which I did. I then didn't hear anything so called again on the 23rd April they said they would be in touch. On 24th I received a reply saying they would not reverse their decision. On 28th I emailed them bogsy's letter, on 29th I received this reply
'Parking on Private Land under Contract Terms & Conditions 2014
Standard Charge Ticket: PSxxxxxxxx Issued on: 14/04/2014
Vehicle Registration: Make: Colour:
Description of Breach: 83 Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock
Location of Breach: CENTRAL, MARLOW CDKE02
Date and Time of Breach: 14/04/2014 14:49


Thank you for your email dated 28/04/14 in connection with the issue of the above Standard Charge Ticket (SCT).

You have enclosed a copy of the pay and display ticket purchased at the time but this had fallen to the floor and could not be seen by the Parking Officer. As stated previously, there are two parts to a pay and display system; in order to be considered valid, a pay and display ticket must be displayed in such a way as to be visible and legible from outside the vehicle.

Before a Charge issued under such circumstances can be waived, the motorist must comply with three criteria. Firstly, it must be the first SCT issued to the vehicle for this reason. Secondly, a copy of the pay and display ticket purchased at the time must be provided. Thirdly, that pay and display ticket must be shown to have been present in the vehicle at the time. If a pay and display ticket can be seen in the vehicle, albeit partly hidden or face down, and it is identifiable as the copy ticket that has been provided, the Charge may be waived.

On this occasion you are only able to comply with the first two criteria. If a copy of a pay and display ticket were to be accepted when it had not been visible in the vehicle, it would allow opportunities for abuse of, and subsequent breakdown of, the pay and display system.

Having considered the circumstances, I regret that you have provided no grounds under which the Charge may be waived. I have noted your comments with regard to legislation, but the Statutory Guidance you have provided refers to Penalty Charge Notices issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Your vehicle was issued with a Standard Charge Ticket because it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions that apply within our car parks, as stated in the heading above. The adjudication procedure to which you refer applies to a Penalty Charge Notice, but is not available for a Standard Charge.

The Council is satisfied that the SCT was issued legally and correctly, and that the Charge remains due. The Council is willing to accept the discounted amount of £40 providing it is received within fourteen days. Failure to pay will result in the full Standard Charge of £60.00 becoming due, and could render you liable to civil action for breach of contract / trespass in the County Court, or the debt being passed to a debt collection agency.

Payments can be made;
· By phone with a credit/debit card
· On the Internet with a credit / debit card (http://www.wycombe.gov.uk)
· By post by cheque or postal order – DO NOT SEND CASH IN THE POST

Please make cheques payable to: WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL, and write the PCN number, PS4500592A , and vehicle registration, on the back of the cheque. If you would like a receipt, please enclose a stamped self-addressed envelope.

Wycombe District Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. We hold information for the purposes specified in our notification to the Information Commissioner and may use this information for any of them. If we do it will only be as the law permits, to check the accuracy of information, prevent fraud or detect crime or to protect public funds.'

So if anyone can advise how I should proceed that would be great

Best regards,
DancingDad
Private parking ticket issued by a council.

I'm not familiar enough with best practice to advise sorry
Gan
Now I've seen this, I'm inclined to agree with the others

This now looks like the council have been very naughty and dressed up a private ticket issued under contract law as a criminal ticket to be enforced by the magistrates

How about flushing them out ?

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I note your letter dated ****

In order that I can understand my legal position, please state clearly the legislation that you are relying on to assert my liability for payment for a Standard Charge Ticket

1 The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that is enforced by the magistrates court ?
2 The Traffic Management Act 2004 ?
3 Contract Law ?
4 Trespass Law ?

If #1 or #2, why have you failed to disclose the legislation ?
If #3 or #4, why have you used a title that was previously reserved for tickets issued under the Road Traffic Regulation Act ?
If #3 or #4, damages are restricted to your losses directly resulting from the breach or trespass.
I dispute that you have suffered any loss at all
Please explain your calculation that you have lost £60 and how it can vary depending on the date of payment

Until I receive a satisfactory response, I cannot consider making any payment

Yours faithfully


Remove all your identification details from that post
Bogsy
Under "Appeals Process" the RTRA 1984 is mentioned which suggests an off street parking place order exists which would mean enforcement must be under the TMA 2004 since there appears to be no amendment to the Designation Order removing off street car parks from the designated area.

http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services...ge-tickets.aspx

This could be embarrassing for Wycombe.
Jetlag
Thanks for the info. I find it hard to get upto speed with all the legal rules etc. but I think I'll try sending Gan's letter.

Should I go into more detail concerning the apparent contradiction between the RTRA 1984 & TMA 2004 which Bogsy has highlighted. Or do you think I should just send Gan's letter as it is?
Mad Mick V
Getting stranger and stranger.

Need a photo of the car park sign and conditions as per hca.

This Council's website indicates the STC is a civil debt with no mention of magistrates, BUT refers to the TMA!!

Gan's suggestion is excellent--flush them out.

I would also be inclined to submit a complaint to the Local Authorities Ombudsman on the basis of members comments with a copy being sent to the Dept for Transport in relation to the CPE glitch.

Mick
Jetlag
Photos of carpark signClick to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Jetlag
More carpark photos.
I am now going to send the email suggested by Gan & let you know what happens!Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Gan
Wonder what the sign said before they applied all the stickers
DancingDad
Is OP the registered Keeper ???
bama
interesting..
no time at the mo' - later.
anyone got a link to the in force TRO
Barry S
I'm no expert, but to me those signs look like Wycombe District Council are playing at being a PPC...Though they appear to be missing any mention of POPLA!

As for the car park itself, that's in Marlow, rather than High Wycombe, but there appears to be some sort of arrangement whereby Sainsbury's customers can get a refund on the parking.

Unfortunately, GSV images are dated 2008(!) at which point the store appears to have been a Waitrose, and Bing haven't got round to doing a Streetside run yet.
Jetlag
I think Marlow is part of wycombe district council & yes sainsburys give you a refund for the ticket when you shop there. When I emailed my ticket to the council I also included my sainsburys receipt showing my carpark ticket refund. If anymore info photos are needed let me know. I have emailed Gan's letter to the council and when I get a reply I'll post it. Once again thanks to all for the help and the great legal knowledge that I am very much lacking in!!
bama
QUOTE (orford @ Thu, 1 May 2014 - 16:52) *

Ta
how you know that is the in force TRO ?
that library is notoriously err 'inreliable'
Bogsy
To enforce under contract law Wycombe will have needed to revoke by order the 2008 order linked above and then comply with the BPA code. Don't see any evidence of this.
bama
agreed. even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it seems unlikely they have unwound it.
still like to see the in force TRO. you know I love 'em - and some have HUGE errors and this dogs dinner bodes....
Mad Mick V
Agree with Bogsy and bama but would also look at the land question as another strand in this farrago.

I would suspect that the plot of land on which the car park rests was originally acquired by compulsory purchase.

Ergo ownership is invested in the Council and because of its method of acquisition, it must be public land.

IMO the only way the Council can class all off-street car parks as private land is if it sold them off to a private concern and was managing the car parks on an agency basis. However there does not appear any news blurbs which suggest this has happened.

Second, if the Council set up a limited company say "Wycombe Car Parks Limited" and transferred ownership of the land or let at a peppercorn I suspect its auditors would take an extremely dim view of that transaction.

Mick
astralite
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 2 May 2014 - 18:14) *
Agree with Bogsy and bama but would also look at the land question as another strand in this farrago.

I would suspect that the plot of land on which the car park rests was originally acquired by compulsory purchase.

Ergo ownership is invested in the Council and because of its method of acquisition, it must be public land.

IMO the only way the Council can class all off-street car parks as private land is if it sold them off to a private concern and was managing the car parks on an agency basis. However there does not appear any news blurbs which suggest this has happened.

Second, if the Council set up a limited company say "Wycombe Car Parks Limited" and transferred ownership of the land or let at a peppercorn I suspect its auditors would take an extremely dim view of that transaction.

Mick

The land question could be v interesting.... and I had been wondering about accounting and auditing (I'm as ignorant of both as I am about road traffic law so disregard the following if daft). How does a council account for a receipt from a Standard Charge Ticket by asking that the payment be accompanied by a PCN number which the OP does not have? If he put the SCT number into pay what would happen? Does all the money, regardless of the 'regime' in force just go into one 'parking pot'?
DancingDad
According to the Parking Services Yearly Report 2011-2012
http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/Core/DownloadDoc...documentID=6170

TMA2004 enforcement was in full swing with Bucks CC as EA for on street and Wycombe DC for Off Street.
Details in the report on how to challenge PCNs, full appeals route all way to adjudicator..... Full CPE

Now their web site talks of STCs ...somewhere in last year or so, it changed. Can't find where but still trawling through.
hcandersen
Parking penalties are not a debt in the normal sense of the word as regards councils' accounting practices. This is a shocking state of affairs. If they were debt, then councils' standard procedures for writing-off would apply i.e. restricted to specified officers up to a certain level, thereafter only with specified councillor approval, and required to be reported to the council. But parking sits outside these practices and £millions gets written-off every year without proper explanation or audit. To take the classic example of authorities not contesting an appeal at adjudication, each of these is a de facto write-off and if one were to aggregate these for any authority in London would amount to £'000s due and owing to the council taxpayer being written-off without any proper internal scrutiny in the council. In any other area of council activity, the officers would be held to account for their actions by audit, but not with parking: there is no proper and effective audit of these activities, all they worry about by way of a smoke-screen is whether there's an audit trail for parking income from machines and that any surplus in the account is properly applied.
The nub of the issue is that audit do not consider a PCN to be an invoice, but of course it is: it is a demand for payment served by the council and has a unique identifier i.e. the PCN number. Instead, PCNs sit in a procedural limbo as regards proper audit. IMO, all PCNs should be reported to councils at their full rate, all writes-off by way of the acceptance of the discount shown evidentially, all writes-off at the full amount explained i.e. acceptance of challenges/reps, lost at adjudication, DNC (which is not a lost adj but a write-off), all surcharges accounted for etc, etc. In this way, the competence or otherwise of parking services up and down the land would be examined. Annual reports are a smoke-screen in this regard.
Incandescent
Hmm, I don't think you're correct on that. A PCN is an allegation even though councils tend to treat them as invoices. The law permits the recipient to pay up or dispute the matter, and if disputed there is only a debt at the end of it.
hcandersen
No. PCNs are demands for payment, that is wat they state. But they are not treated as invoices for the very reasons I stated. If they were treated as invoices, then they would appear in the council's accounts as such, but they don't. With respect, this is not a point open to debate, it's fact. Penalty charges lie in a parallel financial universe and because of this escape proper scrutiny which would lead back to some of the scandalous activities of authorities and might open councillors' eyes to what's actually happening.
DancingDad
TBH, I'm more interested in what can be done about Jetlag's STC - Gan's letter should rattle the tree and from what I know about contract law is sound. They cannot claim penalties under UK contract law, only actual costs that are incurred by someone breaching the contract.
And the little I know on PPC disputes seems to be based on that.
I also know that contracts can have conditional clauses that require payments, discounts etc if that is agreed within the contract.
But parties have to agree to the contract for it to be valid and for those clauses to be upheld in law.

So what makes someone who parks in one of Wycombe's car parks a party to the contract ? Or what doesn't ?
And neglecting whether or not they can drop TMA and start up as a PPC, what needs to be in place for them to operate as a PPC ?
Bogsy
PCN's are not an invoice nor exactly a demand for payment. They are an allegation of a parking contravention and payment is only required if you do not dispute the allegation. Council's cannot treat them as invoices since the allegation may be proved or found to be wrong. It is almost impossible to accurately audit PCN income and debt since it is difficult to know if they will be successfully challenged and the outcome in many cases can take months.
Incandescent
Whatever they are, people seem eager to pay them, more eager than other demands on their money, I suspect. Why ? I suspect the implicit legal threats in the PCN, and the sneaky discount offer combine to "persuade" people payment is in their best interests.
bama
payable doesn't mean its a debt/invoice, just that the LA will take money to drop the matter.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...icle&id=178

reasons its not audited are manifold....
Mad Mick V
This was the County Council's application for Civil Enforcement:-

http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgConvert2...ID=4316&J=1

Para 2
The CEA/SEA will include those off-street locations currently enforced by the District Council, including those within the boundaries of the current CEA/SEA, where off-street locations were previously excluded.

Mick
bama
nice find !
had a quick 'find' and couldn't find the signed formal review of TROs as per
"7 TRO confirmation" in this http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/CPEappform%20dec%202008.pdf

I don't ever recall that signed document seeing the light of day for any council application. wanna try getting a copy of it from the DfT ?
Jetlag
Hi All,
I've just had a reply to the last email which was suggested I send to the council. I've printed it below. If anyone has any suggestions as to what my next move should be, I'd be grateful to hear.

'Thank you for your email dated 01/05/14. Please find below clarification from the Parking Services Manager, :

As per our tariff board, the car park is private land and subject to contract law, therefore the driver agrees to park according to the terms and conditions that apply. If the car is not parked in accordance with those terms and conditions, it is in breach of said conditions.

As far as the charges are concerned, there are several levels of charge which include discounts; this reflects the amount of work involved in collecting fees, or the handling of breaches to terms and conditions.

The full cost is an average; it does not cover our expenses, and we would supply a breakdown of these costs to the magistrate or adjudicator if it were to go to court. Costs incurred include manpower in the issue and process of breach of conditions, together with enforcement computerised systems overheads, which would not be necessary if customers did not breach the terms and conditions that apply.

The discounted amounts available are:

a) £25 if paid within 48 hours of issue without recourse to appeal (contributes to initial manpower issue and process costs)
b) £40 if paid within 14 days of issue (further work and manpower hours undertaken to process)
c) £60 if unpaid after 14 days of issue (extended man hours to identify keeper, and further letters)
d) After this period legal costs are incurred and/or debt collection costs, and if court proceedings are undertaken, we may request additional costs to be claimed in addition.

You are correct to state that our charges are to recover our costs. We are allowed to charge up to £100 in the first instance with a reduction if paid within the first 14 days. We have introduce better discounts and lower costs in order to close cases as quickly as possible, even though it still costs more to collect in the case of a breach of conditions. These costs are kept to a minimum as far as possible although if more work is required on individual cases, it will inevitably add to the overall cost.

I hope that the above answers your queries. As your correspondence was received while the case stood within the extended discount period, the Council is able to accept the amount of £40 for a further fourteen days. After this time, the case will revert to the full amount at which it was issued and the amount of £60.00 will become due.

Payments can be made;
· By phone with a credit/debit card
· On the Internet with a credit / debit card (http://www.wycombe.gov.uk)
· By post by cheque or postal order – DO NOT SEND CASH IN THE POST

Please make cheques payable to: WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL, and write the PCN number, , and vehicle registration, on the back of the cheque. If you would like a receipt, please enclose a stamped self-addressed envelope.

Failure to pay the amount due, as stated above, will result in the full Standard Charge of £60.00 becoming due, and could render you liable to civil action for breach of contract / trespass in the County Court, or the debt being passed to a debt collection agency.

Wycombe District Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. We hold information for the purposes specified in our notification to the Information Commissioner and may use this information for any of them. If we do it will only be as the law permits, to check the accuracy of information, prevent fraud or detect crime or to protect public funds.

Yours sincerely



Case Officer
Parking Services Administration

Barry S
QUOTE (Jetlag @ Wed, 14 May 2014 - 17:36) *
Hi All,
I've just had a reply to the last email which was suggested I send to the council. I've printed it below. If anyone has any suggestions as to what my next move should be, I'd be grateful to hear.

'Thank you for your email dated 01/05/14. Please find below clarification from the Parking Services Manager, :

As per our tariff board, the car park is private land and subject to contract law, therefore the driver agrees to park according to the terms and conditions that apply. If the car is not parked in accordance with those terms and conditions, it is in breach of said conditions.


I do believe they've just shafted themselves royally with that statement...The next step would seem to be to get a validation code to appeal to POPLA, though a quick look at the BPA "Approved Operators" list doesn't show Wycombe District Council.

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe their behaviour! *gets the popcorn out*

Gan
Dear Sir

Thank You for your reply confirming that the standard charge notice was issued under contract law
You have not, however, explained why it was called by this name

The title is only used for notices issued under the Road Traffic Regulation Act - for a criminal offence. I also note the reference in your reply to magistrates and adjudicators. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states very clearly that you must not use expressions that suggest to the public that you are providing enforcement under statutory authority. I believe that you have deliberately attempted to mislead me regarding my legal position

I note your extensive description of your costs but you have ignored my specific question
In what way has a paid for ticket that has fallen on the floor cost caused you any loss at all ?

I am also confused by your claim that you "are allowed to charge £100 in the first instance". Allowed by whom ?
Please correct me if I am in error but it appears that your Parking Services Manager has selectively and misleadingly twisted the wording of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The full text states :

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended
amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading.


The amount is not "allowed" as he has misrepresented. It is the amount that the BPA warns could trigger an investigation as an unfair trading practice if exceeded. I also fail to understand why your Parking Services Manager believes that the "allowed" sum is not punitive or unreasonable when it considerably exceeds the statutory payment for contraventions under the Traffic Management Act

In summary, I have the reasonable belief that, as a result of numerous breaches of the BPA Code of Practice, the council has misrepresented its authority and attempted to mislead me. If I do not receive a satisfactory response to the specific points that i have made in this letter, I will refer the matter to the Council's Legal Officer

Yours Faithfully
Bogsy
Nice letter Gan. I would also include a paragraph requesting evidence that the Wycombe District Council (Off-Street Parking Places) (Civil Enforcement) Order (II) 2008 and any subsequent Order has been revoked by Order. If this order has not been revoked then it remains in play and enforcement would have to comply with the TMA 2004.
Jetlag
Great!
Thanks so much Gan & Bogsy, I'll fire off an email to the council now & let you know the outcome. I think the council must be getting pretty fed up with me by now. But I did have a ticket!
Jetlag
Hi All, here's the latest reply from the council regarding the parking ticket.

'Thank you for your email dated 15/05/14 which has been referred to me for attention.

You have raised a number of issues which do not relate to the issue of the Standard Charge Ticket itself, but to the legislation which governs the parking operation. These must be dealt with as an entirely separate matter, and have been referred to our legal department. For information, neither the TMA or old parking order 2008, or statutory legislation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act for regulated land currently apply to our private land car park operating under contract law. This is a separate and unconnected issue.

Attached hereto please find a “Have we got it right” Leaflet; if you feel that the correct procedures have not been followed, this will allow the opportunity to submit a complaint through the correct channels.

With regard to the issue of Standard Charge Ticket no.XxxxxxxxxxxR your appeals have been considered and rejected and no grounds have been provided under which the Charge may be waived. Conditions of Pay & Display are that a ticket must be paid and displayed when parked in the car park. This shows that a specific vehicle has paid for the parking at the time. We are unable to accept tickets produced after the event as we cannot verify the vehicle to which it refers.

The Council is satisfied that the SCT was issued legally and correctly and that the Charge remains due. There are now two options available to you:
Option 1 : Pay the Standard Charge
The Standard Charge currently still stands within the discount period. £40 will be accepted to close the case providing it is received within 14 days. After this time, if no payment is received, the case will revert to the full amount of £60 at which it was issued. To prevent any further costs being added to the Standard Charge, please forward your remittance for £60.00 in settlement of the above within the next 14 days.
Payments can be made:
· By phone with a credit/debit card
· On the Internet with a credit / debit card (http://www.wycombe.gov.uk)
· By post by cheque or postal order – DO NOT SEND CASH IN THE POST
Please make cheques payable to: WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL, and write the PCN number, PS4500592A, and vehicle registration on the back of the cheque. If you would like a receipt, please enclose a stamped self - addressed envelope.
Option 2 : Opt for case to be heard in Court
You have the option to have this case heard in a Magistrates Court. If you wish to do this you have to specifically state, in writing, that this is your wish. The case will then be passed to the Council's Legal department who will instigate the process. Please note that you may be liable for any or all costs incurred.
Failure to pay the amount due within fourteen days will result in the full Standard Charge of £60.00 becoming due, and could render you liable to prosecution in the Magistrates Court, or the debt being passed to a debt collection agency.
If a prosecution in the Magistrates Court is successful, a contribution towards the Council’s costs of bringing the prosecution may be included.
Please note that no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter unless option two is chosen.
Wycombe District Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. We hold information for the purposes specified in our notification to the Information Commissioner and may use this information for any of them. If we do it will only be as the law permits, to check the accuracy of information, prevent fraud or detect crime, or to protect public funds.'

Not sure where I can go from here. Going to court sounds expensive!
Once again any advice is gratefully received.
Mad Mick V
I think the Magistrates Court option rather nails them. That would be the norm where a Council issued an Excess Charge Notice in an area where parking had not been decriminalised.

They confuse their public and private persona. If they insist this is a private, contractual matter how the hell does a Magistrates Court come into play?

As I said earlier this matter needs to be investigated by the LA Ombudsman. This is IMO the optimum route because it looks like access to the Adjudicators will be denied to you. You might even be awarded compensation for maladministration.

Let other members comment but I am sure we could cobble up an Ombudsman appeal.

Mick
DancingDad
Don't take this as gospel but I quite like option two
Magistrates court for a civil dispute boggls the mind.
But given the three options they give it is my choice
astralite
QUOTE (Jetlag @ Mon, 19 May 2014 - 20:35) *
Hi All, here's the latest reply from the council regarding the parking ticket.

'Thank you for your email dated 15/05/14 which has been referred to me for attention.

You have raised a number of issues which do not relate to the issue of the Standard Charge Ticket itself, but to the legislation which governs the parking operation. These must be dealt with as an entirely separate matter, and have been referred to our legal department. For information, neither the TMA or old parking order 2008, or statutory legislation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act for regulated land currently apply to our private land car park operating under contract law. This is a separate and unconnected issue.

Attached hereto please find a “Have we got it right” Leaflet; if you feel that the correct procedures have not been followed, this will allow the opportunity to submit a complaint through the correct channels.

With regard to the issue of Standard Charge Ticket no.XxxxxxxxxxxR your appeals have been considered and rejected and no grounds have been provided under which the Charge may be waived. Conditions of Pay & Display are that a ticket must be paid and displayed when parked in the car park. This shows that a specific vehicle has paid for the parking at the time. We are unable to accept tickets produced after the event as we cannot verify the vehicle to which it refers.

The Council is satisfied that the SCT was issued legally and correctly and that the Charge remains due. There are now two options available to you:
Option 1 : Pay the Standard Charge
The Standard Charge currently still stands within the discount period. £40 will be accepted to close the case providing it is received within 14 days. After this time, if no payment is received, the case will revert to the full amount of £60 at which it was issued. To prevent any further costs being added to the Standard Charge, please forward your remittance for £60.00 in settlement of the above within the next 14 days.
Payments can be made:
· By phone with a credit/debit card
· On the Internet with a credit / debit card (http://www.wycombe.gov.uk)
· By post by cheque or postal order – DO NOT SEND CASH IN THE POST
Please make cheques payable to: WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL, and write the PCN number, PS4500592A, and vehicle registration on the back of the cheque. If you would like a receipt, please enclose a stamped self - addressed envelope.
Option 2 : Opt for case to be heard in Court
You have the option to have this case heard in a Magistrates Court. If you wish to do this you have to specifically state, in writing, that this is your wish. The case will then be passed to the Council's Legal department who will instigate the process. Please note that you may be liable for any or all costs incurred.
Failure to pay the amount due within fourteen days will result in the full Standard Charge of £60.00 becoming due, and could render you liable to prosecution in the Magistrates Court, or the debt being passed to a debt collection agency.
If a prosecution in the Magistrates Court is successful, a contribution towards the Council’s costs of bringing the prosecution may be included.
Please note that no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter unless option two is chosen.
Wycombe District Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. We hold information for the purposes specified in our notification to the Information Commissioner and may use this information for any of them. If we do it will only be as the law permits, to check the accuracy of information, prevent fraud or detect crime, or to protect public funds.'

Not sure where I can go from here. Going to court sounds expensive!
Once again any advice is gratefully received.

They say 'Attached hereto please find a “Have we got it right” Leaflet; if you feel that the correct procedures have not been followed, this will allow the opportunity to submit a complaint through the correct channels.'
Does the leaflet contain anything of relevance and/or process pre Ombudsman?
Gan
Magistrates Court is going to be a bit difficult when they say in the same message that the Road Traffic Act doesn't apply and it's been issued under Contract Law
Mad Mick V
And this is what they did!!!!

https://councillors.wycombe.gov.uk/mgConver...h=%22parking%22

Totally illegal in my opinion without permission from the Secretary of State to revoke the standing Civil Enforcement Area legislation.

Minutes from their Cabinet Meeting on 2 December 2013 (held in private for this item)

Cabinet approval was sought to implement Automated Number Plate Recognition systems at off street car parks across the district to enable a more efficient service. The following decisions were made as following a trial in Easton Street Multi Storey Car Park and Railway Place, the Council wished to roll out ANPR across other off-street car parks in the Wycombe District. In order to roll out ANPR the Council would need to revise and update its Off Street Parking Places Orders.



RESOLVED: That (i) the September 2008 and May 2013 Off-Street Parking Places Orders made under s.35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 be revoked and replaced with an up to date Off-Street Parking Places Order excluding car parks where Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was to be used;



(ii) Enforcement using contract and trespass law be rolled out to all car parks using ANPR; and

(iii) Parking charges (relating to non-payment and over staying) and minor amendments to the Off-Street Parking Places Order be delegated to the Head of Environment in consultation with the Head of Democratic, Legal and Policy Services and Head of Finance and Commercial Services and the respective Cabinet Members.


Mick
DancingDad
QUOTE (Gan @ Mon, 19 May 2014 - 22:17) *
Magistrates Court is going to be a bit difficult when they say in the same message that the Road Traffic Act doesn't apply and it's been issued under Contract Law


Which is what makes the option so tempting :-))))

Nice find on those minutes Mick
You'd think the Head of Legal would be more au fait with legalities.
Bogsy
If as the minutes suggest their off street car parks are regulated by order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 then Wycombe have no choice other than to enforce under the Traffic Management Act 2004 unless the CPE Designation Order has been amended to exclude Wycombe's off street car parks. I can find no evidence (a statutory instrument) that this has been done.

This case perfectly demonstrates how parking enforcement is too often in the hands of those not fit for purpose. They don't have a bloody clue what law they are working to nor of the correct due process.

Don't let them off the hook when everything appears to be in your favour.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.