Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: help with nto please
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Bluedart
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Tue, 18 Nov 2014 - 17:12) *
well I have the case summary the council have sent. Is there anything specific you need to see?? Hope the photbucket picture works. link below




Shows how those replying on Heron v Parking adjudicator can apply the wrong interpretation.
pottsygsxr
how do you mean?? have they got it wrong??
Bluedart
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Tue, 18 Nov 2014 - 17:22) *
how do you mean?? have they got it wrong??


As I understand it, they have interpreted the Heron case to suit themselves.

Read some of the comments here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...64025&st=10
pottsygsxr
...so what`s everyones opinion?? do you think i`m scuppered then??
hcandersen
We've still not seen their photos.

Your challenge and reps both challenged the clarity of the lines (although in your challenge you acknowledged that you knew that you were in a parking place but not a disabled one!) and IMO the authority are obliged to present evidence to support their statements in the NOR. So, where are they?
pottsygsxr
i have them here. If you can give me ten mins or so i`ll copy them for you.....they have sent basically all the correspondence between us and all evidence ...bit too much to take a icture of everything really?? i`ll post their pics up.
hcandersen
All I want is evidence which supports their claim that the parking place was sufficiently well signed, a simple statement on their part that it's clear is not sufficient in these circumstances.
pottsygsxr















hope these are of some help...i`m sure there may be a link to their online ones near the beginnning of the thread??...anyways hope these will do for the moment
Mad Mick V
If they quote the Heron case you have them on the back foot!! The bays are not clearly deliniated --end of. Having a sign means sod all if you can't determine the bays involved via road markings.

Other members may be better positioned to offer advice on the Councils photos on their website. None of them are timed or dated which, to me, makes them inadmissible as evidence.

Mick
pottsygsxr
the pics do have the time and dates ...bit hard to see from the photos... you can see some of them just...on the edge
Mad Mick V
Yep---Specsavers tomorrow. Knowing my luck I'll get the pink pair with the elastoplast over one lens!!!!

Mick
pottsygsxr
ha, they`re not the best pics, i just quickly put them up to give everyone a bit idea really. Wil hopefully see what else everyone thinks as no doubt the tribunal won`t be that far away.
DancingDad
I stick by what I said earlier, parked in error as the signs and lines were inadequate to show the prohibition.

As others have said, Herron case does not absolve any council from their mandatory duty to adequately convey any restriction to the reasonably aware motorist. Substantial compliance only means that a motorist cannot rely on a minor defect cancelling the whole restriction, it does not mean that a council can simply stick up a pole sign, let white lines degenerate, highlight a part of the bay with different coloured tarmac and hope that a motorist will interpret the signs correctly. Nor that they can enforce if a motorist does not interpret the signs when the signs are unclear.

You may need to remind the adjudicator of this.
The basic is that had it been clear that it was a disabled bay you would not have parked there. Signs and lines regulations exist so the reasonably aware motorist is not required to play guessing games.
pottsygsxr
Thanks DD. Is it worth sending a quick letter along the lines of what you have said to the case... I have until the 22nd to add anything I wish. In assuming it's so the solicitor can have a look at the case first before the hearing.
pottsygsxr
Ok just off the phone and have a hearing date this Monday with the adjudicator... Next available slot won't be till Jan time so thought I'd just get on with it.

Is there anything you guys can help me with to prepare. All your help is so gratefully appreciated by the way. Never been to anything like this before so would be good to know what sort of angle to come from.
pottsygsxr
...another question...just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???
DancingDad
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Wed, 19 Nov 2014 - 20:19) *
...another question...just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???


Good question. Ask the adjudicator and ask if this shows proper consideration of the case. If there is one place that a council must get it right it is in the evidence pack. And making it up does not show the level of proof required.
pottsygsxr
ok, I`ll ask at the hearing on monday. Any advice or do`s and don`ts for monday?? or anything specific etc that I should be saying?...I really really want to win against the council!!
pottsygsxr
OK guys, i`m going to write up a few points about my case over the weekend to take in with me on monday to the hearing. Is there anything specific I should put in or say to the adjudicator?

in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double yellow lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??

pottsygsxr
in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??

Bluedart
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 17:05) *
in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



I haven't taken much interest in your case but, looking at the last picture, shows me there is something wrong.

At the point of the end of the DY, there should be a transverse line denoting the beginning of the bay. there isn't one. Has anyone else picked up on that point?
DancingDad
Forget the DYLs Bluedart, try this one from earlier in the thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=31474

Nicely defined Disabled bay complete with pole sign, road legend, differing coloured tarmac both in bay and under the legend, then the markings petering out.
I could have made the same mistake thinking they just hadn't replaced the divider between types of bay when they put that nice new tarmac down.
pottsygsxr
so what are you guys thinking?? am i in with a good chance on monday???

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-05.pdf

gonna print out some pages from the above link....hope the link works...page 121 and a couple of others about there.
Bluedart
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 17:46) *
Forget the DYLs Bluedart, try this one from earlier in the thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=31474

Nicely defined Disabled bay complete with pole sign, road legend, differing coloured tarmac both in bay and under the legend, then the markings petering out.
I could have made the same mistake thinking they just hadn't replaced the divider between types of bay when they put that nice new tarmac down.


So where does the disabled bay end? They should end at the point where the DY begin.

The TMO must show what is what, it is not up to us to play guessing games. Distances are all important.

Take this, School entrance markinkings were too long, They were shortened so that meant there was a gap between the corrected length of the school entrance sign and the DY. They forgot to alter the new length of the DY in the TRO. Council caved in when it was challenged. You cannot have a TRO?TMO giving lengths that does not accord with what is on the ground. We are not talking a bit, we are talking a fair distance. They hoped we would not notice.

DD, the picture you have shown is not the same picture in his last thread. There are no DY in your picture, but there is in his and I take it is all the same part of the bay.
pottsygsxr
yes bluedart it is all part of the same bay. I`ll post another pic and if you look in front of my car you will see the white vehicle which ties in with the pic that dancingdad refered to.




i`ve made some notes/points to take in with me on monday...what do you guys think.;

I parked where it was not clear that it was a disabled bay. Markings were very faded, invisible and although I could see the disabled legend on the road, I assumed that this applied to the dark tarmac and had no information to believe different.
Without clear markings, there can be no contravention.
Further to above, having looked at the NTO and the regulations, especially the General Regulations 2007 S19, the NTO fails to advise of the grounds that a CEO believed existed. There is no information regarding what should have been displayed and parking in a Disabled Bay is not automatically unlawful.
In that respect the contravention cited is unsafe and the PCN should be cancelled.
There is also the question of correct penalty. As higher or lower is sanctified by the Patrol agreement, using non-sanctioned words means that a penalty cannot be applied. In that respect, the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
I would also ask that you consider Other Compelling Reasons should you decide that enforcement continue. This was an honest mistake at worst. I truly believed that this was a normal parking bay. Absent of clear markings, this is an understandable error. In this respect I ask you to apply your discretion and cancel the PCN.


They failed to address the issue of signage/worn lines, failed to address the defective NTO contravention and cited the highway code in defence.
So an appeal will include both earlier points and failing to consider both those and other compelling reasons..



The end of bay markings as in the photos leave a lot to be desired. It can be inferred from the Double Yellows but so can the end being the "new" tarmac and that the disabled legend on the road seems more adjacent to that.

It can be inferred from the Double Yellows but so can the end being the "new" tarmac and that the disabled legend on the road seems more adjacent to that. Not the strongest argument IMO but not weak either, coupled with credibility in front of an adjudicator when you say, as you have here, that you genuinely did not know it was a disabled bay.

parked in error as the signs and lines were inadequate to show the prohibition

Herron case does not absolve any council from their mandatory duty to adequately convey any restriction to the reasonably aware motorist. Substantial compliance only means that a motorist cannot rely on a minor defect cancelling the whole restriction, it does not mean that a council can simply stick up a pole sign, let white lines degenerate, highlight a part of the bay with different coloured tarmac and hope that a motorist will interpret the signs correctly. Nor that they can enforce if a motorist does not interpret the signs when the signs are unclear.

You may need to remind the adjudicator of this.
The basic is that had it been clear that it was a disabled bay you would not have parked there. Signs and lines regulations exist so the reasonably aware motorist is not required to play guessing games

.just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???


It is stated that a driver must adhere to regulations…how are you meant to adhere to them when they are not clearly defined.
“”The sign plate and disabled road marking are adjacent to the bay, therefore the disabled badge holders only restriction is in force until the end of bay marking which was behind your vehicle.””….stated in an email reply…where is the end of the bay marking behind my car???
pottsygsxr
what does everyone think on my above points?? Do they seem like they should hopefully win the adjudicator over??
DancingDad
Need tweaking but almost there.
Will add more in morning.
Bluedart
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Sat, 22 Nov 2014 - 21:15) *
what does everyone think on my above points?? Do they seem like they should hopefully win the adjudicator over??


You did not know anything about the road markings, you only spotted that after you received a pcn. You parked with all intents and purposes in the belief that you had done so, outside of any restrictions. After you got your pcn, you then noticed that you had parked after the terminal 'T' bar at the end of the DY's, and whilst you did not know it at the time, there appears to be no restriction where I parked.
Try and get the adjudicator to decide the circumstances, don't you try and provide it.
pottsygsxr
That would be appreciated DD.

.... But there is no T bar at the end of the DY 's ?.?.. They just start at the back of my car?
Bluedart
QUOTE (pottsygsxr @ Sun, 23 Nov 2014 - 09:38) *
That would be appreciated DD.

.... But there is no T bar at the end of the DY 's ?.?.. They just start at the back of my car?


The photo you have shown in thread 69, clearly shows a 'T' bar at the end of the DY's. That 'T' marks the end or the beginning of the DY's. A parking bay must be clearly defined and in your case there is nothing apart from a longitudinal dotted line, there is no transverse line, either a double transverse for a single bay or one transverse line for more than one space. You do not nee a transverse line where the bay meets a raised kerb, but you do if it doesn't.
hcandersen
The authority are required to establish that a contravention occurred on the balance of probabilities.

They have offered in evidence the PCN, their CEO's notes, the NTO, your reps, their NOR and your earlier challenge and rejection.

Their burden is to convince the adj that you parked in a parking place which was sufficiently well signed by road markings and traffic signs to indicate the restriction which the vehicle is alleged to have contravened.

You're liable because you are the owner, but you were also the driver and the adj will hear your first-hand evidence as regards the contravention.

Without trawling back through this thread I cannot determine how much you have acknowledged in your reps. For example, have you acknowledged that you knew you were in a parking place which was still in effect because you saw road markings? If so, then I don't see how you could now claim that you didn't know you were in a parking place, and of course once you've acknowledged that the road markings were sufficiently clear to convey that it was a parking place you take on the obligation to establish the restriction. But if you saw lines but disregarded them as indicating that you were in an in-force parking place, then you must state this absolutely clearly. The adj will then be left to see whether you acted diligently and will then look at the photos. IMO, these do not establish that there is an in-force parking place which adjoins the end of the DYL. I don't see that you need to mention the word disabled at all, it's not the issue. What you need to do is to convince the adj that you were not aware that where you were parked was in a parking place which was in force. But if you've already admitted this.....

Bluedart
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 23 Nov 2014 - 09:56) *
The authority are required to establish that a contravention occurred on the balance of probabilities.

They have offered in evidence the PCN, their CEO's notes, the NTO, your reps, their NOR and your earlier challenge and rejection.

Their burden is to convince the adj that you parked in a parking place which was sufficiently well signed by road markings and traffic signs to indicate the restriction which the vehicle is alleged to have contravened.

You're liable because you are the owner, but you were also the driver and the adj will hear your first-hand evidence as regards the contravention.

Without trawling back through this thread I cannot determine how much you have acknowledged in your reps. For example, have you acknowledged that you knew you were in a parking place which was still in effect because you saw road markings? If so, then I don't see how you could now claim that you didn't know you were in a parking place, and of course once you've acknowledged that the road markings were sufficiently clear to convey that it was a parking place you take on the obligation to establish the restriction. But if you saw lines but disregarded them as indicating that you were in an in-force parking place, then you must state this absolutely clearly. The adj will then be left to see whether you acted diligently and will then look at the photos. IMO, these do not establish that there is an in-force parking place which adjoins the end of the DYL. I don't see that you need to mention the word disabled at all, it's not the issue. What you need to do is to convince the adj that you were not aware that where you were parked was in a parking place which was in force. But if you've already admitted this.....


And the authority are required to show that any road markings complied with the regs or had special authorisation. Do they comply?
pottsygsxr
I said ion reply to the council that I had parked where I did because I thought it was a normal parking space

... i also said that the road markings were unclear and confusing as to what is required of the motorist!!

....and as far as i`m aware I don`t think the road markings do comply ...but i`m no expert. I thought that there should be some white lines heading towards the kerb just where the DY lines start??
qafqa
The evidence submitted by the council is expected to be accurate, if you see something
that is incorrect point the error out to adjudicator. The adjudicators are remarkably astute about spotting such things but if you know of any mistakes and don't let the adjudicator know it is entirely reasonable for them to accept the evidence being used against you.
An example of an error which is probably inadvertent but if taken as a fact undermines your case if not challenged is the location of the sign as printed on the plan.
The photographs taken by the CEO show where the sign is located, it is not at the place marked on the plan which is misleading as it puts the sign closer to your car.
pottsygsxr
well a couple first off mistakes that the nto isn`t printed properly and in their reply the other day they say .....(.in the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says) " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???


..look at post 50 or 51...there wasn`t even any clock involved so why are they saying that??
qafqa
" as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???
That's the spirit icon_thumleft.gif
If you didn't point that out to the adjudicator it is likely the council would
get away with it by default. Just mention the problems with the councils
case and let the adjudicator decide, after all, there are so many.........
pottsygsxr
so is that just a winning point in my case or just a strong point?? on the nto it is misprinted...it says "....40 Parked in a designated disabled persons parking place without displaying a valid disabled" ......and that is it. They have forgotten to print the words " persons badge" IN There.

They have never even mentioned a clock before and can't understand why they have mentioned one here?
hcandersen
OP, why are you asking us if a point is winning or not? We're not the judge.

IMO, you should start by telling the adj that in addition to being the owner you were also driving and therefore have a first-hand recollection of events. Then say that it was your view then as it is now that you were not parked in a parking place subject to a current restriction. As the adj will see from the authority's photo ( tip: remember that you cannot point to a photo, you can only refer to it, so make sure you can identify any documents by referring to a time/date stamp and/or a page in the authority's evidence pack) there is a set of terminated yellow lines which you parked beyond. The photo appears to show some marks on the road, but these do not conform to any specified road marking with which you're familiar and therefore you did not believe you were parked in a parking place. You have other points which you would wish him to consider but you are aware that adjudicators are busy and you would not want to expand your argument until he has made a decision on the road markings and whether the authority had complied with its duty to convey restrictions clearly.

pottsygsxr
Well I was just asking as As you seem very knowledgeable as to what should /Shouldn't be mentioned.

Oh... I thought I would be able to take the evidence the council sent and point out the mistakes /pictures etc
hcandersen
Happy to march out of step, but if their alleged errors is the best plan, then I don't think much of it.

You've got an argument based on the lack of evidence to establish the authority's case and IMO you start with your strongest case based on the chronology of the adjudicator's thinking i.e. have the authority submitted evidence, what is it and on the face of it does it does it establish their case?
pottsygsxr
ok. They have sent a load of stuff yes but not sure how good it is. ref post 50, they sent that and basically the rest of it is pics that the warden took when he put ticket on car, all the replies (emails) between us basically them saying they refuse to cancel it and me saying that I didn`t know i was in a disabled bay. they have also enclosed the case summary
hcandersen
The process is:

Have the authority established a prima facie contravention on the balance of probabilities - car, markings, signs, timing etc?

Did they pursue the matter in accordance with the regs?

So the adj starts with 1 in order to avoid having to wade through a mass of paperwork unnecessarily.
pottsygsxr
not sure if they pursued in the correct accordance or not??

should i post a copy of the case summary or is that not a good idea??

...i also think they have a bit wrong where they say that " As the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly "

There was no clock anywhere near my car so how can they state that??
hcandersen
To start with, who cares?

Unless you were in a parking place which was marked and signed as required then we don't get to reps and responses. We don't get to the details if the adj finds that the parking place wasn't marked etc. correctly.

I'm afraid that you're in danger of obscuring the primary issues. By all means have a plan B, but don't let it obscure plan A.
pottsygsxr
so it`s basically up to the adjudicator as to what he thinks of the lines/road markings in the pictures??


....in your opinion...out of interest....what do you think about the lines beside my vehicle etc
pottsygsxr
should my first question/query be to say that the bay is not properly defined and I thought I wasn`t in a disabled bay and see where the adjudicator takes it from there??
hcandersen
At the time you did not think that you were stopped in a parking place and this view is reinforced by the authority's own evidence in the form of photo *** on page *** of their evidence pack.

I suggested the opening approach I would take in post #88.
pottsygsxr
Ok thank you hc... I'll start with how you described in that particular post.. 88
pottsygsxr
...... And the winner is........ NOT SCARBOROUGH COUNCIL....

Appeal allowed by the adjudicator..... Get in.

I would very much like to thank the individuals who took the time and effort to help me with my ticket. Give yourselves a big pat on the back. I can't thank you each enough for your help. I hope my result makes you feel very worthy of the work you Do. Thanks again.
DancingDad
That'll do, well done.

Any chance of a copy of the decision?
What was reasoning?
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.