Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for parking on the pavement despite signs saying to do so
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
cpaul
Hi,

We are in a spot and would really appreciate some advice.

My wife parked my car in Sutton and has since been issued with a PCN for contravention 62J - Parked with one or more wheels on or over the footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.

Other than daylight robbery, I have a few issues with the ticket.

The road is signposted instructing people to park half on the pavement in 'Marked Bays'. The bays were marked sometime ago and it is now impossible to tell where they are - or are not.

Having read another post (http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t50838-0.html) it is clear that the bays or signs on this road do not meet the requirements in http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/tsmchapter3.pdf

The ticket was issued by post and the photographic evidence is not clear exactly where the vehicle was parked so I can't take photos of the pavement / 'bay' where it was parked.

We appealed, but this was rejected at the initial stage.

My gut feeling is to take this to the adjudicator but we can't really afford the time so if we have no chance then we would rather just pay up.

On the other side (don't tell my wife this) - I wouldn't have parked there. I also suspect that the place she parked was never a marked bay. Having said that, for there to be signage saying park on the pavement but the bay markings illegible, I question how the council can issue PCNs for people parked outside these invisible bays.

Please help!

Thanks,

Chris
ManxRed
This should be in the Council Tickets Forum, press Report and ask a Mod to move it.
cpaul
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Tue, 28 Oct 2014 - 16:06) *
This should be in the Council Tickets Forum, press Report and ask a Mod to move it.


oh ... I thought that was where I had put it! Beginners error. Sorry.
orford

PCN issued 25th Sept. Council rejection 14th Oct

Interesting that the council say that, within that relatively short time,the road has been re-marked, which is a tacit admission that the previous markings were inadequate.

DancingDad
Have you seen the video or requested stills?
There is plenty of evidence that markings generally aren't/weren't up to scratch but an adjudicator will look at the actual video and stills to decide whether or not the information, markings, was sufficient or misleading.
The default in London is footway parking isn't allowed so absence of clear markings when it is, defaults to don't park there.
In that respect, concentrate on the misleading rather then the un-marked or faded aspect.
Without seeing the council pics or a better idea of location (which you obviously know even if the PCN pictures don't show it) it's difficult to advise on that bit.
The pole signs will help. They show parking is allowed on the footway so if her indoors was inside the boundaries set by these, unclear marking become misleading.
Incandescent
+1

Your photo shows a sign permitting parking in marked bays, but you say the markings are poor, but they look OK in the picture. Needless to say the part-footway parking applies beyond the sign, not in front of it. If you can give us a GSV reference, and some indication of where your wife parked it would greatly help.

I can't help but think that the PCN was generated using a sneaky little camera car, so it is puzzling why there are no council photos. Or are there ?

These camera cars have been heavily criticised by TPT, the adjudicators outside London as they film everything as they go along, and only when the car returns to base is the film processed and PCNs issued based on where the car is in relation to a GPS position generated on the car. As you can well imagine, errors are possible, but as most people fold and pay-up, they have no incentive whatsoever to correct these errors.

QUOTE
Case Number BF 05251K

Adjudicator’s Decision
Michael Flack
and
Bedford Borough Council

Penalty Charge Notice BF88001482 £70.00
Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
Mr Flack asked for his case to be decided at a telephone appeal but was not
available when the Tribunal telephoned him at the arranged time. He telephoned
soon after and was told I had allowed the appeal. Ms Sehmbi of the Council did
take part, however.
The PCN is dated 10 January 2011 and was issued by post in respect of a
contravention on 6 January 2011 at 13:06 relating to vehicle 7035 MF in Kings
Place for being parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting
and loading/unloading restrictions are in force. The PCN was issued on the basis
of a record from an approved device, namely a passing CCTV car.
The entire length of the video film of Mr Flack’s car is less than half a second. The
car is not positioned right up the kerb, as you would expect from a ‘parked’ car,
and the brake lights are clearly visible.
There is no suggestion that the car had stopped to load or unload. Mr Flack says
he had stopped to consult his ‘satnav’. It is entirely reasonable for a car to stop
for the short amount of time it takes to read a map or look at the ‘satnav’. While
many councils believe that a waiting restriction with a loading ban means ‘no
stopping’ this is not the case; for example, there it is lawful for the vehicle to stop
and set down or pick up a person.
Stopping for a short and reasonable period to check a map or ‘satnav’ does not
constitute ‘waiting’. In this case Mr Flack had stopped for less than a second and I
find that this did not amount to a contravention. Consequently this appeal is
allowed.
There is a further point – it is not clear why the Council considered it preferable
to use camera enforcement at this location. The Secretary of State’s Operational
Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement- Traffic
Management Act 2004 states at paragraph 8.78,
“The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only
where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not
practical.”
On the evidence there does not appear to be a reason why the CEO could not
have got out of the CCTV car and approached Mr Flack’s car. The CEO would have
seen Mr Flack consulting his ‘satnav’ and would have been able to speak to him.
Caroline Sheppard
Chief Adjudicator 31 March 2011


So if you look at the above adjudication, (and by the Chief Adjudicator, no less !), as well as appealing on inadequate road markings, you can also appeal on failure to have regard to the Statutory Guidance on Parking 2008, a legal duty on the council under the Traffic Management Act 2004, Section 87.

Of course, it is a TPT decision not PATAS, but cannot just be ignored

hcandersen
Would you please clearly differentiate between your pics and those of the authority, if any.

An adj would be interested in the markings at the location of the contravention, do you or the authority have any?

You've made formal reps and therefore I presume that someone's got pictures, after all they are the key. Either the vehicle was parked in an area where the footway parking ban had been disapplied, but beyond the markings, or it was parked outwith a permitted parking area. We're none the wiser, but it does rather go to the heart of the matter.

Without this info, we cannot really advise.

Your opportunity to pay the discount expires on 6 Nov.

As regards their NOR, it's non-compliant with the regs:

1. The statutory period for registering an appeal is 28 days beginning on the date of service, not from the date of service.

2. The authority may issue a charge certificate if neither the penalty has been paid nor an appeal has been made within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service and not as the NOR states 'after 28 days'. After 28 days from when, Christmas, my birthday?
cpaul
Thanks for you feedback so far. I have now attached the 'evidence' supplied by the council.

I have not got a video because they are saying I have to arrange an appointment and view it at their offices. But I don't live anywhere near Sutton!

I don't actually know where the vehicle was parked. The photos are not clear and there could be half a dozen places on that road that look like that. I am not sure if the image captions give us enough to go by?

We are 100% certain (as good as we can be without knowing the exact location) the vehicle was parked in the middle of a section of the road where there was a footway parking exemption.

Whether the car was parked in a marked bay that is not visible in the 'evidence' photos, whether it was parked slightly outside a marked bay or whether there is no bay at all on that particular bit of the road, we have no idea.

The state of the road markings at the time of the alleged contravention make it impossible to identify the bays with any certainty. As someone pointed out, the council have admitted the markings are poor and claim to have now repainted them. As far as I am aware, they have not repainted them yet despite their rejection letter suggesting so.

There is a blue sign as you enter the road with the symbol of a car half parked on the pavement and text saying 'In marked Bays'. At the end of the road there is the same sign symbol with a red line through it. At regular intervals there are repeated blue signs with the parking the pavement symbol and the text 'In Marked Bays Only'. These signs have no relation to the location of the bays. They have been randomly placed on lampposts facing the road.

There are many bays on that road where you could take a photo from a certain angle to make it look like there is no bay.

Google street view give you a clear idea of the road. The marking hadn't changed from what Google captured when my wife last drove down the road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3820029,-...C-eThvQ!2e0

This one shows a marked bay and sign in one shot.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3830079,-...SZ1CRVw!2e0

I think this is where she parked (where the red car is)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3812906,-...c1lnTgg!2e0

If it turns out that she mistakenly parked on the pavement because she thought it was a marked bay when actually it wasn't (easy mistake to make with the road markings) would there be any chance of appeal?

Thanks,

Chris





cpaul
Oh yes ...

In the middle evidence photo you can see the back of one of the Blue signs saying park on the pavement in marked bays.

Chris
DancingDad
Luvvly Jubbly
Now we cooking with Gas.

There are exemptions along the whole stretch of road for footway parking as shown by the pole mounted, start and finish signs at either end of the road along with regular repeater signs. The vehicle was parked within this exempted area as clearly defined by the pole mounted signs.

Whether or not the vehicle was parked within a marked bay is extremely difficult to judge.

Firstly, the PCN simply gives a location of Thornton Road but nothing more specific. Nothing to allow a motorist the opportunity to find the exact location and judge for themselves whether or not the specific bay markings exist and could be used to show the CEO was in error or indeed that the bay markings clearly didn't exist and that the motorist would be sensible to pay the discounted offer.
With an uncertain location, the PCN fails in its basic requirement to state the location. Simply stating the name of the road is insufficient when virtually the whole length of the road is exempted from the general footway parking ban that is enforced across London.

Secondly, the state of bay markings along the road is simply appalling. (photos attached). There are few, if any "marked bays" that are clearly defined enough to adequately convey the allowance for footway parking and many, the majority, where the motorist has to play guessing games if they are to park in an exempted area, trying to guess where one bay may start or end.
This leads to uncertain enforcement where a motorist may park adjacent to a driveway judging their position against the remnants of bay markings on other driveways but be outside of "marked" bays as far as a CEO is concerned. Especially a CEO patrolling in a CCTV car who may not even get out to see if any markings exist, if they are clear or if there is uncertainty.
The still photos that the council rely on do not help in solving this dilemma, while they do not seem to show clear bay markings, considering the state of markings generally along the road, they simply show there is doubt, not a certainty that no bay exists.
Given this uncertainty, the contravention cannot be judged to have occurred.

Procedural Impropriety
An enforcement authority has a mandatory duty to consider all challenges and grounds that may be put forward against enforcement of a PCN. Inherent within this duty is an expectation that reasons for rejecting any particular ground will be explained, thus giving the motorist the opportunity to judge whether the reasons are valid and accept the penalty or to appeal further.
In rejecting citing the general prohibition on footway parking and a bland statement that the exemption did not apply but still not saying why not in the specific parking spot, they fail to show any reason to accept the rejection or evidence of consideration.
They also show no evidence that they considered mitigating circumstances, shown on the PCN as "Compelling Reasons". They simply say "thank you for bringing the state of the markings to our attention, we will repaint them."
The Notice of Rejection fails to show any consideration of even the basic problems a motorist finds when faced with a confusion of substantially non-compliant markings.
I fully accept that the authority does not have to accept mitigation in the event that they believe no statutory ground prevails but they have a mandatory duty to consider and have failed to do so. This is a procedural impropriety.

More later on failing to correctly state the right to view video evidence but trying to juggle the right words at present.
cpaul
So (before we go in to the detail of the appeal),

On the basis that there is a high chance the car was parked outside a marked bay but the markings are misleading, do you think we should appeal further or pay the discounted rate?

Thanks,

Chris
DancingDad
QUOTE (cpaul @ Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 13:37) *
So (before we go in to the detail of the appeal),

On the basis that there is a high chance the car was parked outside a marked bay but the markings are misleading, do you think we should appeal further or pay the discounted rate?

Thanks,

Chris


That was the detail of the appeal as I see it but as always, see what others think.

An adjudicator will look at the video and the signs as shown in the council's evidence pack as well as any photos you provide. Without seeing the video, we cannot judge if there is a likelihood of it showing very clear and prominent markings showing a bay ended infront of the vehicle or not.
If there is a chance of that, there is little doubt that an adjudicator will find the contravention occurred.
An adjudicator may well find that even with worn markings, as the default in London is no footway parking, the absence of marked bays (due to wear and tear) means don't park there.
They may also decide that the pole signs allowing footway parking shows the exemption and if the council can't be bothered to mark the bays they cannot enforce if people do not use the bays.
I'd put that contravention decision 60/40 in your favour.
Then there are the procedurals. Stronger case here but as always, depends on the adjudicator and the day. I'd say 80/20 in your favour but cannot guarantee.
hcandersen
Back to the act, GLC(General Powers) 1974 that is.

A highway authority may by resolution (of the authority which in this case is a decision of the council) disapply the prohibition created by the act.

In short, a council may permit parking on the footway.

Such a resolution MUST detail the full extent of this permission.

It seems to me from the photos that all so-called bays have the same depth.

You can see that this extends to half the width of the car which is clearly shown and whose nearside doesn't reach the full depth. It therefore follows that half a car's width is a good measure of the depth, with a bit to spare.

Your car wasn't parked this far onto the footway.

IMO, even if we could see the bay, the car's offside (in this case) would not extend beyond the depth of the bay.

If there was a contravention, then it must have been longitudinal and not lateral i.e. the front or rear, or both, must have been beyond the markings.

But the car was parked in an area between two permitted pavement parking signs. So, what's the game here? Possibly separate bays were included in the resolution so that residential crossovers would be protected?

Do I believe that their resolution, assuming it even exists, includes this detail?

Do I hell.

Contravention did not occur because the car was parked where parking on the footway is permitted. If the authority believe that this is not the case, then you require them to provide the council resolution which disapplied the prohibition on footway parking at this location. For the benefit of the officer considering your reps, you refer them to section 15 (4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. If they are uncertain on this point, then you suggest that they consult officers in the council's legal department. For the avoidance of doubt, this issue does not fall within the scope of the RTRA 1984 and therefore traffic or designation orders made thereunder do not apply.

For info, the last time this occurred with a London authority it transpired that a copy of the resolution, if it ever existed, could not be found and therefore produced in evidence.

Some may think that if pavement parking has not been permitted lawfully, then any parking, including yours, must be unlawful. No. An authority has a duty to act fairly and to entice any motorist to park on the pavement when to do so would be a contravention would be dismissed by any adjudicator.
cpaul
Whilst waiting for responses on here I sent an email to Sutton council ...

Dear Sir / Madam,

Further to your rejection of my appeal, I require further information from you to present my case to the parking adjudicator.

• As you have issued this PCN by post I have no way of knowing exactly where my vehicle was parked – your photos are unclear and do not show the markings on the pavement. Can you please give me the exact location / address you believe the vehicle to be parked at during the alleged contravention?

• I do not live by nor have any reason to visit Sutton so it is not possible for me to view your video footage at your offices. Can you please send me a copy or make it available for download like the static photos?

• Thornton road is clearly signed to allow parking on the footway. As the bays on this road are not in compliance with the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Chapter 3 diagram 1028.4, do you have a TRO containing Secretary of State approval for this type of bay? I require a copy if you do.

• As pavement parking is permitted on Thornton road and the adjoining roads, can you give me a copy of the resolution passed by the Council by virtue of section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

o 15(4) A highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles on or over a road or part of a road which is a highway other than a carriageway or,

(b) on or over a footpath or any part of a footpath,

and not withstanding the provisions of this section or of any other enactment or any rule of law, it shall be lawful from the specified date for any person to park a vehicle on the road or footpath or on the part thereof, as the case may be, to which the said resolution or notice relates and is for the time being in force.



Yours faithfully,


No response ... yet ...
Incandescent
OK, fair enough, but the bottom line is they are playing hard-ball and are expecting you to fold and pay-up like 99% of people do. Advisers of this forum have shown the issue is not clearcut in favour of the council so you must decide whether to fight them or fold. If it were me, I'd fight them, but you have to forego the discount option which is essentially a weasely way of making sure nobody appeals !

So is it - Fight or Flight ?

PS, the time taken to get to PATAS means you will have plenty of time to save up the full penalty in the event you lose !
DancingDad
Okay
First point devalues uncertain location to an extent but also reinforces the issue so no plus or real minus.
Video request may help reinforce the main point re video which is that the do not offer the choice that the regs require. But that is dodgy following a recent panel decision.
Remainder is direct from HCA and we all await a reply with interest.

However, do not lose sight of deadlines, this request is simply that, they may or may not respond but it does not change timings shown on the NOR in the slightest, you must appeal or pay else all is lost.
cpaul
I have had a reply from the council and am dumbstruck. It is so good I can't help but post it!

Spot the deliberate mistakes. Also, I do not know how the location the car was parked '... has no relevance or bearing on this correctly issued ticket'?!!

Also, this letter is claiming the vehicle was not parked in a bay but the original offence was for parking on the pavement - not parking outside of a bay. How does this relate?

Thanks,

c

I have hit the attachment size limit so here is a copy of the text.

...

Thank you for writing to us.

If you do not pay the outstanding sum and wish to take the matter further, please complete the "your right to appeal" form enclosed with the notice of rejection and forward it to the Parking and Traffic Appeals service.

The CCTV footage will be supplied within the evidence pack if you take the matter to the parking and traffic appeals service. If you wish to view the footage prior to taking the matter further, please call the above number to make an appointment to come into the Civic Offices and view the CCTV footage between 10-12am, and 2-4pm Monday to Friday at a mutually convenient time.

The footway bays at Thornton Road and compliant and I would reconfirm that your vehicle was not parked in a bay on this occasion. All other information that you have requested has no relevance or bearing on this correctly issued ticket.

You have three choice:

- You can pay the discount charge of £55.00. You have 21 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.
- You can pay £110.00 if you miss the discount period. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.
- You can appeal to the Parking Adjudicator using the enclosed form. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this.

...

DancingDad
QUOTE
Also, this letter is claiming the vehicle was not parked in a bay but the original offence was for parking on the pavement - not parking outside of a bay. How does this relate?

If the vehicle is not in a marked bay when parted on a footway, footway parking applies.

The relevance of the rest of your queries and whether they should have answered will be down to an adjudicator.
hcandersen
You'll have to post their NOR as what you've posted is non-compliant and, if correct, would be grounds of appeal on its own.

As I suspected, they haven't got a clue about resolutions, they probably think we're talking about cameras.

But whatever we think about their competence, you're still in a process and you need to register your appeal before the 28-day period expires
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 1 Nov 2014 - 10:06) *
You'll have to post their NOR as what you've posted is non-compliant and, if correct, would be grounds of appeal on its own.

As I suspected, they haven't got a clue about resolutions, they probably think we're talking about cameras.

But whatever we think about their competence, you're still in a process and you need to register your appeal before the 28-day period expires


We already have the NOR, both the OP's email and this response are outside of process so compliance does not come into it.
Their response to the question of resolutions and indeed the video will be something to highlight to an adjudicator.
hcandersen
It's not unreasonable to think that this was a flawed NOR when it states that the period during which an appeal may be made is 28 days from the 'date of this letter'. Even if this was the correct timeframe, it would only apply within a NOR, hence my confusion.

OP, IMO fight on and register your appeal.

In addition, I suggest you write again by email, and please use my words.



I refer to your email/letter (whichever) dated ****.

Given that the alleged contravention is for committing an offence under s15 of the GLC(General Powers) Act 1974 and that in the general area where I was parked this prohibition has been disapplied by resolution, such disapplication apparently being limited and those limits being required to be marked on the ground by white lines, then the authority are required to establish that the offence has been disapplied only in those areas marked by white lines. On their own the white lines do not create the limits of permitted parkng, they merely mark them on the ground.

I therefore ask you once again for the council resolution which purports to disapply the provisions of section 15 of the GLC (General Powers) Act 1974 in the area of the location of the alleged contravention. If the authority fail to provide this now or in their evidence pack I shall have no alternative but to bring this to the attention of the adjudicator and request an adjournment until it is supplied. If you are uncertain of what is required, then I would suggest that you consult the authority's legal department.




DancingDad
QUOTE
It's not unreasonable to think that this was a flawed NOR when it states that the period during which an appeal may be made is 28 days from the 'date of this letter'. Even if this was the correct timeframe, it would only apply within a NOR, hence my confusion.


Take your point.
cpaul
Any suggestions on how to attach more to this thread?

I have hit the limit.

C
cpaul
We decided to appeal and are filling the form in now.

I made a special trip to have a look / take photos last weekend and discovered a few points.

The road is almost exactly 1km long and is in two halves crossing a busy road. At each of the furthest ends there is a single blue sign indicating the start of a park half on the pavement zone. There is no text on these signs. There are no signs as the road crosses the main road in the middle.

At one end the above sign has the negative version with a red line indicating the end of the zone. The road is in a council estate and these signs have clearly been tampered with. None of them face the correct direction and have been rotated round slightly. The post at the other end has corrosion / markings to suggest that once upon a time there were more signs on the same post but they no longer exist.

Almost the every single possible place to park on the road has a bay marked over the pavement. Approximately 15% of those bays have four sides and look to confirm to the TSM. Around another 15% are heavily eroded but still visible. Around 65% are between the two. Some have half the bay painted clearly but then just stop randomly. Others are painted strongly at one end but very faint the other. There has been may alterations to the pavement with utilities and crossovers affecting the integrity of the lines. The remaining 5% have the odd mark / splodge of paint but you would be hard pushed to identify it as a bay.

Over the whole length of the road there are around 6 repeater signs saying park on the pavement but they also have the text 'in marked bays'. I could not find a single sign saying 'only park in marked bays' so these signs have been changed since Google street view last visited the road.

There was a car parked slightly outside a bay that had been issued with a PCN - the council are therefore mixing and matching between cctv enforcement and traditional parking tickets for convenience. As an aside, I feel very sorry for this motorist - the bay they were parked in was about a foot too short to fit two average sized cars in. For no reason. It would not have blocked or obstructed anything if it was longer. Instead someone has tried to park in it because the signed say 'park on the pavement' and the bay was too small so they have been issued a ticket! This council has no shame.

Obviously I need to complete the appeal form despite the NOR and further letters having the wrong time frame for this.

I am still missing some vital facts. Having visited the road, I still don't know where the car was parked!

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 1 Nov 2014 - 12:47) *
In addition, I suggest you write again by email, and please use my words.


Is this going to achieve anything?

Should I also ask them for the location of the vehicle again?

Thanks,

Chris

hcandersen
Did you write to the authority as per my last post?
cpaul
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 6 Nov 2014 - 11:44) *
Did you write to the authority as per my last post?


Not yet, i have been ill and wanted to ask if i should ask for clarification on the vehicle location at the same time?
hcandersen
Location is vital because this is what will be compared against the resolution, if it exists.

For the moment, would you please just deal with the issue of photos and your requests for evidence.

Established facts:
The PCN states that you could ask to view the video or to have stills sent to you. The regs refer to this aspect as follows:

(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.


Can we focus on this please.

I don't know the council's evidence because you keep mixing it with your pics, GSV and you editorial comment.

All I want is the thread of facts which deal with the photographic evidence provided by the council. This includes your request to them, not complete emails, just that part(s) which deals with this and their response(s).

Sorry to bang on, but unless they clear this hurdle then I don't see what their resistance to your appeal would be in respect of the grounds of procedural impropriety.
cpaul
The only evidence provided by the council are three stills that I have attached in post #8 of this thread.

They have not, it my opinion, given satisfactory indication of the location of the alleged contravention. I have walked up and down the road and still can't work out where the car was parked.

Hence me line of thought asking them to clarify this.

I suspect the video does show the location but thereis no way I can get the thier offices to view it in the time frames they permit.

C
cpaul
Hi All,

I have got the PATAS appeal date and the council have sent me their evidence pack.

It contains what I can only assume is the response for the council resolution related the GLC. I have scanned it and uploaded it to: http://devel.trackingthis.com/files/PCN/Su...rkingPolicy.pdf

What are your thoughts? From my untrained eye, it doesn't say much. It says even less about Thornton road. They didn't provide any further plans or records. The evidence pack has this with a covering letter implying they sent this to me in the middle of November. I didn't receive it.

They have also now finally told me the house number the car was parked outside. I don't know why they didn't tell me back in September though.

Is anyone happy to look over my evidence pack before I send it to PATAS?

Thanks,

Chris


cpaul
Oh, and another thing ... (this may make you chuckle)

I now have the video.

They parked on the other side of the road and filmed the car, stationary, for around 5 minutes.

This is a quiet residential road. How on earth can they claim they needed to issue the PCN by post when there is absolutely nothing that would have made it impractical or difficult to have walked over to the car and stuck the PCN in the windscreen. I think this council are really taking advantage of PCNs by post as a way of making it harder for the motorist.

C


timbstoke
5 minutes of sitting by the side of the road is no better than a still photo. Does the video convey the location precisely enough for you to know whether or not there was a marking on the other side of the car? If it is indeed where the red car is on Google Maps (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3813405,-0.1797665,3a,75y,318.59h,45.16t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sePLgaNxL_S98f_smS4mgUg!2e0) - and the telegraph pole in the background suggests that this is the case - then there is clearly a marking of some kind on the road directly in front of the black car. If not a marked bay, then what is it? Along with the photos you have of poor bay markings, it seems like you have a strong argument.

Also, I don't think anyone else has mentioned, but the council have fettered their discretion in the first sentence of the NoR. They most certainly are "able" to cancel the PCN anytime they like.
John U.K.
QUOTE (cpaul @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 16:07) *
Hi All,
I have got the PATAS appeal date and the council have sent me their evidence pack.
>SNIP<
Is anyone happy to look over my evidence pack before I send it to PATAS?
Thanks,
Chris

The Council send a copy of the evidence pack to you and one to PaTAS.

You haven't really told us anything in the last month sad.gif which maks it difficult here for the experts to advise.

If you have the hearing date and evidence pack then you have filled in the form ...... what did you put in Box 5 (from my memory the largeone giving reasons for appeal)? What did you tick as grounds for appeal? Was there an accompanying letter? Could you scan and post them please.

The evidence pack will contain a copy of the originals of the PCN and of your reps to the Council and of the Council's rejection. Despite HCA's repeated requests, we haven't seen them, only, in some cases, your extracts. Please to scan & post.

The evidence pack will contain the Council's rebuttal of your case and why they think the Penalty Charge should stand. If you want to introduce new points in the light of the evidence pack you need to furnish PaTAS & the Council with copies before the hearing.
If you want the experts here to advise you on how best to present your existing case in the light of the council's evidence pack they need to see the docs. Remember to redact personal details, reg.no., PCN no, and leave in location and all times and dates.

By 'my evidence pack' I assume you mean you answer to the Council's evidence pack? Post it up, but if it has lot of supporting docs, photos, cases cited...just list those at the end and the experts will ask if they want to see a particular one.

When is the hearing date? when was the evidence pack received?

As I wrote on another thread today
docs are essential as you will see if you browse other threads.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0

Will show you how to post images. Repeat the process for each separate image.
For stage 2 I always use Tinypic with no probs.... select the whole of the 'for forums' tagline on the left to copy & paste.
cpaul
QUOTE (timbstoke @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 16:26) *
If it is indeed where the red car is on Google Maps (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3813405,-0.1797665,3a,75y,318.59h,45.16t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sePLgaNxL_S98f_smS4mgUg!2e0) - and the telegraph pole in the background suggests that this is the case ...


Yes - from what I can tell the car was parked where the red car is on Google maps. As you saw, there is a white mark suggesting the end of a bay in front of the black car and there is another a few car lengths in front of the red car in the other direction. Not exactly proof, but it is certainly not very clear.

QUOTE (timbstoke @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 16:26) *
Also, I don't think anyone else has mentioned, but the council have fettered their discretion in the first sentence of the NoR. They most certainly are "able" to cancel the PCN anytime they like.


Interesting ... but I am not sure how it can help us.

C
cpaul
Hi John U.K.,

I sent an email on the 7th of November to the council as per hcandersen’s advice and didn’t even receive an acknowledgment from them.

I contacted the PATAS service for advice and they said to send in the appeal form with very little detail in the main box as the important point was to register the appeal.

They further advised that once I receive the council’s evidence pack, I can then send in my detailed evidence pack with photos etc. If I don’t not receive what I need from the council, they said I could adjourn the appeal.

I completed the PATAS form and sent it back to them. They quickly sent me a letter asking me for more information as the council had not completed their part of the form correctly. I sent this by return.

PATAS sent me a letter acknowledging receipt giving me a date of the 16 of December for the hearing.

On Tuesday this week (2nd) I received a big brown envelope from the council containing my copy of their evidence pack.

I am in the process of preparing my detailed evidence pack which PATAS need to receive by the 11th of December. I asked them today if I can email it to them and they said it has to be by post or fax. They did however offer me the opportunity to postpone the hearing for another date. I kindly declined as I would rather get it over and done with.

I am in the process of scanning and blanking personal info from all the sheets but there are a LOT of them!

Thanks,

Chris
John U.K.
QUOTE
I am in the process of scanning and blanking personal info from all the sheets but there are a LOT of them!

Thanks,

Chris


concentrate on
their list for PaTAS of documents enclosed
original of the PCN
your reps to the Council;
Their response - the NTO you transcribed earlier

and there should be 1-3 pages (might be a pre-printed form) giving the adjudicator their rebuttal, point by point, of your reps.

[the curious thing is that if Councils did that in NoRRs instead of relying on software programmes they might save themelves some appeals reaching PaTAS]

which will give the experts here something to look at.

Add a rough skeleton of the main points of your restatement of case.



cpaul
All documents are available at:

http://devel.trackingthis.com/files/PCN/

I have tried to put them in a sensible order.

We are compiling our 'restatement of case' and will post it once it is ready for someone else to look at.

Thanks everyone for your help ... this whole process feels so heavily weighted against the motorist.

C
Incandescent
QUOTE
this whole process feels so heavily weighted against the motorist.

That's because it is !!

Just so you know, the system was first introduced in 1991 when Kenneth Clarke was Minister of Transport, back in the days of John Major, and was deliberately designed to discourage motorists from appealing to the adjudicators. It does this by the 50% discount option. So many people are ignorant of the law, that most pay-up and don't appeal it. Only 1% of PCNS issued ever get to adjudication.
hcandersen
QED.

The report which they've provided is NOT a council resolution made pursuant to s15(4) of the act to disapply the provisions of s15(1), it's nothing more than a bog standard committee report which only deals with general principles.

I used to refer to them at that time as Sutton dressed as lamb and clearly not without good reason.
John U.K.
QUOTE (cpaul @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 20:03) *
All documents are available at:

http://devel.trackingthis.com/files/PCN/

I have tried to put them in a sensible order.
We are compiling our 'restatement of case' and will post it once it is ready for someone else to look at.
Thanks everyone for your help ... this whole process feels so heavily weighted against the motorist.
C


[Health Warning: I am no expert!]

Some observations from a quick perusal of the docs.
Have the bays been repainted since your alleged contravention?
Para 8.12 of the TSM may have some relevance "tempting motorists to park in advance of the signs" if because of the apparent appearance of a worn marked bay where you parked in advance of the sign.
If arrows are needed where there are no bays, then it might be argued that arrows would be helpful where there are white lines resembling bays in advance of the end-sign.
But be careful, are you not arguing that the bays were so worn as to be unclear....it will need careful oral and written reasoning.

It would be help to clarify exactly where you did park, or identify the vehicle by make and colour.
Can you identify which, if any of the photographs (yours or Council's) show outside 57,Thornton Road with or without your car?

cpaul
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 23:20) *
But be careful, are you not arguing that the bays were so worn as to be unclear....it will need careful oral and written reasoning.

We think we have this covered. When you get to read our restatement of case with photos I would love you to give me an opinion.

QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 5 Dec 2014 - 23:20) *
It would be help to clarify exactly where you did park, or identify the vehicle by make and colour.
Can you identify which, if any of the photographs (yours or Council's) show outside 57,Thornton Road with or without your car?

a few posts ago, someone posted a link to google street view with the location which we think it correct.

We have plenty of photos (combination of ours, the councils and google street view). Including some o/s no.57. There are no markings immediately o/s no.57 but there are two marks perpendicular to the road, one outside next door to the left and one a few doors down to the right. The part of the pavement where the long side of the bay would have been has been dug up by a utility company. Whilst given the state of ther markings on the road I think this could be genuine and it was once a bay - i must admit, All this proves is the markings are unclear rather than there is a bay there.

We have loads of photos showing poor and incomplete bays.

There are a few bays that have been repainted recently at the furthest end of the road. I can not say if this was before or after the alleged contravention but council have tacitly admited it was after via thier nor. There is nothing to say that during thier remarking process they didn't erase left over / old markings.

C
cpaul
I have uploaded the photos and my current working restatement of case document.

Please feel free to have a look and give me feed back.

They are all on http://devel.trackingthis.com/files/PCN/ and the restatement of case is called appeal.pdf

This is all work in progress so headings and so on are not all correct etc.

Thanks in advance,

C

cpaul
Paperwork submitted!

I will let you know how I get on.

C
cpaul
Just a quick update...

SUCCESS!!!

We went to PATAS and the adjudicator agreed that given the state of the markings and signs on the road, the pcn should be cancelled.

I am a little disappointed though. We only looked at the first point or two so didn't get a chance to explore the errors and omissions. Also, the adjudicator refused to award costs so it cost more to attend the hearing than the cost of the ticket!

At least the money didn't go to the council!

Thanks everyone for your input.

C
Incandescent
QUOTE
Also, the adjudicator refused to award costs so it cost more to attend the hearing than the cost of the ticket!

This is the dark and sinister heart of CPE, and the reason councils make so much dosh out of it. Most commercial firms just pay up, as the time and effort in appealing costs more than paying. Postal appeals are no good, and PATAS have no telephone appeal service, unlike TPT
hcandersen
Pl tell us the date of the decision or post a link to the decision on PATAS's website.
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.