Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Drove off before pcn could be issued
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Bluedart
Hope someone can cast their beady eyes over these docs and find an error.

I understand that the ceo was still writing the ticket when the drive away occured.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment


Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Hippocrates
I would obtain the CEO's notes fast and all photo evidence.
DancingDad
Where is the page with statutory grounds pls?
These are mentioned and infers there is another page.

Useful to see what was writ to them as well.
Bluedart
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 14:43) *
Where is the page with statutory grounds pls?
These are mentioned and infers there is another page.

Useful to see what was writ to them as well.


Now posted - sorry left it in the scanner.

Anyway, penultimate para???????????
Incandescent
Not sure what you are looking for here. The council seem to have acted correctly, albeit they are clearly money-grubbing, but that's how it is nowadays. They claim you were 9 minutes over the limit so any consideration of de minimis does not really apply. You have not described the circumstances, so one must assume the contravention occurred. So having had an appeal rejected you have the choice of paying-up, or waiting for the Notice to Owner, appealing that, then taking them to TPT if they again refuse your appeal.

Others may come back with a fatal error in their paperwork, but so far I cannot see one.
hcandersen
I'm confused.

None of the dates in the introductory part of the NOR tallies with the PCN. The NOR states a different date and time of contravention and dates of issue and service of the PCN.
Bluedart
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:18) *
I'm confused.

None of the dates in the introductory part of the NOR tallies with the PCN. The NOR states a different date and time of contravention and dates of issue and service of the PCN.


And there is more. I will PM you.
hcandersen
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
Bluedart
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:25) *
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.



QUOTE
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
WHY?
hcandersen
Because no one contributor knows it all.
DancingDad
I suspect that the errors in the header would be treated as simple errors, they are not mandatory and the PCN number and details in the body tally.
Depends how easily persuaded an adjudicator is that if such simple errors occur, others can which renders the process unsafe.

Nothing is jumping out on me regarding mandatory wording, not my speciality so take that for what it's worth.

I am however interested in the details in the NOR. Very sparse and IMO unless the challenge was "Why have I got this PCN?" doesn't seem to cover much apart from why the PCN was served.
What was sent?
Hippocrates
The conflicting dates of service as found on the Reg 10 PCN and NOR are fatal. Further, it is wrong to prescribe a date of service (06/01/2015) which, in itself, is also wrong.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=20029

And: 2130254351 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

As for the wrong date of contravention: tossers!

I repeat: the CEO's notes should be obtained pronto.
spaceman
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:43) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:25) *
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
QUOTE
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
WHY?


Because that's what a 'forum' does!

Hippocrates
QUOTE (spaceman @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:43) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 07:25) *
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
QUOTE
I prefer to keep discussion open to the widest scrutiny if possible.
WHY?


Because that's what a 'forum' does!

By the same token the OP is perfectly entitled to PM anybody on the forum of whose trust he is assured.
DancingDad
Ey Up Hippo

While they mistakenly state the incorrect date of service of the PCN on the NOR, this doesn't cause any prejudice to prescribed timing.
The Coventry decision was correct as the PCN included an incorrect date of service which could create uncertainty.
How does that apply here?

Mandatory details on NORs are sparse and do not include even the PCN number, though without some reference there could be uncertainty to the exact PCN so while not stated, I would argue that as a must. But added information that is incorrect but unlikely to create problems ???
Hippocrates
High Court Ruling:R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet) (at para 41):


QUOTE:

"Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non-compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused, PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise."


QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 13:30) *
Ey Up Hippo

While they mistakenly state the incorrect date of service of the PCN on the NOR, this doesn't cause any prejudice to prescribed timing.
The Coventry decision was correct as the PCN included an incorrect date of service which could create uncertainty.
How does that apply here?

Mandatory details on NORs are sparse and do not include even the PCN number, though without some reference there could be uncertainty to the exact PCN so while not stated, I would argue that as a must. But added information that is incorrect but unlikely to create problems ???

A known unknown. biggrin.gif

Re prejudice: OP should write to TPT and ask them if they instruct authorities to deliver the three mandatory items within the 7 day period when an appeal is registered. The NOR causes prejudice to the appellant if not as he is expected and told explicitly that an explanation is required if he serves his Notice of Appeal late.

2130295122 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:55) *
Not sure what you are looking for here. The council seem to have acted correctly, albeit they are clearly money-grubbing, but that's how it is nowadays. They claim you were 9 minutes over the limit so any consideration of de minimis does not really apply. You have not described the circumstances, so one must assume the contravention occurred. So having had an appeal rejected you have the choice of paying-up, or waiting for the Notice to Owner, appealing that, then taking them to TPT if they again refuse your appeal.

Others may come back with a fatal error in their paperwork, but so far I cannot see one.

Que?
DancingDad
Hippo
I fully agree with Barnett where there was an extra day and this created an opportunity to have differing deadlines.

However, in this case, they mis-state the date of service of the PCN, in the NOR.
If we can show this creates anything more then a little confusion, I'll agree that it would be a fatal flaw.
But I just can't see it beyond showing sloppy workmanship. That may be an area to explore but I'd not rely on it.

The cited case would apply if the NOR totally referred to the wrong PCN. But the numbers and detail in the body tally with the PCN.

I would love to find something to justify that the NOR flaws the process but can't see it yet, sorry.

Not at TPT yet but we both know that TPT create a deadline for mandatory items. And often seem very relaxed if the deadline is missed.
And as far s I know there is no requirement beyond the right and time period to appeal to an adjudicator and
"©describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made."
The time period is before the end of 28 days starting with the day the NOR is served.
Not or any additional time an adjudicator may be willing to grant if a reasonable explanation is given.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 15:32) *
Hippo
I fully agree with Barnett where there was an extra day and this created an opportunity to have differing deadlines.

However, in this case, they mis-state the date of service of the PCN, in the NOR.
If we can show this creates anything more then a little confusion, I'll agree that it would be a fatal flaw.
But I just can't see it beyond showing sloppy workmanship. That may be an area to explore but I'd not rely on it.

The cited case would apply if the NOR totally referred to the wrong PCN. But the numbers and detail in the body tally with the PCN.

I would love to find something to justify that the NOR flaws the process but can't see it yet, sorry.

Not at TPT yet but we both know that TPT create a deadline for mandatory items. And often seem very relaxed if the deadline is missed.
And as far s I know there is no requirement beyond the right and time period to appeal to an adjudicator and
"©describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made."
The time period is before the end of 28 days starting with the day the NOR is served.
Not or any additional time an adjudicator may be willing to grant if a reasonable explanation is given.

Wrong contravention date: 06 January 2015 at 11.41

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=33134

A NOR states the reasons for their resistance to the appeal. It is the most important document in the process. There was no contravention on that date. cf incorrect date on a PCN or wrong street. Hardly a typo as it is a month out and so is the time well out! They may have possibly got this date from someone else's case. Just not good enough.
hcandersen
I wasn't proposing that this error would be a PI, only that this info is inconsistent with the details in the PCN. As it has been confirmed that the response refers to the PCN in question, the OP could do worse than to keep their eye on this point, it might resurface in any NTO.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 17:33) *
I wasn't proposing that this error would be a PI, only that this info is inconsistent with the details in the PCN. As it has been confirmed that the response refers to the PCN in question, the OP could do worse than to keep their eye on this point, it might resurface in any NTO.

Que?
Bluedart
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 08:53) *
Because no one contributor knows it all.


I don't know a lot, but some of what I do know is not and never will be placed on an open forum.

Some people might like to do it to show others just how much they know.

PM's is a good idea sometimes.

You must think it is a good idea to show your hand to whoever is looking for it.
hcandersen
My error.

How can a NOR misstate the date and time of the contravention in this way and should this just be accepted as a 'typo'?

Date
PCN. 18 Dec
NOR. 6 Jan

Time
PCN. 10.23
NOR. 11.41

Bluedart
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:32) *
My error.

How can a NOR misstate the date and time of the contravention in this way and should this just be accepted as a 'typo'?

Date
PCN. 18 Dec
NOR. 6 Jan

Time
PCN. 10.23
NOR. 11.41


Oh Dear! You could have let the cat out of the bag, but there must be more you can think of.
Incandescent
I don't see how those differences can be explained away as typos. Clearly their admin is a mess and they have committed a procedural impropriety. Does the NoR reference the same PCN number ?
Bluedart
Look at post #1. The PCN number and the CEO number is the same. The location is the same.
But there is a wild difference on the contravention dates and times.

We know that DCC trawl this sight/site, lets see if they spot this and cancel the PCN without further to do.

I doubt it though and if I hold my breathe to find out, it would be curtains.

I've just stopped breathing ohmy.gif
DancingDad
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 11:55) *
I don't see how those differences can be explained away as typos. Clearly their admin is a mess and they have committed a procedural impropriety. Does the NoR reference the same PCN number ?


That is the point I have been making. The only specific that could be regarded as vital, ie the PCN number is correct. But even the PCN number is not mandated.
The date and time errors tie up in a fashion with parts of process, like someone looking for the date copied the wrong one down.

While this does show sloppy work and can be used to challenge the accuracy of all, after all, a silly error should have been caught so how many more are there?
But given the correct PCN number and information in the body of the text, I simply do not know if an adjudicator would or indeed should put much weight on it.

While I'm repeating myself, any chance of a copy of what was sent?
I really do feel with the tone of the rejection that it can be shown that they failed to consider. And quite possibly the errors can be used as an example to lend weight.
IE, they obviously dashed of a template letter without answering points made and that fast and hurried that silly errors were allowed to be sent out. Where is the consideration that must be undertaken when they cannot even get the date of the PCN service right?
Hippocrates
I stand by my views and know what I would do.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:41) *
I stand by my views and know what I would do.


I accept that Hippo but please, can someone come up with something to support that it is a fatal flaw ?

I'd always prefer to face an adjudicator with something solid then a simple bold statement and nothing to back it.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:47) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:41) *
I stand by my views and know what I would do.


I accept that Hippo but please, can someone come up with something to support that it is a fatal flaw ?

I'd always prefer to face an adjudicator with something solid then a simple bold statement and nothing to back it.

I would if the OP would inform us of his intentions. Not prepared to spend more time on this as we are becoming circular. Pay or TPT, that simple.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:55) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:47) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 12:41) *
I stand by my views and know what I would do.


I accept that Hippo but please, can someone come up with something to support that it is a fatal flaw ?

I'd always prefer to face an adjudicator with something solid then a simple bold statement and nothing to back it.

I would if the OP would inform us of his intentions. Not prepared to spend more time on this as we are becoming circular. Pay or TPT, that simple.


Knowing how DCC operate, the chances are they will not turn up at an appeal. Mr/s adjudicator would then allow the appeal only on the grounds that they did not turn up.

We all know that the REG 10, NoR which are legal documents are basically standard. So if the PCN and the NoR is flawed, then the chances of all the one's issued to date are also flawed. That Is why I need to go softly softly, on this. He has decided to go to appeal and I have warned him what might happen, but then again, they may cancel the pcn (At any time) once they get the grounds of appeal. All he said on his informal appeal was (Ticked box) The alleged contravention did not occur, with no other comments made.
That produce the Nor.

I am supposed to be getting the photo's which would hopefully show the vehicle parked, but all they have is a photo of the bay with nothing parked there.

Another thing pointed out to me is the VRN, they have several vehicles all staring with MG, followed by either two identical digits or three identical digits. The vehicles at times are being used all of the time and looking at the photo which shows the bay with a long dry patch, because it had been raining, does not fit the VRN that is on the pcn with the large vehicle that was parked there when it was raining and what is deemed to have contravened the TRO.
Hippocrates
The he should adopt standard advice here: procedural impropriety and full details to follow upon receipt of their evidence pack.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 14:38) *
The he should adopt standard advice here: procedural impropriety and full details to follow upon receipt of their evidence pack.


That is exactly what I have told him to do after he told me that he wanted to appeal.

He run's a successful little business and they are incensed at the way they are continually harassed by the CEO's. It is nothing new, it has been going on ever since DCC were granted CPE 2008. They are terrified of getting tickets and where ever they park their vehicles (Not always possible in a loading bay, even there they get tickets), they actually have to run from their shop to a van and back again until loaded/unloaded. They carry valuable goods so have to make sure their vehicles are locked in between what ever they are doing, ie lock the van, go back to the shop, pick up next item, get back to the van, unlock it, load the goods, secure the goods for transport, get out of the van, lock it. and start the same process all over again. Not easy.

I understand that if the other side does not turn up, they are going to apply for costs. Whether that will come about is anyone's guess.
Bluedart

Two pictures have arrived, one of the bay and the other one showing the sign adjacent to the bay (not posted)

Click to view attachment

You can see it was a long vehicle that was parked there, (dry patch on the road) at that vehicle does not fit with the VRN they have written down.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 15:21) *
Two pictures have arrived, one of the bay and the other one showing the sign adjacent to the bay (not posted)

Click to view attachment

You can see it was a long vehicle that was parked there, (dry patch on the road) at that vehicle does not fit with the VRN they have written down.

Confused: this not the vehicle or wrong registration mark? No previous VRM has been posted.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 15:26) *
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 15:21) *
Two pictures have arrived, one of the bay and the other one showing the sign adjacent to the bay (not posted)

Click to view attachment

You can see it was a long vehicle that was parked there, (dry patch on the road) at that vehicle does not fit with the VRN they have written down.

Confused: this not the vehicle or wrong registration mark? No previous VRM has been posted.


Sorry hippo, the vrn on the ticket which I blanked out was MG44 something, but the vehicle they had parked there had the VRN MG444 something.
I no longer have the unredacted docs.
Hippocrates
Hang on a minute for a case....................2140124818 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

They sent a wrong version of the PCN and fotos of another vehicle with a P and D ticket showing.
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.