Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No images.. because CEO was in danger... ?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Buzz2000
Hi guys,

One of our drivers was unloading to a convenience store, when they realised they were being in a issued a ticket for being in a Permit holders only box (allowed to do so as long as the correct exemptions are met). Having spoke to the driver apparently the shop keeper was infuriated with this as the CEO could clearly see unloading activity therefore he confronted him.. not because the driver asked him to.. they have no allegiances... our driver had finished his deliveries at thispoint and went to the van to avoid confrontation. There was no ticket issued on the vehicle so he assumed that he hadn't issued it yet.

Now here is the annoying bit.. he didn't mention the activity to us, however we only received a NTO with a fixed penalty of £130 for this alleged contravention. Slightly confused by this i called islington to find why there is no evidence and she suggested that there was no evidence "due to danger of the CEO". Not quite sure where we stand with this.. however, surely at worst we should have been offered the original £65 fixed penalty fee right?

I have attached the pcn for you to see...

I am thinking of either appeal for a) contravention did not occur as we have unloading invoice etc)

or B) because there is no evidence.. plus surely we should have received a fixed ticket on our window screen and not a NTO which is a £130.


Any help is appreciated, thanks!

Alex









DancingDad
No PCN served, No contravention, simples.

Presumably, if a regular delivery, it will be no issue to get a statement from the shop keeper. And your driver.

In which case.

Contravention did not Occur.
Loading was taking place, please find attached copy of delivery note/invoice/worksheet as proof.

Procedural Impropriety.
No PCN was served to the vehicle or handed to the driver.
With no PCN being served, service of a Notice to Owner is unlawful and thus a procedural impropriety
Buzz2000
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 25 Mar 2015 - 15:59) *
No PCN served, No contravention, simples.

Presumably, if a regular delivery, it will be no issue to get a statement from the shop keeper. And your driver.

In which case.

Contravention did not Occur.
Loading was taking place, please find attached copy of delivery note/invoice/worksheet as proof.

Procedural Impropriety.
No PCN was served to the vehicle or handed to the driver.
With no PCN being served, service of a Notice to Owner is unlawful and thus a procedural impropriety


Thanks for that.. i did think this too... however upon calling islington the only response she had was... he issued the ticket... however he 100% didnt, i asked the driver and the shop keeper they both agree he didnt, however he is claiming that as he was in danger he couldnt take photos. There surely must have to be photos of it served on the car? or do they give some silly exemption for "danger"


Thanks again!

Alex
DancingDad
Prime evidence and all that is required is CEO notes.
Photos are normal but not required. They will need to explain why none in this day and age but being accosted by a shopkeeper would seem to cover that.

Put in your explanation in the PI bit and statements from shopkeeper and driver. Terms like shopkeeper was telling the CEO off are better then shopkeeper was giving him a right bo$$ocking and threatening him smile.gif

Silly thing is that they have all they need to serve a postal PCN in legislation and being prevented from serving a normal one is prime reason.
hcandersen
IMO, if the shopkeeper was giving the CEO a tongue lashing, then say so. In these circumstances you could understand if the CEO did not serve a PCN and instead the authority decided to serve a PCN by post. You would have challenged this on the same grounds as here regarding the contravention, but at least the authority would have served the PCN correctly. Notwithstanding the fact that the CEO did not take photos at any stage, contrary to the authority's operational practice, and that the shopkeeper, who has no liability in this matter and is not known to me other than in a business sense, has made a statement of the events which contradict the CEO's account regarding service of the PCN, then if the authority continue to reject these claims and instead rely wholly on their CEO's account I shall have no hesitation in registering an appeal and applying for costs.
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.