Author Topic: 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Reading Broad Street)  (Read 2027 times)

0 Members and 458 Guests are viewing this topic.

Yes there is. But to be honest, as I mentioned earlier, they would be well aware of our trailer. It is just that the new warden didn't know the van belonged to the trailer so he issued a ticket. Now it feels like parking services are reluctant to back down because that is how they operate. I could provide them with a picture of my trailer attached to my van, or a video or me doing all of the loading or unloading activities as would have been done that day. I'm sure they could also request CCTV from the councils department but then that would probably expose the fact that they let all of the other 4 traders off that day...or worse, let them drag their heels EVERY day!
Right, that's not how parking enforcement works.

Everything that "they would be well aware of" is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what you put in the representations. The consideration of representations may well be outsourced to somebody sitting in an office block 500 miles away, you must assume the person reading the representations knows nothing at all.

So, please stop making a fuss about how unfair life is, and start putting your evidence together. A video showing you loading and unloading on a different day would be a good start, together with all the other bits of evidence I suggested.

Please post a list on here of what you can provide (bank statements and receipts from suppliers are particularly relevant to show you're running a business), and I will draft a representation for you.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Yes there is. But to be honest, as I mentioned earlier, they would be well aware of our trailer. It is just that the new warden didn't know the van belonged to the trailer so he issued a ticket. Now it feels like parking services are reluctant to back down because that is how they operate. I could provide them with a picture of my trailer attached to my van, or a video or me doing all of the loading or unloading activities as would have been done that day. I'm sure they could also request CCTV from the councils department but then that would probably expose the fact that they let all of the other 4 traders off that day...or worse, let them drag their heels EVERY day!
Right, that's not how parking enforcement works.

Everything that "they would be well aware of" is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what you put in the representations. The consideration of representations may well be outsourced to somebody sitting in an office block 500 miles away, you must assume the person reading the representations knows nothing at all.

So, please stop making a fuss about how unfair life is, and start putting your evidence together. A video showing you loading and unloading on a different day would be a good start, together with all the other bits of evidence I suggested.

Please post a list on here of what you can provide (bank statements and receipts from suppliers are particularly relevant to show you're running a business), and I will draft a representation for you.

Thank you. Life isn't unfair, but the system of enforcement definitely seems set up that way.

I can provide them with copies of receipts and bank statements. Better than that, I can provide them with a copy of my trading license that affirms the days and times I operate at that given location. I could take a video of the van in relation to the catering trailer as I typically park it when moving goods to and from the van.

Yes there is. But to be honest, as I mentioned earlier, they would be well aware of our trailer. It is just that the new warden didn't know the van belonged to the trailer so he issued a ticket. Now it feels like parking services are reluctant to back down because that is how they operate. I could provide them with a picture of my trailer attached to my van, or a video or me doing all of the loading or unloading activities as would have been done that day. I'm sure they could also request CCTV from the councils department but then that would probably expose the fact that they let all of the other 4 traders off that day...or worse, let them drag their heels EVERY day!
Right, that's not how parking enforcement works.

Everything that "they would be well aware of" is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what you put in the representations. The consideration of representations may well be outsourced to somebody sitting in an office block 500 miles away, you must assume the person reading the representations knows nothing at all.

So, please stop making a fuss about how unfair life is, and start putting your evidence together. A video showing you loading and unloading on a different day would be a good start, together with all the other bits of evidence I suggested.

Please post a list on here of what you can provide (bank statements and receipts from suppliers are particularly relevant to show you're running a business), and I will draft a representation for you.

Thank you. Life isn't unfair, but the system of enforcement definitely seems set up that way.

I can provide them with copies of receipts and bank statements. Better than that, I can provide them with a copy of my trading license that affirms the days and times I operate at that given location. I could take a video of the van in relation to the catering trailer as I typically park it when moving goods to and from the van.
Now we're getting somewhere !  Strong collateral is very important in refuting the council case.

Thank you. Life isn't unfair, but the system of enforcement definitely seems set up that way.
Well that's why we're here. Given your account and the trading licence I don't think a video is necessary, a few photos will be more than enough. Draft representations for when the Notice to Owner is re-issued:

Dear Reading Borough Council,

I challenge liability for PCN RG2669245A because the alleged contravention did not occur. I am a trader authorised to operate at this location, I attach a copy of my trading licence, together with bank statements and receipts as proof of trade.

I use the van to tow my trailer and also to carry goods that are then loaded into the trailer, at the material time I had been swapping gas bottles at the nose of the trailer, as soon as I saw the civil enforcement officer I asked why he had issued a ticket when I was a trader loading and preparing to tow the trailer away.

He apologised saying he had not realised the van belong to a trader and had not seen me before issuing the ticket. He went on to say he would make note and advised me to contest the ticket, so I trust his notes will reflect the same.

I attach photos showing my van and the trailer in question.

In light of the above I invite you to cancel the penalty charge.

Yours faithfully,

However, you must first follow the steps I explained on August 2nd to get the Notice to Owner re-issued.

The 21 days since their letter of 14 July have already expired so I'd expect the case to progress at some point next week, so I'd suggest checking the amount due on the council website on Friday or Saturday.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Thank you. Life isn't unfair, but the system of enforcement definitely seems set up that way.
Well that's why we're here. Given your account and the trading licence I don't think a video is necessary, a few photos will be more than enough. Draft representations for when the Notice to Owner is re-issued:

Dear Reading Borough Council,

I challenge liability for PCN RG2669245A because the alleged contravention did not occur. I am a trader authorised to operate at this location, I attach a copy of my trading licence, together with bank statements and receipts as proof of trade.

I use the van to tow my trailer and also to carry goods that are then loaded into the trailer, at the material time I had been swapping gas bottles at the nose of the trailer, as soon as I saw the civil enforcement officer I asked why he had issued a ticket when I was a trader loading and preparing to tow the trailer away.

He apologised saying he had not realised the van belong to a trader and had not seen me before issuing the ticket. He went on to say he would make note and advised me to contest the ticket, so I trust his notes will reflect the same.

I attach photos showing my van and the trailer in question.

In light of the above I invite you to cancel the penalty charge.

Yours faithfully,

However, you must first follow the steps I explained on August 2nd to get the Notice to Owner re-issued.

The 21 days since their letter of 14 July have already expired so I'd expect the case to progress at some point next week, so I'd suggest checking the amount due on the council website on Friday or Saturday.

Thank you very much for this. I just checked and the charge is has gone to £70 for the discounted half price is no longer an option. So now I just wait till I receive the NTO before filling the firm you mentioned

Quote
they would be well aware of our trailer. It is just that the new warden didn't know the van belonged to the trailer so he issued a ticket.
OK, maybe true, but you really do have to hit them with a hammer on these matters so there is no possible doubt whatsoever. The person looking at your reps is probably somewhere in north Scotland, because councils contract out this work. Whne/if you get to London Tribunals, (the adjudicators), you need to fire off every last round of your ammunition, as this is the final stage, you don't get another go.

Thank you very much for this. I just checked and the charge is has gone to £70 for the discounted half price is no longer an option. So now I just wait till I receive the NTO before filling the firm you mentioned
No, keep checking the council website, the charge should go up to £105 and then £114, when it gets to £114 fill in form TE9 as I explained previously.

Do not just wait for documents to turn up in the post, if they go missing you could lose your right to appeal so you have to be proactive and keep checking at least once every 10 days.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Thank you very much for this. I just checked and the charge is has gone to £70 for the discounted half price is no longer an option. So now I just wait till I receive the NTO before filling the firm you mentioned
No, keep checking the council website, the charge should go up to £105 and then £114, when it gets to £114 fill in form TE9 as I explained previously.

Do not just wait for documents to turn up in the post, if they go missing you could lose your right to appeal so you have to be proactive and keep checking at least once every 10 days.

Thank you,

The charge has since gone to £114 and I have mostly filled the TE9 to be ready to send off, but I'm a little unsure about which checkboxes to choose.

'I did not receive the notice to owner/PCN'
This one I checked as I never received the notice to owner. First letter I received by post was the CC

'I made representations about the penalty charge to the enforcing authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner, but did not receive a rejection notice.'
Do I check this one? I appealed but at the PCN stage NOT the NTO as I never received the NTO. I did not receive any reply from them about my appeal and instead only heard back with their CC

"I appealed against the local authority’s decision to reject my representation, within 28 days of service of the rejection notice, but have had no response to my appeal."
Am I right to leave this unchecked since I have not yet appealed against their rejection to my original representation as I never actually hear back on that.


Hi all,

Could really use some help with what boxes I should check on the TE9 form as I'm unsure about 2 of the options?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2023, 10:20:11 pm by DontStandForNonsense »

Going to hang on until tomorrow before taking an educated guess. Hope the right to appeal with the TE9 doesn't expire.


'I did not receive the notice to owner/PCN'


'I did not receive the notice to owner/PCN'

Much appreciated Guest :)

Have you emailed the form to TEC and had the automated acknowledgment?
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order