Free Traffic Legal Advice

As I'm not in a position to measure the bay do you think I have any grounds to successfully challenge the ticket as I can't tell from looking at the order ?

I've already given you a draft representation above: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/advice-request-parking-outside-bay/msg5979/#msg5979

Wait for the notice to owner then send that off, obviously make the representation online and make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page. Getting the measurements of the bay would have been a bonus but it's hardly essential.

No, leave it in. The 0485 number on the back of your PCN is premium rate, and Councils regularly lose at the tribunal on this matter. I highly recommend you read the Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council decision that CP8759 posted a link to above, as it will bring you up to speed on this angle.

Hi

I've just received the Notice to Owner. This now quotes the telephone payment as an 0345 number so not premium so does this rule out the premium rate number argument, also does the fact they given the option for online payment which is free also rule it out ?

The Notice doesn't reinstate the discounted payment option as I was informed was likely to be the case.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi

I made the following formal challenge which was rejected the following day, also produced below, advice on what to do next appreciated. I haven't clicked on the links I provided to see if they have been read as I don't want to mess this up, hence why I've removed them in this posting.

Dear Denbighshire County Council,
 
I refer to the Notice to Owner posted on 16/10/23.
 
I wish to challenge liability because the alleged contravention did not occur. There was no indication that vehicles must park within the painted bays, if such a  requirement exists in the traffic regulation order this has not been conveyed to motorists.

I refer you to the decision in Cooper v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (1990292199, 18 July 2000) available from LINK1 as followed in the following cases:

Ernesto Villa Blandino v London Borough of Barnet (2110474195, 28 November 2011) at LINK2
Michal Budai v London Borough of Barnet (2120008348, 06 February 2012) at LINK3
Caroline Ratner v London Borough of Barnet (2140338414, 10 September 2014) at LINK4
Cheryl Kuczynski v London Borough of Barnet (2160033974, 30 April 2016) at LINK5
Sultan Gangji v London Borough of Barnet (2160439695, 15 November 2016) at LINK6
Tecwyn Evans v London Borough of Merton (2160499981, 05 January 2017) at LINK7
Gerald Halibard v London Borough of Barnet (2170225166, 15 June 2017) at LINK8
Lamin Sesay v London Borough of Southwark (2180188510, 22 June 2018) at LINK9
Anthony Westmore v London Borough of Barnet (2180064744, 15 March 2018) at LINK10
Keren Lewin v London Borough of Haringey (2190290943, 28 August 2019) at LINK11
 
The links to the above and my third point are provided below.
 

 
Secondly and in any event, in my initial challenge to the PCN you responded by stating “Where vehicles are parked over bay markings, valuable parking space is lost and in narrow roads, serious congestion can arise as a result, as well as restricted access for emergency vehicles”
 
As the photographs you provided to me show I was not causing an obstruction, the road was one way and very wide for any type of vehicle to easily drive past. Neither was I parked over another bay, so no parking space was lost. 
 
Thirdly, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, because the PCN provides a premium rate number that attracts a surcharge for the council's benefit. For the reasons explained in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) available from LINK12.

In light of the above the penalty charge must be cancelled.
 
I look forward to hearing from you

Yours faithfully,

What a nonsense rejection. I've checked and they've not opened any of the links, so they've not considered any of your supporting evidence, that is a procedural impropriety that we can add to all the other grounds.

The reference to Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 is completely misguided, as they'd know if they'd bothered to read the Paul Bateman decision, but obviously they couldn't be asked.

Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?

  Thanks for getting back to me, the issue for me if it goes to the tribunal is the cost, this is only to save what is now a £50 ticket (£25 option hasn't been reinstated, it would mean a day off work plus a 200 mile round trip, assuming I have to attend, would such expenses/  costs plus yours be recoverable ?

  Thanks for getting back to me, the issue for me if it goes to the tribunal is the cost, this is only to save what is now a £50 ticket (£25 option hasn't been reinstated, it would mean a day off work plus a 200 mile round trip, assuming I have to attend, would such expenses/  costs plus yours be recoverable ?

@sooty12113 all your assumptions are wrong, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal does all hearings on Microsoft Teams so there's no need to take time off work let alone travel anywhere (you can join on a web browser if you don't have it installed), and they're only listed for 30 minutes (this isn't a High Court hearing).

That being said, if I represent you there's no need for you to attend at all. If you really wanted to we could arrange for the hearing to be during your lunch break, but it's really not necessary.