Free Traffic Legal Advice

edited

Quote from: Incandescent on January 23, 2025, 11:26:34 pm

Quote from: cp8759 on January 23, 2025, 10:35:22 pm

@Justicenow did you see the CEO? Or did you come back to your car and not see anything untoward at all?

But photos of any kind are not a legal requirement, so the absence of a PCN yellow envelope is not definite proof of non-service.

If the matter is raised it is for the council to prove that the PCN was served, it is not for the motorist to prove that it wasn't, the standard of evidence is the balance of probabilities. At this stage I'm simply trying to establish what evidence Justicenow can give us.

Thank you for looking into the details. I did see the CEO when I returned to my car, after being parked there only for a couple of minutes. I started to move the car from that spot while the officer was still preparing and printing the ticket. While I was moving the car, he tried to stick the envelope on my moving car’s windscreen but could not do that properly and I didn’t let him take a photo. I was confident that there was no contravention because there aren’t any signs there at all. I parked on the left side where there is no yellow line, but it is a dropped curb on both sides though. Previously, I spoke with other road users who had successfully appealed their parking tickets, being parked in that same spot, who shared with me that, apparently, because of the changes in the road layout and flower pot blocking it, the general rules do not apply (which might not be true). 

Easy peasy lemon squeezy:



Send this online and take a dated & timed screenshot of the confirmation page.

No, that's not my point. Rather, the issue for me is that IMO you were clearly in contravention of one of two mutually exclusive statutory prohibitions i.e. if you were >50cm then this is a contravention in itself, and if you weren't then this is being 'parked adjacent to'.

IMO, you were >50cm therefore you would be fortunate in that the CEO's grounds won't fly.

I highlighted the relevant part of the statutory* prohibition. 

cp's reasoning is predicated on your account and that there aren't photos of the PCN having been affixed to the car. The rules regarding service are:

a)fixing a penalty charge notice to the vehicle, or

(b)giving a penalty charge notice to the person appearing to the civil enforcement officer to be in charge of the vehicle.

We haven't seen the CEO's notes, but if they do not support (b)(which wouldn't need photos) then there is no reason why the procedural grounds should not succeed. My argument, if accepted by an adjudicator, doesn't rely upon a PCN being served anyway.

But even if you were to succeed on the narrow point of procedure in this case, IMO you were in contravention of one of two statutory prohibitions and subject to the yellow line waiting restriction if this was in effect at the time.

In short, don't park there because for any competent CEO this would be open house.

*- being statutory it doesn't require signs nor an understanding of SEAs on the part of the motorist.

That part of the road is not a functioning carriageway anymore, at least in that little bit of the island, since they blocked it, would this regulation still apply here? Just curious to know. Thank you very much once again.

As far as I'm aware any vehicle that isn't mechanically propelled (i.e. a bicycle, pedestrian operated vehicle) and any animal (horses, ponies) can still use that carriageway, and I'm sure an exempt motor vehicle can as well (such as a police motorcyclist). If it isn't a carriageway at all then you'd commit a different contravention of being parked on a part of a road other than a carriageway, which is also a statutory contravention.

The long and the short of it remains that while we can almost certainly get this PCN cancelled on procedural grounds, it is actually illegal to park there and if you park there again and the council does everything by the book, you might not be able to get out of it.

The CEO might have put in the notes that the PCN was served, as it says exactly that in the NTO letter that I received recently.

I wouldn't worry about that, at the end of the day the NTO is just a standard templated document, and the CEO isn't going to come to any tribunal hearing to give oral evidence.

The plain fact here is that as correctly identified by CP8759, the council failed to follow the legal process after a "drive-away". They served an NtO, not a Reg 10 PCN, (postal pcn). By doing this they committed a procedural impropriety and also robbed the OP of his option to pay the discounted amount.