3. London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying  (Read 702 times)

0 Members and 108 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« Reply #15 on: »
Looks OK to me. Don't be disappointed if they reject, because councils reject over 99% of informal reps, knowing that most people then just cough up. It's called "gaming the system".

Post up their reply when you get it.
Logged
Re: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« Reply #16 on: »
At 11.13 on ** the CEO saw my car and, quite correctly, started observations because they could not find a matching VRM on their payment system. They issued a PCN at 11.25.

I have proof, see enclosed, that once I discovered my error I paid for a another session which commenced at 11.32.

Ordinarily the authority might think that this was a driver buying parking time after finding a PCN, however, I would ask you to consider my other evidence which shows that I originally paid £** to park at 11.11 except that being all fingers and thumbs I entered LO65OWM instead of LO66OWM. LO65OWM does not exist, see copy of DVLA website enclosed. I would add that its non-existence did not stop the council's PBP service provider accepting the money which makes me wonder whether it would have accepted payment for VRMs NCC-1701 or HOP2IT? **

In any event, a mistake on my part for which I apologise and one which when I discovered it I started to rectify immediately and which, on this occasion, I would ask the authority to forgive, especially as a second payment was made. *


*- what an odd situation where the private parking industry, which is often lambasted, only charges a token 'parking charge' where minor keying errors are made and yet here it's all or nothing. 

**- you can google these!

Wait for others.
Logged
Re: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« Reply #17 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on July 11, 2024, 10:09:34 pm
At 11.13 on ** the CEO saw my car and, quite correctly, started observations because they could not find a matching VRM on their payment system. They issued a PCN at 11.25.

I have proof, see enclosed, that once I discovered my error I paid for a another session which commenced at 11.32.

Ordinarily the authority might think that this was a driver buying parking time after finding a PCN, however, I would ask you to consider my other evidence which shows that I originally paid £** to park at 11.11 except that being all fingers and thumbs I entered LO65OWM instead of LO66OWM. LO65OWM does not exist, see copy of DVLA website enclosed. I would add that its non-existence did not stop the council's PBP service provider accepting the money which makes me wonder whether it would have accepted payment for VRMs NCC-1701 or HOP2IT? **

In any event, a mistake on my part for which I apologise and one which when I discovered it I started to rectify immediately and which, on this occasion, I would ask the authority to forgive, especially as a second payment was made. *


*- what an odd situation where the private parking industry, which is often lambasted, only charges a token 'parking charge' where minor keying errors are made and yet here it's all or nothing. 

**- you can google these!

Wait for others.

Thank-you H C Anderson for providing a draft of another great potential response i could use - i can see that you took a lot of time to do this. As a sci-fi fan I laughed when i read reg no NCC-1701 !  They probably would have accepted payment.  I know that if I challenge them on this, they would probably say that they have to accept foreign cars and they would not have access to their countries DVLCs to cross check a car's existence before accepting payments! 

Due to only 1000 characters being allowed to informally appeal at this stage, i am minded to use my draft, already aaproved by Incandescant's (with rage), for the basic appeal now and use your great script for the more formal appeal later on upon receipt of the NTO after 28 days inviting either full payment of the non-discounted rate or formal appeal.  Chances are, as indicated by Incandescant with rage, 99% of informal appeals are automatically rejected. 

So thank-you very much.  At the moment there have been no more suggestions from anyone else.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2024, 11:08:38 pm by Firestone »
Logged
Re: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« Reply #18 on: »
Just to let you all know that i won my appeal at the first. informal stage. Unexpected!  I used my sub 1000 word appeal, as the number of characters were limited, with a view to using HC Andersen's great draft at a potential later stage.  What i can't understand however, is the letter i received from the LBOH said that i had entered a totally different registration number which bore no resemblance to that of my car. I don't know where they got that from?  I was mistaken just over one numerical digit and that my app history proves it!

Does this website have a 'templates' section with appropriate filing for the various parking issues? If my draft worked, then it might work for others and it might be worth filing it somewhere.  Also HCAndersen's great draft, although not used, is very good would also be worth saving as no doubt he spent a lot of time on that!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2024, 10:21:49 pm by Firestone »
Logged
Re: London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying
« Reply #19 on: »
Very well done ! It is very rare we see councils give way on receipt of informal reps. So may some small wiff of fairness and probity is creeping into the Harrow parking bastion !
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. London Boro of Harrow, Wealdstone - PCN for not paying