Author Topic: Liverpool Council, Code 06, Location Moorfields - L2 - Payment systems down!  (Read 243 times)

0 Members and 404 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dear FTLA Community,

Thank you again for welcoming me to your forum! I look forward to learning more about council PCNs and contributing to the discussions here.

I need some advice regarding a PCN I received. The ticket code is "06-Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher."

Date of contravention: 13/06/2024
Time of contravention: 09:38
Location: Moorfields - L2
Observed from: 09:32 to 09:38

I parked at this location 5 minutes before my dental appointment and tried to pay via the "PayByPhone" app as advised on the ticket machine, which has never been an issue for me before. My card details haven't changed, and the vehicle registered on the app remains the same. I spent between 09:04 and 09:54 trying to get the app to work and take payment. You can see from the image links that I attempted payments at 09:04, 09:07, 09:42, 09:53, and 09:54.

The app got stuck on the payment screen and wouldn't allow me to proceed. I even tried deleting and re-adding the card, but then I received an "Error processing transaction" message due to a "Server error 5002." All of this can be seen in the image links provided below.

Despite my best efforts to pay, I subsequently received a PCN from the CEO. The number on the ticket machine to make payment was also not working.

Additionally, it seems Liverpool Council has been experiencing issues with payments, as seen here:
https://www.liverpool.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking-fines-and-challenges/

Can I please ask for the community's help in challenging this PCN? All evidence is provided below.


PCN Ticket: https://imgur.com/a/CVd8Xqy
CEO photographic evidence: https://imgur.com/a/ZnDFR6u
App screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/E2ROSIn

Thank you in advance!
« Last Edit: July 04, 2024, 01:25:11 pm by xskullx »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


@xskullx the obvious argument to raise is the one found in Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024), but as per the guidance here please repost the PCN with the PCN number and number plate visible.
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

@xskullx the obvious argument to raise is the one found in Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024), but as per the guidance here please repost the PCN with the PCN number and number plate visible.

Thanks for the feedback. You would like be to resubmit with PCN number and number plate visible?

Regardless, no one has helped advise on an appeal on the scenario I have explained.

Regards
Luca

You would like be to resubmit with PCN number and number plate visible?
Yes please.

Regardless, no one has helped advise on an appeal on the scenario I have explained.
We've had this sort of scenario before but it's very case and fact specific. At the moment I can't even see that the council has enough evidence to show a contravention at all, and if they can't prove the facts then nothing else really matters.

Also please give me us a link to the exact spot on Google street view.
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

OP, the grounds seem pretty straightforward.

You claim that the machine and presumably the traffic sign conveyed OPTIONAL means of compliance i.e. to pay by phone or display a ticket.

Although the cited case takes a long time getting to the relevant point - para. 14 and onwards- the point is there: the contravention CANNOT specify failure to display a ticket when doing so IS OPTIONAL.

The CEO's photos are more stupid than normal i.e. they only show the machine and pay by phone...and the eejit then issues a PCN for not displaying.

Actually GSV shows traffic signs with ONLY the requirement to display!

You couldn't make it up if you tried!