Author Topic: Manchester City Council - Code 12 - Parked in a "Permit Parking Zone" but sign blocked and not clear  (Read 298 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@stamfordman @h c anderson

Correct - the car is not leased

I am not the registered keeper, my father is

The photo of the rear of the lorry is mine. Taken after the ticket was given

Not sure when the car was parked there. May have been half an 30/45mins or less?

Thanks all,
Irfan.

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
All, any idea how long it takes to get a reply from Manchester City Council following the the appeal/dispute? This was submitted on 21/10.

Thanks,
Irfan.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
  • Karma: +43/-31
    • View Profile
There isn't a period set in regs.

I suspect that the council might mention aspirational targets somewhere on its website.

You either receive a response or your father gets a NTO some time after 12 Dec.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks @h c anderson

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Morning all, @cp8759 @stamfordman @Phantomcrusader @h c anderson - i've had a reply from the Council. Letter has been uploaded - see links. Content of the letter has been copied in below too.

I could simply reply and state the sign was clearly blocked by getting a clear by the large vehicle. Thoughts?


https://imgur.com/a/manchester-city-council-parking-fine-reply-1-55BmTJK
https://imgur.com/a/manchester-city-council-parking-fine-reply-2-96FXIYF


***
 Thank you for your enquiry, which we received on 21 October 2024.
You were issued with a PCN for parking in a resident permit zone without displaying a
 resident's permit or holding a valid E-Permit.
 I have noted your comments and can confirm that the location where you parked your vehicle
 is within the resident permit zone. Signs are in place at entry points into the zone which
 advises drivers of the restrictions in place. As these restrictions are standardised within the
 zone, additional signs are not needed. The way we sign the restrictions is compliant with the
 current legislation .All residents and visitors must have a permit to park within the resident
 permit zone during the operational hours of the scheme. It is the responsibility of the motorist
 to be aware of the parking restrictions and park in accordance to them.
 I have carefully considered your case and I am satisfied that your PCN was issued correctly,
 and as such, I have taken the decision not to cancel it.
 To view images taken at the time your PCN was issued, please visit
www.manchester.gov.uk/parking
 You have these choices:
 1. The PCN will be reduced to £35.00 if it is paid within 14 days from the date this letter was
 served.
 2. If you do not pay the PCN within 14 days of this letter being served, the charge will
 increase to £70.00.
3. If the PCN is not paid or successfully challenged, the Council may serve a Notice to Owner
 (NtO) after 28 days of the PCN being served on the owner of the vehicle requiring payment of
 the full PCN. The owner can then make representations to the Council and may appeal to an
 independent adjudicator if those representations are rejected. The NtO will contain
 instructions for doing this.
 HOW TO PAY- Online at www.manchester.gov.uk/parking and follow the links to Pay PCN. - By telephone credit/debit card payments only. Use our automated payment line 0161 234
 5006 (24 hours, seven days a week).Please have your vehicle details and PCN number
 ready.- In person at any PayPoint, you will need to take your PCN to allow the barcode to be
 scanned.
 Yours sincerely
 M Chan
 Parking Services Officer
 Parking Services
***


Thanks all,
Irfan.

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Karma: +25/-1
    • View Profile
Don't often disagree with our esteemed admin but this was a daft challenge that gets you no further forward.

Choice is wait for the NTO to be served on your father and make reps (he has to give permission if they come from you) or go back to them now saying something like:

'I was puzzled to get the PCN and your rejection - I took some pics at the time as I couldn't see any parking restriction signs and now realise the one sign at the road entrance was hidden by a lorry, which can also be seen in the enclosed pic taken by your CEO. As I could not have been aware of this on driving into the road I ask you to please cancel the PCN.'

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma: +123/-4
    • View Profile
Don't often disagree with our esteemed admin but this was a daft challenge that gets you no further forward.
Well it does, because it places the burden on the council to prove (with evidence) that there was a restriction. One of the most annoying scenarios I come across is where there is no evidence from the authority of a restriction, but the representations concede that a restriction existed in the first place, as that effectively amounts to confession evidence.

So far the council has not advanced anything that proves there was a restriction, so I would not make any admissions in this regard. If at a later stage the council comes up with some evidence, you can always add rebuttal evidence. If you admit that there was a restriction, you can't take that back and you might have shot yourself in the foot.

I would recommend waiting for the NTO and then making the same representation again.

@iffy_jiffy you shouldn't reply to the council now, you must wait for the NTO before contacting the council again.
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 nor 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.

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

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Karma: +25/-1
    • View Profile
We don't always agree but I would say the council will say exactly the same and at tribunal if I were the adjudicator I'd ask why the sign obstruction wasn't mentioned before.

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanka both @cp8759 @stamfordman.

Is it worth me replying now and trying to kill this off now by stating the sign was obstructed and not clearly visible as per the CEO's and my own pictures?

Appreciate there is disagreement on this and you both know way more than me on this.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma: +123/-4
    • View Profile
We don't always agree but I would say the council will say exactly the same and at tribunal if I were the adjudicator I'd ask why the sign obstruction wasn't mentioned before.
You're assuming the council turns up with evidence of a contravention, in a surprising number of cases they simply don't do that and the matter ends there. Remember the council will often turn up with all sorts of irrelevant gibberish, see Stanmore Quality Services Ltd (form. Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v City of London (2240377606, 9 November 2024) decided yesterday by Mr Walsh:

The enforcement authority (EA) case summary is, I am afraid, an unhelpful and in parts bizarre document which refers to a traffic management order when what is alleged is a contravention of primary legislation. It does not engage with the issues raised in the appeal and in the representations by reference to the relevant statutory provisions. I am not sure whether the reference to "blocked urinals" within the case summary was intended to be amusing or was a result of some careless 'cut and pasting' but this bizarre observation, and indeed the bulk of the case summary, had no relevance to the evidence and issued raised by the appellant company. This sort of document should not be provided to this tribunal again.

So, if there's no evidence of a contravention and the council makes an issue out of some blocked urinals, it would be very unfortunate if we'd made an admission that there was a restriction to be contravened in the first place. It's better not to put that in issue at all and leave the burden of proof on the council, I would never want to deprive them of an opportunity to mess things up.

@iffy_jiffy regardless of whether you want to show your cards or not, there is no point in replying now. The council will not consider anything further that you have to say until you get the Notice to Owner. If you write back now, no matter what you say you'll get a templated letter back telling you to wait for the NTO, so you'd just be wasting your time.
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 nor 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.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Agree Agree x 1 View List

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cool @cp8759. I'll wait for the NTO.

Thanks,
Irfan.

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Karma: +25/-1
    • View Profile
I agree, wait for the NTO.

Yes, cases are won where the evidence pack is deficient. But here there is a very good evidence including the council's own pic that the restriction could not be seen.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

iffy_jiffy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Morning, @cp8759 @stamfordman @h c anderson, i've received the NTO from Manchester City Council, could you advise next steps please?

https://imgur.com/a/GFgxf8Z - Page 1
https://imgur.com/a/i5yLp3x - Page 2
https://imgur.com/a/yOKcnrw - Page 3
https://imgur.com/a/N9SHZuW - Page 4

Thanks all,
Irfan.

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Karma: +25/-1
    • View Profile
You have a choice whether to go with CP's reiteration of your initial challenge or introduce evidence that the permit parking sign was obstructed.

If the latter I would got on the lines of 'I was puzzled to get the PCN at the time and took some pictures showing no signs. I now see from Google Maps that the one sign on turning from x road was obscured by a lorry, as can be seen by my pic and also by a pic taken by your CEO.'
Agree Agree x 1 View List

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Karma: +123/-4
    • View Profile
@iffy_jiffy my suggestion would be very simple:

Dear Manchester City Council,

I rely on my informal representations which I require you to consider afresh as my formal representations.

Yours faithfully,

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

Also here's some useful evidence for the tribunal stage:



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 nor 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.

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