Free Traffic Legal Advice

Post up the PCN, your reps and Notice of rejection, and also a Google Street View link to the location.

Post up the PCN, your reps and Notice of rejection, and also a Google Street View link to the location.

Any reason for not doing the above ?

So this is the initial pcn paper i got. not sure if you need the bits i blacked out

The challenge email i wrote was:
I am challenging this PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The suspension applied to the bay outside numbers 1, 3, and 5, but my vehicle was parked outside number 7. There are no bay markings or physical boundaries indicating that my position fell within the suspended area. The council’s own photographs do not show any house numbers or identifiable reference points that could establish my vehicle’s location relative to the suspension. The images are taken from an angle and do not prove that my vehicle was wholly or partly within the suspended bay.

In addition, the suspension was imposed for water gully cleaning, yet none of the council’s photographs show the gully itself or its position in relation to my vehicle. Without evidence of where the gully is located, the authority cannot demonstrate that the suspended point was obstructed.

The burden of proof rests with the council. As the photographic evidence does not identify (1) the precise location of my vehicle or (2) the location of the suspended feature (the gully), the authority has not substantiated the allegation.

For these reasons, the contravention is not proven and I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

The rejection letter i got was here:


the location was https://maps.app.goo.gl/NqwZKt1X113Zhh9EA - the car on the right side is more or less where i was parked perhaps a bit more forward closer to 5

Other images that were attached at the evidence part of haringey website was the following (which are also attached at the end of the rejection letter)






the rejection letter also says below at the end.
 
You have these choices:

• You can pay the discount charge of £80.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date
of service of this letter.
• You can pay £160.00 within 28 days of the date your PCN was issued.
• You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner
will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued.
The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £160.00. If you
decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice
to Owner form arrives.
How to pay:
• By internet: Go to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/payments and follow the online instructions.
• By telephone: At any time (Credit/Debit Cards only) on 0300 456 0520 - Please have your
credit/debit card and Penalty Charge Number to hand when you make the call.
• In person: Take your PCN and payment to Haringey Vehicle Pound, Unit 1, 1 Waltham Park
Way, London, E17 5DU between Monday to Saturday 7am to 10pm and Sunday 8am to 8pm.
Please ensure you obtain a receipt.
Yours sincerely
Mr O Olagbaju
Parking Process Case Officer

These are all the photos they have other than duplicates, and the approximate position on the google map.

only the first picture shows the relative position of the car and i dont think it is clear if i am itruding into 5. Without a picture taken perpendicular to the houses it wouldnt be super obvious

The bottom line is that they say you were intruding into No 5 frontage, so have to be able to prove this if you take them to London Tribunals, (your next step apart from paying now). Downside of this, is you lose the discount option. If you win, you pay nothing, if you lose it's the full penalty, but there are no additional costs at all.

The rejection letter is saying that i was parked in no 5 and intruding into 7.. which is just not true. anyway i thought it was on THEM to prove that i was breaking the rules rather than other way around - the pics dont quite prove that i am parked into the 5 (at least not by how much because there is no obvious line that separate the two from this angle)... obviously i might be wrong in this procedure..

which brings me to asking the question here. from your relatively better knowledge/experience, would it be worth taking it to the tribunal? or is it quite unlikely i will 'win' this

It may surprise you to know that photos are not a legal requirement in the regulations.

What the... now im leaning towards just paying the 80 rather than risk doubling and stressing out about it. unless it is like 80%+ win

"on the balance of probabililties" doesnt sound very promising - not sure which side they tend to take in general when things are quite split

Shabby behaviour by council to include a picture which was not the OP's car.

Particularly as it was a similar colour car, and the fact it was illustrative rather than evidence of contravention was not mentioned.
A casual reader might well assume this was a council picture of contravention, and throw cards in. 


Anyway. Act on facts.

Is the location local to OP?

Surely the simplest way to establish the truth is to retrace your steps and park in the same position. 

Then take two photos,  one perpendicular to kerb to illustrate you were parked outside No. 7;
and one from the perspective of the council's photos, to show that parking position the same as one cited in PCN.

Perhaps come back for an opinion then?

If OP entirely in front of no 7, job's a goodun.

If the OP was overlapping a little, de minimus could still prevail.

If OP more than a little, I'd be inclined to gamble, with original argument that council have not demonstrated a contravention. Especially due to council's behaviour, which I'm sure an adjudicator would take a dim view of.

In the GSV current pic there is a square manhole behind the Audi - and in the council pic of the front of the OP's car you can just see the edge of the manhole. Going back to 2019 in GSV is close to a square on view of the 5/7 gates - the edge of the manhole looks to be more or less level with the gatepost of no 5 (not the 5/7 gatepost). So it looks like the OP's car was over the dividing line by perhaps 30-50cm.  Would really need a site visit to measure. Given the lack of any markings in the parking bay seems a good case of de minimis, but it's the OP's money.

Good catch! - yes i may have been protruding a bit (which i believe i wrote) - im not trying to avoid the fine when i deserve it but just dont want to be unjustly fined.

Now is 30~50cm is enough of a contravention in a typical case like this. Am i correct in assuming 'de minimus' means that the adjucator says that is so minor that im gonna throw out the case and cancel the fine?

Now I wonder what the chances of it being chalked up as such is high enough to gamble. I was thinking if it is 80% or up i'd gamble it but if it is more like 50/50 ill just pay the 80. really trying to access the collective knowledge/experience of the forumites.