Author Topic: Plymouth Council Parked without a pay and display ticket after entering wrong re  (Read 1518 times)

0 Members and 315 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi All,

Just an update, we received a letter yesterday saying :
"
Your case has now been placed on hold while the circumstances within your correspondence are investigated. A response will be sent to you in due course.
"
https://photos.app.goo.gl/FSJaFQroYQaWLNVr5

Thanks
Vin

Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Unfortunately we received a Notice Of Rejection Of Representations through the post today

It's been addressed to my wife and I am referred to as 'a third party'.

I have been given the opportunity to appeal to the traffic Penalty tribunal.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nCcY16KwVkqterDL7

https://photos.app.goo.gl/owcMLVGGVpjzxPk37

https://photos.app.goo.gl/i82hhCG45oeq4wab7

https://photos.app.goo.gl/cr269DCWdm8Y6e4h7


Thank you in advance
Vin

They've not re-offered the discount, so it is now a no-brainer to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal using the appeal argument developed by CP8759
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi All,
I hope you had a good Christmas. I was just trying to write my appeal to the Tribunal (please see my next post), when I noticed that I had missed a page on my previous post, sorry about that!

So I have got my laptop out and have uploaded the photos to imgur, here they are:


Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Page 4


Page 5

Their arguments against our representations are on pages 2, 3 and 4.

Thanks
Vin

Hi All,

The images in my last post don't seem to be showing but the links do take you to the correct pages.

I have a question about the appeal. In the council's response to our representation they refer to me as the 'third party' as the vehicle belongs to my wife.

On the traffic penalty tribunal website should I appeal on my Wife's behalf or should I write the appeal and get my wife to rewrite the below from her perspective?


Draft Appeal:



Dear Sir/Madam,

On the 2nd of October my wife, the registered owner and I parked the car, registration BN66YSG at Mayflower Street East Car Park in Plymouth. The parking payment system had changed since my last visit to the carpark and I paid £3-80 for 3 hours parking. I paid for parking with my debit card and when the machine asked if I wanted a receipt I selected 'yes' but the machine did not give me a receipt.

Upon returning to the car I noticed a penalty charge notice on the windscreen. As the traffic warden was still walking around the car park, I approached him to question why I had been given a ticket as I had paid for parking. During our conversation it became clear I had entered the wrong registration. I had entered my own car's, FN55JUC and not my wife's. I explained this to the traffic warden, who was unwilling to revoke the ticket.

The PCN states the following:
Contravention Code: 834
834-Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid virtual pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock.


By not receiving a receipt from the machine I believe I was put at a serious disadvantage. Firstly, I had been denied the opportunity to check that the vehicle registration was correct on a receipt which should've been issued. Secondly, I was unable to prove to the traffic warden that I had paid for parking by displaying a receipt on the car's dashboard.

In the informal representation I made to the council I mentioned the above along with a screenshot of my bank statement showing a transaction of £3-80. In their response, Plymouth City Council acknowledged that I had paid for parking using the registration FN55JUC but were unwilling to cancel the PCN.

After seeking advice, I decided to challenge liability for PCN PL10903622 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

Firstly Plymouth City Council allege that parking may be paid for via a cashless system, but upon consulting The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2007 as amended by The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Amendment Order No. 14) 2017 and The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Notice of Variation (No.1) 2023, the order does not provide any cashless payment option at all.

Furthermore, the contravention alleged on the PCN is "Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required", but it is not physically possible to display a virtual permit. Even if a valid virtual permit is in force, this will not be displayed. The allegation stated on the PCN is essentially meaningless.

I further alleged a procedural impropriety because the penalty charge notices does not convey the requirements of regulation 3(1)(c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Plymouth city council considered the above representations but decided not to cancel the PCN and I have now been given the opportunity to appeal to you the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

In addition to the above, by not making sure that their machine was sufficiently stocked with paper, Plymouth City Council have decided to punish us for something which was impossible at the time.

The contravention states:
Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid virtual pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock.
By not being given a receipt I was unable to display a physical ticket on the dashboard nor were we able to check that the virtual pay and display was correct. The car park also provides no facility to check virtual pay and display tickets after payment.

After the incident I was able to provide a virtual bank statement proving payment, but Plymouth City Council were still unwilling to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Mr xxxxx xxxxxxxx



Any feedback/ improvements would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!
Vin
« Last Edit: January 03, 2024, 11:19:47 pm by DevonFox »

YOu can either reform the letter as from your wife, (the registered keeper), or she writes a letter giving you authority to act on her behalf.  Liability is not transferred, so it's her bill if she loses. Of course, you no doubt have a joint account like us !

Like Like x 1 View List

Thank you Incandescent, yes it all comes out of the same pot!

I am going to try and submit the appeal tomorrow. My wife is happy to represent herself so I'll reword the letter.

If we have a hearing are we both able to be there, or would it just be my wife?

Thank you

Vin

Thank you Incandescent, yes it all comes out of the same pot!

I am going to try and submit the appeal tomorrow. My wife is happy to represent herself so I'll reword the letter.

If we have a hearing are we both able to be there, or would it just be my wife?

Thank you

Vin
As far as I know both can attend. I would expect it to be a telephone adjudication.
Like Like x 1 View List

Submitted!

Following on from cp8759's letter, I'll read up on

- 'The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2007 as amended by The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Amendment Order No. 14) 2017 and The City of Plymouth (Off-Street Parking Places) Notice of Variation (No.1) 2023.'

and

- regulation 3(1)(c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.


On those points what is the likelihood of the adjudicator questioning us on these legalistic points and what would be a good response?

Will keep you updated on the correspondence.

St Christopher pray for us!

Hi All,

So Plymouth Council responded to our evidence and this was their authority summary:

The Council remain satisfied that on the 02/10/2023 BN66YSG was parked in the Mayflower East car park without a valid ticket or session.

The informal decline letter (evidence 11) explained that the authority was not willing to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice due to the driver entering the wrong registration. 
A motorist is asked to confirm the registration before completing a session, as such the Council remain satisfied that reasonable notification to amend the oversight was available.
 
Contravention codes are not set in legislation. They are to give a general indication of the reason for a contravention.  In this instance the contravention selected by the issuing Officer is 83-suffix 4.  The Notice of Rejection (evidence 14) explained that the Authority remain satisfied this contravention code is applicable.

Whilst the consolidation Order (evidence 16) does not contain the facility for electronic payment, the requirement to obtain a valid session by entering the vehicle registration is supported by the relevant amendments (evidence 18 & 19).

The Council remain satisfied that the correct information is given on the Penalty Charge Notice (evidence 8) and Notice to Owner (evidence 12).

As a valid session was not held for BN66YSG on the date of contravention the Council remain satisfied that the contravention occurred and enforcement is appropriate.



In addition they attached a TRO/schedule and attached all of the correspondence and an internal processing document.

My wife needs to respond by the 01/02. We have the option of a video hearing or a telephone hearing. I am leaning toward the video hearing.

I have the opportunity to add comments to the the council's evidence or submit some more evidence.

Is there anything which we should add / anything which we can use to argue against their points?

Thank you in advance!
Vin

Definitely ask for a video hearing.

What you must also decide is whether you want to represent yourself, or whether you'd rather ask one of us to represent you.
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

Thank you  for your reply cp8759, we'll go for a video hearing!

What do you think our chances are of success?

Neither my wife or I have any experience with any hearings of any kind, so if one of you could assist that would be much appreciated.

Alternatively if you think in this case it'd be better for us to represent ourselves, we're also happy to do that.

Thanks
Vin

I have sent you a PM.
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
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi All,
An update on our case, we were successful in our appeal!

A big thank you to cp8759 who represented us.

The point in cp8759's appeal letter is what won in for us

"
Furthermore, the contravention alleged on the PCN is "Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required", but it is not physically possible to display a virtual permit. Even if a valid virtual permit is in force, this will not be displayed. The allegation stated on the PCN is essentially meaningless.
"

This was wriin the adjudicator's decision:


"13. I agree that the contravention alleged in the PCN does not correspond with the
contravention that occurred on this occasion and that they could not, in fact, have done what
the PCN alleges they failed to do, for the reasons Mr and Mrs x have given.

14. I am reinforced in this view because the standard descriptions of contraventions used
by councils nationally express contraventions involving virtual tickets/permits differently, and
in a way that does not allege a failure to display. I refer, in particular to contravention codes
12, 16, 19 and 85 in the Standard PCN Codes list. The latter, in particular, describes the
contravention of being “Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid
physical permit where required”. This and contravention codes 12, 16 and 19 all distinguish
between being parked without a valid virtual permit/ with an invalid virtual permit (with no
reference to displaying) on the one hand; and and being parked without clearly displaying a
valid physical permit, or voucher or pay and display ticket (or displaying an invalid physical
permit or voucher or pay and display ticket) on the other. Failure to display has no part of
these contraventions where a virtual permit/ticket is concerned. In that case the contravention
is simply being with or without an invalid/valid permit, in the sense of not having a valid virtual
permit or having an invalid virtual permit, not failing to display it.

"

Hopefully I won't get another ticket in the future. Good luck to everyone fighting their tickets!
Thanks
Vin

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