Author Topic: PCN, Haringey, Code 16, Parked in permit zone without permit, Wargrave Ave N15 6UB  (Read 262 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

yankyg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
https://maps.app.goo.gl/behXzyqnfSvJWgCq5
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WJNym4p97823TYUi8

Arrived 10pm at night for stop over for weekend. We were travelling from Holiday in France and had been travelling since 9.30am. I have not been at that address for at least a year. I live in Manchester.
I parked outside no 64. There is a 2ft yellow single line a few house back, then white dashed lines marking the restricted parking area. There are loads of signs before the house I parked at. Possibly at every parking space, as one is residents, next is disabled, next is residents. I parked after the signs, but there is a very bushy unkempt tree obscuring the signs behind. Across the road is a pole with no sign. In front of where I parked there are about 7 car spaces, with lots of trees, and only one post, which does not have any sign on it about parking, but does have a blue arrow on it.

My claim is that the sign is very small, it was dark when I parked, and was obscured by the tree which the council have not pruned. The tree branches blocked my tree from closing, and got caught in my boot as they are so bushy. We had come from France, and most of the family slept right in. Passed the 11:26am. The signs are tiny, fitting just two words on each line. There should have been a sign in front of the car and on the other side of the road. Both are missing.
(The car is registered as silver, not grey. There tear off line is not in the right place, therefore missing text from back of notice.) There are pictures at night which is when I parked, and photos from later after the PCN issued.

Thanking you in advance.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2024, 01:35:56 pm by yankyg »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • View Profile
Post the PCN.

The only thing that matters is a sign in the bay you were in.

The road is in the South Tottenham controlled parking zone so every part of all kerbs are covered by restrictions of some sort (mainly yellow lines and parking bays).

yankyg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
My apologies. I have added the PCN.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2690
  • Karma: +64/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
From GSV of June 2022, the latest, the bay is quite long with more than one sign because of its length. The restriction is clearly there to prevent commuters parking there all day, as it only applies for a short time from 10.00 until 12.00. There are three railway stations within about 5 minutes walk.

I'm afraid your points about signs being missing appear weak, because there is one outside No 60 only 2 doors away.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DrmjRMLTrtug8YdH9
assuming this sign is still there.
There is another sign by No 77, and the bay ends outside No 80

Quote
Across the road is a pole with no sign.
This is irrelevant, because parking restrictions are separate on each side of a street so even if there were a sign on the pole it would not apply to where you parked.

To be frank, the bay is quite well signed, (assuming GSV of 2022 shows the current signs situation) and the onus is on you as a motorist parking there in what is a marked bay, to see to find the applicable sign, one of which is 2 doors away from your parked car.

Reading your narrative, can it be that you knew the restriction started at 10.00am, but overslept ?

The final thing to ask is,  was this an Airbnb accommodation ? You were a visitor to the property on the street so I am surprised there are no arrangements for visitors to obtain a visitor permit.

Sorry if the above is not what you wanted to hear, but I cannot see an appeal to London Tribunals succeeding on the contravention and signage. Of course there may be a 'technical' argument relating to PCN content, or the council website for submitting representations. So wait a bit for the "technicians" to respond, don't cough-up straight away.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2024, 09:54:08 pm by Incandescent »

yankyg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for your replies. I have double checked, and you are correct. There is one sign at the beginning, and one at the end, of the long bay. From the perspective of where I was parked, there was no visible sign looking forward or backward. There is a sign on entry to the road of the South Tottenham controlled parking. I had no idea that this was a controlled zone. I used to come here years ago, before it became a controlled zone. It seems it has been controlled for 3yrs. In  Manchester we don't have these things. In Manchester it is also very common to have road markings showing restricted bays, without there being any restrictions. I suppose it was dark and late, and after a long drive. Suppose it goes to court, would I have to come down to London, or could I ask for it to be in Manchester, and would the council send someone?
It is family, but they forgot to tell us.
Thanks for all your help.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2024, 09:31:31 pm by yankyg »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2690
  • Karma: +64/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Appeals at London Tribunals are available as telephone hearings.

I am astonished that you stayed with relations, yet no mention of the need for a visitor permit was mentioned. These permits allow visitors to residents to occupy permit-only bays. They are also in use in Manchester where there are also permit-only streets and zones.

Frankly, I cannot see you succeeding at LT on the signs issue, but I see nobody has contributed yet on enforcement process errors, so wait a but but if nobody comes on before the discount date arrives that may be your best option.


yankyg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Relatives were away! So I can't blame them at all. Good of them to give us their house! As soon as they heard about the PCN, they apologised, and told us where to find the permits. Thanks for all your help. Will wait to see what else comes up here..

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Karma: +24/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:

1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;

This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.

Signage:  I see no correlation between the sign and the car.

Re their website:  go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please.  This is important.

https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
« Last Edit: September 01, 2024, 12:59:14 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2690
  • Karma: +64/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:

1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;

This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.

Signage:  I see no correlation between the sign and the car.

Re their website:  go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please.  This is important.

https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
It's a Regulation 9 PCN, so I would not expect to see the statutory appeal grounds on it. These would be on the Notice to Owner.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
  • Karma: +37/-28
    • View Profile
+1.

IMO, the authority are not required to state grounds of representation on a Reg. 9 PCN and I don't know what power authorises them to do so!

If they are neither required nor authorised then I cannot see how a PI would apply given that:

A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it .....

....

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) such a failure includes, in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than—

(a)in accordance with the conditions subject to which, or

(b)at the time or during the period when,

it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.


(my emphasis.)

But online grounds are different IMO because as regards making a challenge online the PCN instructs the recipient to follow online instructions

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5212
  • Karma: +122/-4
    • View Profile
Haringey's website does not provide the correct grounds of appeal, that is a basis on which appeals have been accepted by Michael Oliver, Teresa Brennan, Andrew Harman, Philippa Alderson, Henry Michael Greenslade, Jack Walsh, Gerald Styles and Carl Teper, @yankyg see the cases on rows 623 to 641 here.

It is therefore worth taking this case to the tribunal in any event, but obviously you need to wait for the notice to owner first, then make formal representations, and then wait for the notice of rejection. The whole process is explained here.

In terms of what to put in the representations, in the first instance draft something based on the signage (we know this argument won't fly, but you need to put something in and you don't want to reveal your trump card at the informal representations stage). Put a draft on here in the first instance and we'll review it for 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 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

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
  • Karma: +37/-28
    • View Profile
IMO, I therefore suggest the obvious for which there exists physical evidence which is that the CEO's printer is a cog loose because it did not produce a complete readable PCN which contained the information and instructions mandated by the council- the most obvious aspect being that the payment slip was missing which also lead to parts of the council's information being omitted.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Karma: +24/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:

1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;

This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.

Signage:  I see no correlation between the sign and the car.

Re their website:  go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please.  This is important.

https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
It's a Regulation 9 PCN, so I would not expect to see the statutory appeal grounds on it. These would be on the Notice to Owner.

I agree; but, if they are going to put misinformation on the PCN, this is an issue. The PCN is the prima facie document from which all else flows. Also, when combined with cp8759's point re the website, this should be exploited as a P.I. They have omitted of their own volition the first ground.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2024, 07:27:55 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Karma: +24/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Haringey's website does not provide the correct grounds of appeal, that is a basis on which appeals have been accepted by Michael Oliver, Teresa Brennan, Andrew Harman, Philippa Alderson, Henry Michael Greenslade, Jack Walsh, Gerald Styles and Carl Teper, @yankyg see the cases on rows 623 to 641 here.



@cp8759 What are the incorrect grounds as I have never been able to see them unless I type in address details?

@yankygI repeat my  request to screenshot the page as mentioned above.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2024, 07:20:07 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5212
  • Karma: +122/-4
    • View Profile
@Hippocrates just make up a bogus address, as long as you don't hit the "submit" button you can go through all the screens.

Haringey doesn't actually give you any grounds at all.
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