Author Topic: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)  (Read 466 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello,

Hoping for some advice on all this.

My partner parked in Colchester recently, at St Johns Green. Whereby there is a number of bays for free parking, just no return within 2 hours. When she returned the second time there was a ticket (attached)

Before the 2 hour period was up my partner returned to the car and moved it from Point A to Point B, as shown in the image. Also the YouTube video here of dashcam footage here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPznPeRzN9Y

I put all this information on the appeal. Along with noting that the two locations whilst both St Johns Green, are listed seperately in the TRO (attached image of that too).

It just seems a bit mad that it's been denied on the valves apparently being in the same location on the wheel. When the car was moved 1 minute up the road to another location.

I guess just wait now for 28 days and the a formal appeal? Seems to a whole lot of waste time and energy all round.

Edit: Attached rejection of informal appeal.

Thanks
« Last Edit: February 12, 2024, 11:59:26 pm by cp8759 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to another does not trump the 2 hour limit.

Clearly your informal challenge has been rejected, so the next stage is the Notice to Owner, where you can submit a formal representations.

All you can do at the NtO stage is state the facts; that you moved the car before the 2 hours was up, and re-parked elsewhere in St Johns Green in a totally separate bay. You might not get away with this because the TRO lists the relevant bays under one single location, so the contravention is, in theory, made out. I think your wifes "clever wheeze" to thwart the 2 hour rule may not be valid. Certainly the council are unlikely to give way, so you'd have to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The discount option is lost at the Notice to Owner stage, by the way.

The other aspect is the PCN itself and its content. We often find fatal errors in PCN that on their own, win appeals even if the contravention is made out. This is because a learned judge, some years ago stated that, (for parking PCN penalties), that a penalty can be demanded if a set of statutory conditions exists. An error on a PCN can be such that it is a procedural impropriety and thus the PCN is void.

So please post-up all of the PCN, top to bottom and all sides.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2024, 12:17:19 am by Incandescent »

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks for your reply.

Yes it does seem that it would be almost impossible for the tyre vales to have been in the same position, given the length the car was moved as shown in the video.

I had assumed (maybe wrongly) that the as the locations are listed seperately in the TRO, that these would be counted as different locations.
i.e. parked initially in St John's Green and then subsequently moved to St John's Green (central Section) - Page 205 of the TRO here: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Colchester/CH071.pdf

I have also uploaded the PCN below (both sides)

Thanks

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Is anyone with a bit of experience able to advise if the two locations are different, if in the TRO they are listed under the seperate headings?

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile

TRO lists the relevant bays under one single location, so the contravention is, in theory, made out.

It's not IMO. The contravention of returning within the 2-hour period might be made out, but the TRO lists 3 distinct areas under the St. John's Green heading:
St. John's Green;
SJG (Central);
SJG (north-eastern).

The bays themselves are separated by areas of waiting and other restrictions.

IMO, it is NOT the case that a vehicle which moves bay* is subject to anything other than that bay's primary restriction. I've read cases where the 'no return' aspect has been considered as a 'zonal' restriction but only where the same restrictions apply throughout. In any event, this is not the alleged contravention.

*- this is the most worrying part of their reply for me. It suggests that the authority do NOT accept that the car moved because it is totally irrelevant whether the valves were in the same place or not if their argument is that all bays are covered.

I would focus on this point at formal reps.

From ** to *** my car was parked o/s *** in a 2-hr bay situated between nos. *** and *** on the *** side of St. John's Green(this is listed as being the *** area in the TRO). At approx.*** the car left this bay and was re-positioned o/s no. *** in the bay which runs between nos. *** and *** SJG(listed under *** area in the TRO).

The car was not parked for more than the prescribed period in either of these distinct bays and therefore the contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

I would draw the authority's attention to the following statement in their letter dated **** rejecting my initial representations:

************

Before considering these reps, the authority must satisfy themselves as to whether the car did or did not move between the CEO's two observations at ** and ***. If they agree, then the issue of valve positions is at best redundant and at worst indicative of unsound reasoning. If they disagree and believe that the car remained stationary, then they should issue a Notice of Rejection and I would be content to let the adjudicator decide the matter.

Just some thoughts for later.

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.

I understand what you are saying in terms of a reply at the formal stage, and this was the information I put in the informal appeal.

Proving the car moved is quite easy with the video footage, however if they then do agree that it has moved is it not that we've then admitted to overstaying as St John's Green and the PCN would still need to be paid - if it counts as one single area anyway?

Do we have any kind of chance of winning this, or is it just a better bet to pay at the discounted rate?

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile

if it counts as one single area anyway?

And where did you get this idea?

mrmustard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
Please post an image of the  bay sign, it must give clear information
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

if it counts as one single area anyway?

And where did you get this idea?

Apologies, I misread your reply. I thought the first line was you saying that the contravention was made out.

Also previous the reply from Incandescent who said they treat all bays at St Johns Green as one area. So has led to a bit of confusion on my part as to which is correct.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2024, 02:57:23 pm by volavola »

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Please post an image of the  bay sign, it must give clear information

Hi, thanks for your reply. Here's the picture of the sign from the bay where the ticket was issued, it's identical on the one at the first set of bays also.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Karma: +87/-3
    • View Profile
Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to another does not trump the 2 hour limit.
That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic order supports what the council is doing, the signs are inadequate.

IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard to see how you could lose.

Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is right on this occasion.

@volavola if you let us know once you've got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

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

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Quote
Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
Er, No ! 
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various bays in the St. John's Green parking bays.  I didn't say whether this was correct or not. Clearly they get away with it, and will continue to do so ad infinitum until adjudicators are given powers to rule on the enforcement practices of councils.  Why, for instance do DART continue to issue PCNs that a TPT adjudicator ruled were unlawful in 2018 !  The whole apparatus is a scandal !

volavola

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to another does not trump the 2 hour limit.
That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic order supports what the council is doing, the signs are inadequate.

IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard to see how you could lose.

Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is right on this occasion.

@volavola if you let us know once you've got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and your offer of the draft for formal representation, much appreciated. I'll update once we get the NTO.

One other thing, should the location on the PCN be identical to the TRO, or is that just academic? For example the PCN says St.John's Green, but the name for the bay on the TRO is St.John's Green (central Section)?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2024, 01:56:03 pm by volavola »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Karma: +87/-3
    • View Profile
Quote
Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
Er, No ! 
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various bays in the St. John's Green parking bays.  I didn't say whether this was correct or not.
My apologies, I must have misread but I think we agree what they're doing is wrong.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

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

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Quote
Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
Er, No ! 
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various bays in the St. John's Green parking bays.  I didn't say whether this was correct or not.
My apologies, I must have misread but I think we agree what they're doing is wrong.
Indeed, yes !  A long time ago, when it was the old 1991 legislation, I remember a case in Alresford on this issue but can't remember the outcome. It was on this street.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AgpNuYYd5eKFhaeG6
If you look at the sign for the bay on the left, it has a "no return in 2 hours" condition. OP moved up about two bays and reeparked and got a PCN.
Lovely town, BTW