Author Topic: PCN Tunbridge Wells - Parked in a residents zone without permit - Whybourne Crest  (Read 1830 times)

0 Members and 367 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ok thanks. We’ve done that.

Will post back here once we have more info.

The authority have a fundamental problem in that they fail to understand and use the mandated 28-day period in all of their letters.

And whether an owner is 'detrimented' (aaagh!) don't enter into it. '28 days from' is glaringly wrong and as they've used this in the NOR should ensure you win on procedural grounds alone:

6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—

(a)must—

(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice

(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or

(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,


NOT 28 days from.

These differences are not 'minimal', they're fundamental.

Evidence is in

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

PCN evidence

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

case Report



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Informal appeal

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Notes from case



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Map

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

They also added the NTO and other letters I have already uploaded at the start of the thread.

They also uploaded the parking order for the road and an amendment to that order.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

@lofi234 it's a permit parking area, you can see the PPA sign here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m6e2EmZQRFLG8WTZA

That being said, the council seems to be in complete disarray, they don't seem to know the difference between a PPA and a CPZ, they've got no evidence of signage (do not point this out to them!), and I suspect that by now the sign is completely engulfed in foliage.

To top it off the discount is not on offer, so there's no reason not to appeal and see what they put in the evidence pack.

I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented.

The evidence shows the repeater sign only. I took this photo today of the main sign.

https://imgur.com/a/90yogKe

So I need to respond to the appeal in the next few days. Any advice welcome.

We’re going to raise the procedural impropriety from the formal appeal.

Is it worth mentioning they haven’t shown an image of the main signs showing it’s a residential parking only area? They just have the repeater. She genuinely didn’t see the larger sign just the repeater over a yellow line.

Is there anything else we should include?

Thanks.

Ok she has added her comments on their evidence. I told her it’s best to submit nothing in relation to them not showing the large sign on entry to the zone as she can raise this at the telephone tribunal. The argument being they have no evidence the sign existed or was visible.

Is that good advice?

For the 28 day stuff my understanding is that the council using “from” instead of “within” could mean you have 29 days instead of 28. The meaning is ambiguous and could cause the driver to misunderstand what the timeframe is. Is that correct?

@lofi234 have you requested a hearing? If not, you should do so asap. Ask for a video hearing, that is always preferable. I'll have a look at the evidence pack this evening and give you my feedback.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 09:24:47 am by cp8759 »
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

Yes she requested a telephone hearing. I think it’s the end of the month. Any advantage to video over telephone? She wasn’t too fussed either way.

Basic defence currently is procedural impropriety for missing info from the PCN.

Procedural impropriety for implying 29 days for various time frames when they are required to be 28 on the PCN and Rejection letter. The way I’ve explained this is “two days from Monday” would always be Wednesday. So 28 days from a date would commonly not include day one. The wording they are supposed to use is “within”.

She is also happy to bring up the lack of proof of a sign showing the area is a residential parking only street. As such they only have a photo of a repeater over a yellow line and her car wasn’t on a yellow line. She has lots of evidence that lines do exist on the road and obviously a driver can only respond to the information available where they park on that day. Not online information which they have supplied as evidence it’s a residents parking area.

I feel like they are all sensible and strong arguments and she seems happy enough to talk them through.