3. Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park  (Read 63 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park
« on: »
Good evening,

I'm looking for some advice on a Regulation 10 PCN I received yesterday. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, but am the registered keeper.

PCN & evidence

This took place at Cossack Lane Car Park in central Winchester: https://maps.app.goo.gl/15PDhqKEmunai4D77

From what I’ve been told by the driver, they parked with the intention of paying via RingGo. However, due to poor mobile reception they were unable to do so. Lacking the correct change, the driver attempted to find another driver to exchange cash with. After a few unsuccessfull minutes, they returned to the vehicle intending to leave and find an alternative car park.

At this point, the driver noticed the CEO near the vehicle. Due to limited English speaking proficiency, the driver chose to drive away without attempting to communicate with the CEO.

The PCN states that the CEO had begun preparing the PCN before the vehicle was driven away. However, I note a discrepancy of approximately six minutes between the timestamps on the CEO’s photographs (16:35) and the stated contravention time (16:41).

This may be a very weak argument, but would I be correct in thinking that the timestamps on the photographs do not necessarily establish when the PCN was actually “begun?

Is it at all possible to obtain the CEO’s notes and any timestamps as part of the evidence?

I'm questioning if there's any chance of appealing this successfully, or if I should just pay the discounted £25.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park
« Reply #1 on: »
All you can really do is submit representations on the lines you have told us here, emphasising the poor mobile reception and the other attempts to pay. I a convinced councils think mobile coverage is ubiqitous everywhere, whereas any mobile user knows this is not the case.  The council's attitude is that if you can't make payment then you should drive off and park somewhere else, which is exactly what happened. Of course, it is your money, but if you submit reps within the discount period, it is almost certain they will re-offer the discount. Please post a draft here for review then after submission, post their inevitable letter of rejection. You can then decide whether it is worth taking to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Note that time is always allowed to purchase parking time. In this case none was purchased because it couldn't be, but the principle is the same. How long was the driver in the car park ?
Logged
Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park
« Reply #2 on: »
Whatever you choose to write in your challenge, I suggest you include the following paragraph.

I also put it to the Council that there was no parking device in the car park that satsified the definition of  "parking device" as described under section 35(3B)of the Road Traffic Reguation Act 1984. Ringo is not a "parking device" when it fails to connect to a device. If a ticket machine is out of order it is expected to be covered over and clearly publicly noticed as such and no parking penalty is imposed. Consequently, if a internet connection is out of order or unconnectable this should be made public and not be automatically assumed to be the fault of the customer. If you search your Ringo records you will find that they have admitted their service does at times fail. On this occassion it failed and I am not at fault. If you disagree, please provide me with all email notifications from Ringo in the last 12 months so that I can prepare for my defence at adjudication. If necessary, please consider this request as a formal Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Logged
Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote from: Phantomcrusader on Yesterday at 12:58:44 am
Whatever you choose to write in your challenge, I suggest you include the following paragraph.

I also put it to the Council that there was no parking device in the car park that satsified the definition of  "parking device" as described under section 35(3B)of the Road Traffic Reguation Act 1984. Ringo is not a "parking device" when it fails to connect to a device. If a ticket machine is out of order it is expected to be covered over and clearly publicly noticed as such and no parking penalty is imposed. Consequently, if a internet connection is out of order or unconnectable this should be made public and not be automatically assumed to be the fault of the customer. If you search your Ringo records you will find that they have admitted their service does at times fail. On this occassion it failed and I am not at fault. If you disagree, please provide me with all email notifications from Ringo in the last 12 months so that I can prepare for my defence at adjudication. If necessary, please consider this request as a formal Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Fine, but the ticket machine was in order, but the driver hadn't the correct change. Havinng said that, one can always over-pay to get a ticket with what one has in ones pockets. This matter will only be resolved, in my opinion, at adjudication, so it's important all the ducks are in a row. The council will just say, OK, Ringo didn't work so you should have used the machine. Lack of change is not a reason to cancel the PCN. However I appreciate your research on the matter.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln Car Park