Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: volavola on February 07, 2024, 05:27:48 pm
-
Well done! but get it confirmed in writing....
Indeed you must get written confirmation, it wouldn't be unheard of for someone to get an assurance on the phone and then get a charge certificate in the post.
-
Well done! but get it confirmed in writing....
-
Just a quick update, I've given North Essex Parking Partnership a call this morning just to highlight to them their error of missing the time and date stamp - prior to submitting for tribunal.
After realising the error and subsequently speaking with a manager, they have cancelled the PCN.
I will also put in a complaint about how this was handled prior to this.
Many thanks to everyone who helped
-
@volavola well it's tribunal time, I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented.
-
Surely the evidence from the CEO confirms that the car had moved? They have noted front as 11 on first observation then 12 on second observation.
I guess they're putting that down to "it's close enough".
Honestly, I'm pretty shocked it's got the stage it has, there has been incompetency the entire way through, with now 3 different individuals involved:
- CEO either hasn't been trained that there is no zonal restriction and the three sets of bays have different TRO's, or he forgot that the car was in a different location before and the tyre valves were "close enough" to decide it hadn't moved.
- They failed to even view the video at informal appeal.
- They failed to see a time/date stamp in the formal appeal, despite it being clearly displayed in the bottom left of the video.
It's simply a waste of time, effort and money. Not just for me, but for the local tax payers, over something that should never have got this far. Very frustrated with it all.
-
Surely the evidence from the CEO confirms that the car had moved? They have noted front as 11 on first observation then 12 on second observation.
-
NoR Part 2
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
NoR attached, and yes reply was at per post 17.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please to post up the NoR. I presume the reos were as per Reply#17?
-
So finally had a reply from them. They have rejected it based on the video not having a time or date stamp, and as you can quite clearly see it does in the YouTube video, which is a direct copy of the reupload they watched.
Off to tribunal I reckon then...
-
Thereis a 56 day limit under the Traffic Management Act to respond to formal representations against a Notice to Owner. So a few days to go yet.
-
Just wondering what's the average time to respond to a formal appeal or if there's a time limit at all? It's been 35 days or so at this point and the video still have zero views.
Many Thanks
-
@volavola your formal representation looks fine to me. The one thing I'd suggest is that you re-upload the video and send them the newly created youtube link, and don't open the link yourself and do not post it on here.
If by the time you get the notice of rejection the view count is still zero, you can then prove conclusively that they've failed to consider it.
Thank you, I've done this so the view count is 0 and made sure not to click the link myself.
Will keep you updated when I get a response, many thanks.
-
@volavola your formal representation looks fine to me. The one thing I'd suggest is that you re-upload the video and send them the newly created youtube link, and don't open the link yourself and do not post it on here.
If by the time you get the notice of rejection the view count is still zero, you can then prove conclusively that they've failed to consider it.
-
OOI - in cases like this can the CEO be made to attend a hearing and if so do they give evidence under oath?
People might feel differently about perjury vs a falsehood on a form.
AFAIK, you can't force the CEO to attend. This being civil law-based, the adjudicator decides on "the balance of probabilities" who is right and who is wrong. So if you take them to adjudication, it is essential you or your representative, attend the hearing. This doesn't have to be in person, as telephone adjudications are now commonplace.
-
OOI - in cases like this can the CEO be made to attend a hearing and if so do they give evidence under oath?
People might feel differently about perjury vs a falsehood on a form.
-
Thanks for the reply H C.
Yes, I did submit the video with the challenge. The video was unlisted, and had 9 views at the time I sent it to them. When I received a reply from the informal appeal, it still had 9 views - so I know they didn't view the YouTube link.
I didn't want to outright accuse the CEO of lying, however I would say it's pretty unlikely that he/she initially marked the valve positions and is also unaware that the St.John's 2 hour parking bays aren't seperate; or maybe just trying it on!
If/when the PCN gets revoked, I will still send an email to the parking partnership and copy in anyone else that could flag the issue. My partner wanted to pay it due to the hassle, but for me it's more the principle given their initial response to the informal challenge - as well as the time and money wasted on both sides!
-
OP, did you submit the video with your challenge?
Whether you did or did not, there is something very wrong with the authority and CEO standards here.
We have seen that the car moved. Therefore, leaving the law to one side for the moment, as a matter of fact the car moved. It is therefore impossible that a CEO acting reasonably could have observed the car in location A and issued the PCN in location B and yet claimed* in their notes that the car had not moved. B******s to valve positions, the b****y car was 250m away from where it was observed originally. Setting aside for one moment the video, the CEO is lying and/or grossly incompetent because the car was not in the same physical location. S*d zonal restrictions, the car was NOT as a matter of fact in the same place. That the OP can prove this is an important part of their evidence but the fact still remains that the CEO lied.
Cp's draft should win and the CEO will be let off the hook. Personally, I'd go for their jugular.
*- we haven't seen the notes and some blame might attach to the authority as regards their interpretation.
-
@volavola if you let us know once you've got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.
@cp8759
I have drafted quickly the below, if you could let me know if I've been to nice or how to change some of the content that would be great.
- Arrived at 11:50 and parked at St John’s Green, outside St Giles Conference Centre.
- Returned to vehicle at 13:45 and moved approx. 250m to other bays, St John’s Green (central Section) as shown in the YouTube video.
- Returned to the vehicle at 15:30 to find PCN.
I do not believe this PCN should apply as the car wasn’t parked for more than 2 hours in either of these distinct bays. As set out in the TRO under Schedule No.44 (Page 205), the locations at St John’s Green are defined under different headings and are therefore separate locations; there is no zonal restriction in place.
In your previous rejection, you state that the CEO noted the tyre valve positions were the same at the first and second observation and therefore the vehicle did not move. I provide a copy of the car dashcam footage, uploaded to YouTube, which is time and date stamped to show it did.
-
Other page
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hello,
Thanks all for the replies.
NTO arrived yesterday and is attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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.
-
Please post an image of the bay sign, it must give clear information
-
if it counts as one single area anyway?
And where did you get this idea?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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.
-
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
[attachment deleted by admin]