Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3REZ5Xu5xooiG-6GZFiN6PuzeK-jurs/view).Adjudicator Robinson seems to be playing fast and loose with the requirements of the regulations. A copy of a PCN must be a copy of it; how can "substantial compliance" apply to a legal requirement is beyond me.
@chopwell20 I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view) but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.Dear Southend-on-Sea Borough Council,
The PCN carries a premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Bateman available at LINK this results in the amount demanded exceeding the amount due by law. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.
It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send this via the council website and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Hello again.
I have received NTO today.
as advised please see the pictures attached.
(https://i.ibb.co/XX0z2Vx/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XX0z2Vx) (https://i.ibb.co/yspzWXk/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yspzWXk) (https://i.ibb.co/BZ5ZWb3/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BZ5ZWb3) (https://i.ibb.co/Fntwd42/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Fntwd42) (https://i.ibb.co/k1n3VvB/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k1n3VvB) (https://i.ibb.co/D1wQ4hZ/New-Doc-05-17-2024-13-03-Redacted-Page-6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/D1wQ4hZ)
Thanks
now the step is to wait for Notice to Owner right!Correct
@chopwell20 that's a shame as you'd have very strong grounds to appeal based on Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view), and one of us would have undoubtedly offered to represent you at the tribunal (I represented Mr Bateman).
@Incandescent going forward please make sure to check for telephone numbers on the back of the PCN before giving advice.
Just thinking though. Could this argument be overturned by an adjudicator saying it is so trivial it's de minimis, despite the case in the High COurt ? For instance, if the call took 10 minutes, it would cost the PCN recipient 10p more against a discounted penalty of £35.All litigation carries a degree of risk, but my answer to that point is simple: If the council starts issuing PCNs for £70.10 instead of £70, is that OK? How about £70.30? Or £70.50? At this point why not £71? Where do you draw the line?
@chopwell20 that's a shame as you'd have very strong grounds to appeal based on Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view), and one of us would have undoubtedly offered to represent you at the tribunal (I represented Mr Bateman).God, yes !! I thought this issue had been put to bed aeons ago. Obviously not ! However, in his last post the OP seemed to have quite a lot on his plate already. No excuse though. I shall be more diligent in future.
@Incandescent going forward please make sure to check for telephone numbers on the back of the PCN before giving advice.
So you didn't notice the signs as you entered York Road, then ?
The whole area is a permit parking zone. What also seems to have mislead you is the repeater sign where you parked is shown in GSV June 2023 turned round so it doesn't face the carriageway. If you look at the previous GSV view (November 2020) the sign is the correct way round and right by your car.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ow4yiz3tusgqFgfu6
It's now your decision as to whether to take them all the way to adjudication, or cough-up the discount. I don't like the location information, which, if this was a postal PCN to the owner, would be grounds for cancellation on wrong location, but here the PCN is served to your car, and the street name is correct. You could argue that you saw no repeater sign, and had missed the entry sign due to traffic requiring your attention when turning, but there are two signs that seem clear enough on GSV. It would be a gamble in my opinion.
Very puzzling because Stanley Road is not near the Kursall, which stands on Southchurch Avenue (A1160), and here it is: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bRGVdc87XpJ5xPTz9
However, further up Southchurch Avenue where one turns into York road, giving access to Stanley Road is this sign,
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9EpqQfEthtbEe51L9
indicating a Permit Parking ZOne that requires no signs or lines inside the zone, although I see there are repeater signs. You need to tell us exactly where you parked, preferably with a GSV link and pointing out the location. Also tell us your route to the parking location.
Here are the signs at the other end of York Road,
https://maps.app.goo.gl/i9MVcYovMeAH9Dgw9
but this is 2012, if you look at GSV for 2023, the signs are not clear at all, one being turned round and the other obscured by trees.