-
But the 'recipient' (of the NTO) didn't make reps.
While the authority is entitled to demand proof of authority in the form of an LoA from the person named on the NTO, there is no law that says they must. If you got an NTO and I sent in a representation saying you've authorised me to write in on your behalf, there is nothing to stop an authority saying "OK Mr cp8759, we accept at face value that you are authorised", it might seem odd but I can't see that the council are breaking any law by doing that.
And if you look at the statute the legal test is not a two-part test, it's simply that the appeal has to be brought by the recipient of the NoR, whoever that may be. Otherwise if you get an NTO and you make representations against it but due to some council mix-up I get the notice of rejection which names me as the liable party and demanding that I pay within 28 days, I'd have no right of appeal.
-
And so it came to pass that Manchester's permit parking sign of destiny met the loading lorry of doom.
-
As per my posts many months ago, and the right outcome was obtained.
But how the hell the adjudicator even registered the appeal in the first place beggars belief!
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
But the 'recipient' (of the NTO) didn't make reps. Being able to make an appeal is a two-part test. It's not just that a NOR has been received by the recipient of the NTO, it's that reps were made as required and a NOR received.
What is going on with the tribunals nowadays? (Rhetorical, pl don't PM me!!)
-
@cp8759 thanks for your help with this. Brilliant statement, arguments and case made for the appeal.
-
Outcome:
(https://i.imgur.com/TmlePSu.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/OWfe6E9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/f0M5IG7.png)
-
@iffy_jiffy you need to understand that this is not your case and therefore not your appeal, at most you are a witness. Any appeal is between the registered keeper and the authority.
However as the discount is not on offer there's no point in paying now, as the registered keeper can't end up any worse of by appealing. I'll drop you a PM in case the registered keeper would like me to represent them.
-
Hi "@h c anderson",
That sounds correct yes.
The email to myself was not uploaded on the forum - apologies. Now uploaded--
https://imgur.com/a/inryq1x
Regards,
Irfan.
-
Then IMO it's not a NoR because no formal representations were made.
In short:
You wrongly submitted what you described as formal representations;
Council advised you that what you submitted would not be considered as formal reps(have we seen this email?);
Keeper did not submit formal reps in their own name and yet despite not submitting formal reps they've been served with a Notice of Rejection of (non-existent) Reps despite the 28-day period for making those reps not having expired!!
Is the above correct?
-
Hi @h c anderson,
I was the driver who appealed. Once i appealed, I received an email to state i couldn't appeal as i wasn't the registered keeper of the car - this they was confirmed by the council via details from DVLA. And i didn't have permission from the registered owner to appeal on their behalf or discuss the case.
The registered keeper received a letter advising "Notice of Rejection of Representations" - this is the letter i posted last night with the letter.
Summary -
30/11 - i appealed (im not the registered keeper)
6/12 - i email received from the council advising im not the registered keeper as i have no permission on their behalf the case could not be discussed with me
16/12 - letter received by the registered keeper (dated 12/12). Pictures posted on the last post.
Kind Regards,
Irfan.
-
OP, to whom is the Notice of Rejection addressed, you or the registered keeper.
I won't presume or deduce from its or your post's contents, one step at a time: to whom is the NoR addressed?
-
Does this mean i can't now appeal through the council and i have to go to via the independent adjudicator?
It means the registered keeper must either pay the £70, or take the matter to the adjudicators. As the penalty will not increase at the adjudicators, and there are no additional costs, it is a total no-brainer to take the matter to adjudication. You can only act on behalf of the keeper if they supply written authority for you to act on their behalf.
-
Hi @cp8759, just an update on this. I appealed as advised and i received a letter back from the council stating the representation has been rejected as i am not the registered owner (i appealed as a driver who was driving the vehicle and not the registered keeper - this is my bad the pic shown by yourself on your previous post did state to appeal as the registered owner :( ). I have a letter printed and signed from the registered keeper and this will be sent off tomorrow morning.
Please see attached letter from the council.
https://imgur.com/a/bjAytoG - Page 1
https://imgur.com/a/61C82NU - Page 2
Does this mean i can't now appeal through the council and i have to go to via the independent adjudicator?
Kind Regards,
Irfan.
-
Hi @cp8759, this has now been done and i have got a screenshot of the submissions/confirmation. The "confirmation" has been received via email too.
Much appreciated.
Thanks,
Irfan.
-
Hi @cp8759, cool thanks. I'm filling the online form in now - what is "General Representation" - i myself representing the appeal i'm guessing?
Regards,
Irfan.
It's the only ground of appeal they put on the website, because the website is wrong.
-
Hi @cp8759, cool thanks. I'm filling the online form in now - what is "General Representation" - i myself representing the appeal i'm guessing?
Regards,
Irfan.
-
Hi @cp8759, Apologies the last pic hasnt come out correctly so won't load. Could you resend this please?
@iffy_jiffy it loads perfectly fine for me, and in any case you don't need it at the representations stage. I just put it on here so that we have that evidence to hand in case the council fixes the website between now at the date of any hearing at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
-
Hi @cp8759, Apologies the last pic hasnt come out correctly so won't load. Could you resend this please?
Appreciated. Thank you.
Regards,
Irfan.
-
@iffy_jiffy my suggestion would be very simple:
Dear Manchester City Council,
I rely on my informal representations which I require you to consider afresh as my formal representations.
Yours faithfully,
Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Also here's some useful evidence for the tribunal stage:
(https://i.imgur.com/VHFaZOD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ByfXETn.png)
-
You have a choice whether to go with CP's reiteration of your initial challenge or introduce evidence that the permit parking sign was obstructed.
If the latter I would got on the lines of 'I was puzzled to get the PCN at the time and took some pictures showing no signs. I now see from Google Maps that the one sign on turning from x road was obscured by a lorry, as can be seen by my pic and also by a pic taken by your CEO.'
-
Morning, @cp8759 @stamfordman @h c anderson, i've received the NTO from Manchester City Council, could you advise next steps please?
https://imgur.com/a/GFgxf8Z - Page 1
https://imgur.com/a/i5yLp3x - Page 2
https://imgur.com/a/yOKcnrw - Page 3
https://imgur.com/a/N9SHZuW - Page 4
Thanks all,
Irfan.
-
I agree, wait for the NTO.
Yes, cases are won where the evidence pack is deficient. But here there is a very good evidence including the council's own pic that the restriction could not be seen.
-
Cool @cp8759. I'll wait for the NTO.
Thanks,
Irfan.
-
We don't always agree but I would say the council will say exactly the same and at tribunal if I were the adjudicator I'd ask why the sign obstruction wasn't mentioned before.
You're assuming the council turns up with evidence of a contravention, in a surprising number of cases they simply don't do that and the matter ends there. Remember the council will often turn up with all sorts of irrelevant gibberish, see Stanmore Quality Services Ltd (form. Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v City of London (2240377606, 9 November 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sdjM_qV7fH2k3YvWLjCfO56bK9YwNkkc/view) decided yesterday by Mr Walsh:
The enforcement authority (EA) case summary is, I am afraid, an unhelpful and in parts bizarre document which refers to a traffic management order when what is alleged is a contravention of primary legislation. It does not engage with the issues raised in the appeal and in the representations by reference to the relevant statutory provisions. I am not sure whether the reference to "blocked urinals" within the case summary was intended to be amusing or was a result of some careless 'cut and pasting' but this bizarre observation, and indeed the bulk of the case summary, had no relevance to the evidence and issued raised by the appellant company. This sort of document should not be provided to this tribunal again.
So, if there's no evidence of a contravention and the council makes an issue out of some blocked urinals, it would be very unfortunate if we'd made an admission that there was a restriction to be contravened in the first place. It's better not to put that in issue at all and leave the burden of proof on the council, I would never want to deprive them of an opportunity to mess things up.
@iffy_jiffy regardless of whether you want to show your cards or not, there is no point in replying now. The council will not consider anything further that you have to say until you get the Notice to Owner. If you write back now, no matter what you say you'll get a templated letter back telling you to wait for the NTO, so you'd just be wasting your time.
-
Thanka both @cp8759 @stamfordman.
Is it worth me replying now and trying to kill this off now by stating the sign was obstructed and not clearly visible as per the CEO's and my own pictures?
Appreciate there is disagreement on this and you both know way more than me on this.
-
We don't always agree but I would say the council will say exactly the same and at tribunal if I were the adjudicator I'd ask why the sign obstruction wasn't mentioned before.
-
Don't often disagree with our esteemed admin but this was a daft challenge that gets you no further forward.
Well it does, because it places the burden on the council to prove (with evidence) that there was a restriction. One of the most annoying scenarios I come across is where there is no evidence from the authority of a restriction, but the representations concede that a restriction existed in the first place, as that effectively amounts to confession evidence.
So far the council has not advanced anything that proves there was a restriction, so I would not make any admissions in this regard. If at a later stage the council comes up with some evidence, you can always add rebuttal evidence. If you admit that there was a restriction, you can't take that back and you might have shot yourself in the foot.
I would recommend waiting for the NTO and then making the same representation again.
@iffy_jiffy you shouldn't reply to the council now, you must wait for the NTO before contacting the council again.
-
Don't often disagree with our esteemed admin but this was a daft challenge that gets you no further forward.
Choice is wait for the NTO to be served on your father and make reps (he has to give permission if they come from you) or go back to them now saying something like:
'I was puzzled to get the PCN and your rejection - I took some pics at the time as I couldn't see any parking restriction signs and now realise the one sign at the road entrance was hidden by a lorry, which can also be seen in the enclosed pic taken by your CEO. As I could not have been aware of this on driving into the road I ask you to please cancel the PCN.'
-
Morning all, @cp8759 @stamfordman @Phantomcrusader @h c anderson - i've had a reply from the Council. Letter has been uploaded - see links. Content of the letter has been copied in below too.
I could simply reply and state the sign was clearly blocked by getting a clear by the large vehicle. Thoughts?
https://imgur.com/a/manchester-city-council-parking-fine-reply-1-55BmTJK
https://imgur.com/a/manchester-city-council-parking-fine-reply-2-96FXIYF
***
Thank you for your enquiry, which we received on 21 October 2024.
You were issued with a PCN for parking in a resident permit zone without displaying a
resident's permit or holding a valid E-Permit.
I have noted your comments and can confirm that the location where you parked your vehicle
is within the resident permit zone. Signs are in place at entry points into the zone which
advises drivers of the restrictions in place. As these restrictions are standardised within the
zone, additional signs are not needed. The way we sign the restrictions is compliant with the
current legislation .All residents and visitors must have a permit to park within the resident
permit zone during the operational hours of the scheme. It is the responsibility of the motorist
to be aware of the parking restrictions and park in accordance to them.
I have carefully considered your case and I am satisfied that your PCN was issued correctly,
and as such, I have taken the decision not to cancel it.
To view images taken at the time your PCN was issued, please visit
www.manchester.gov.uk/parking
You have these choices:
1. The PCN will be reduced to £35.00 if it is paid within 14 days from the date this letter was
served.
2. If you do not pay the PCN within 14 days of this letter being served, the charge will
increase to £70.00.
3. If the PCN is not paid or successfully challenged, the Council may serve a Notice to Owner
(NtO) after 28 days of the PCN being served on the owner of the vehicle requiring payment of
the full PCN. The owner can then make representations to the Council and may appeal to an
independent adjudicator if those representations are rejected. The NtO will contain
instructions for doing this.
HOW TO PAY- Online at www.manchester.gov.uk/parking and follow the links to Pay PCN. - By telephone credit/debit card payments only. Use our automated payment line 0161 234
5006 (24 hours, seven days a week).Please have your vehicle details and PCN number
ready.- In person at any PayPoint, you will need to take your PCN to allow the barcode to be
scanned.
Yours sincerely
M Chan
Parking Services Officer
Parking Services
***
Thanks all,
Irfan.
-
Thanks @h c anderson
-
There isn't a period set in regs.
I suspect that the council might mention aspirational targets somewhere on its website.
You either receive a response or your father gets a NTO some time after 12 Dec.
-
All, any idea how long it takes to get a reply from Manchester City Council following the the appeal/dispute? This was submitted on 21/10.
Thanks,
Irfan.
-
@stamfordman @h c anderson
Correct - the car is not leased
I am not the registered keeper, my father is
The photo of the rear of the lorry is mine. Taken after the ticket was given
Not sure when the car was parked there. May have been half an 30/45mins or less?
Thanks all,
Irfan.
-
I agree HCA - after all the OP figured out what was what and it could well have been cancelled at first stage.
At least the car looks way too old to be leased.
-
C'est la vie.
There is no reason IMO why the OP shouldn't make straightforward reps on the grounds of 'penalty exceeded....circumstances of the case'. I doubt they* really want to prolong this matter any more than absolutely necessary.
OP, your defence is clear:
A lorry was parked where NOT permitted(there's a waiting and loading prohibition in place...for the very good reason that this prevents traffic having to move to the centre of the carriageway when making the turn AND gives visibility to the single sign conveying the restriction).
There aren't any other signs visible to a driver once they are within the restricted area.
It's not the council's fault that the sign was obstructed, but neither was it the driver's and no liability falls to them because they didn't see the sign.
OP, your proof that the lorry was in situ when the contravention occurred is the CEO's photos which are apparently bolstered by your own**.
GSV shows clearly that the first 30m of this road has been a problem for the council for many years because despite clear DYL and no loading at any time kerb markings (and in apparent desperation additional cones at times)vehicles still park and obscure the single sign.
OP, I cannot imagine why, given the above, you would not want to put your substantive case to the authority at the earliest opportunity.
*- who is the registered keeper?
**- whose photo of the rear of the lorry, yours? Given the time the PCN was issued, could you estimate when you parked?
-
Hi @cp8759, i've submitted this and taken a copy of the confirmation.
I'll update as soon as i get a reply.
Thanks all,
Irfan.
-
@Phantomcrusader does this mean that the ticket they've issued is incorrect?
Thanks,
Irfan.
I think so but for now, keep it simple and follow what CP has suggested. My contribition can be used later on if needed.
-
There are only four pics.
(https://i.imgur.com/42YSpck.png)
-
Hi @cp8759,
I'll submit as per the draft and take a snippet of the confirmation.
Much appreciated for all the help.
Regards,
Irfan.
-
@iffy_jiffy here's a draft representation:
Dear Manchester City Council,
I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur, I have viewed the photos taken by the CEO and they do not show any contravention whatsoever.
Yours faithfully,
Submit this online at https://manchester.tarantoportal.com/ and make sure to take a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Don't bring in the excess penalty at this stage, there's no reason to admit there was any parking place there at all (let them do the leg work for you).
The traffic order is The City of Manchester (Rusholme and Moss Side Area) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting, Limited Waiting Parking Places and Residents Parking, Loading Bays and Amendment) Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qi8e8BtIapxx7E93kBfJDQrGWBtJCOs0/view)
-
@Phantomcrusader does this mean that the ticket they've issued is incorrect?
Thanks,
Irfan.
-
Correct @stamfordman. There were no signs in the street, only 1 single sign on a post at each end if the street.
Are there meant to be signs for permit parking only on the street also?
See picture of the other side ive just uplpaded - https://imgur.com/a/banff-road-manchester-m14-5ta-s8Db9Zk
Thank you.
-
According to Manchester’s website (https://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500347/resident_parking_schemes/8564/rusholme_and_moss_side_residents_parking_scheme/3). They don’t issue paper resident permits for this zone which must mean they issue digital virtual permits. In which case the code 12 contravention description they used is wrong since you cannot display a digital or virtual resident permit. The correct code 12 description is laid out in the statutory guidance issue by the Govt (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#annex-b-contravention-codes-for-civil-parking-enforcement-england-wide) and it is “Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge” but they failed to use it. Your failure is parking without a valid virtual permit but they’ve not accused you of that.
Even if they had, the current legislation does not make failing to park without a valid virtual permit a higher level parking contravention. For some reason the legislation has not taken technology into account and is still restricted to the non display of a permit. See 2(2)(b) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/3). This means the PCN should be £50 not £70.
-
Bingo - you can see that truck in the CEO's pic.
I can't see any repeater sign in this short street, only entry signs at each end.
The CEO did not include a pic of the sign you passed, only your car.
(https://i.imgur.com/9sIcVNw.png)
Your pic:
(https://i.imgur.com/HryXWVM.jpeg)
-
Apologies. Car number plate is DV09 OEK.
Thanks @stamfordman + @cp8759.
-
@iffy_jiffy as per the guidance (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/), please give us the number plate. Hiding it just makes it harder for us to help you.
-
What is the car VRM.
Or post the council's pics yourself.
It's Banff Road not Street.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LnB5FiABg8ui1Zux9
-
Hi,
I would appreciate if someone could assist and provide advise on next steps, including @cp8759.
I have received a penalty charge notice (PCN) from Manchester City Council for a parking contravention on Banff Street, Manchester (M14 5TA) on Wednesday 16/10. Image of the PCN has been shown via the link below.
I have the following issues with the PCN:
1. The Permit Parking Sign was not clear
2. The Permit Parking Sign was on on one side of the street only
3. The Permit Parking Sign was not at the beginning of the street but further back about 10/15 metres
4. The Permit Parking Sign did not have a clear line of sight - for any driver turning into the street
5. The Permit Parking Sign was blocked by a lorry and a cage
6. The Permit Parking Sign did not have any lighting to make it clear and visible on a dull day
7. The road did not have any designated parking markings on the ground
I have attached a number of images (may have to refresh the link a few times for the image to appear):
*1. PCN - https://imgur.com/a/pcn-xbJehyB
(https://i.imgur.com/BOQjDua.jpeg)
*2. View of the street showing the Permit Parking Zone sign blocked by lorry - https://imgur.com/a/view-of-entering-banff-street-manchester-m14-5ta-iuj5aJ4
*3. View of the Permit Parking Zone sign being further aback on Banff Street and not at the entrance - https://imgur.com/a/view-of-permit-parking-zone-sign-being-further-aback-on-banff-street-manchester-m14-5ta-not-entrance-IgIMx8r
*4. Lack of designated parking markings on the road - https://imgur.com/a/lack-of-parking-markings-on-banff-street-manchester-m14-5ta-v5gfvao
I do have additional images if these are required, i can post these also.
**
For info: Contravention 12 relates to:
Parked in a residents or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or Pay Display ticket issued for that place - higher level - £70
https://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/471/tickets_and_fines/3464/parking_contravention_codes_and_charges
**
Also, i have tagged in @cp8759 but not sure if i've done this right - apologies if i haven't. Any idea how i need to do this if i've got this wrong? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Irfan.