Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: squicker on August 09, 2023, 09:25:06 am
-
I hope Ms Gowland was suitably contrite ....
Her only comment when asked about the misleading sign was that she couldn't comment...
I've also noticed a pattern that when councils are told they've lost they just go mute, didn't even say bye before disconnecting. I always make a point of wishing the adjudicator a good day at the end of a hearing whether I win or lose, there's nothing to be gained by going off in a strop.
-
I hope Ms Gowland was suitably contrite ....
-
Thank you to all for your guidance and support. A reasonable outcome where common sense prevails. Fine money goes to Cats Protection.
Happy Christmas and wishing a splendid 2024 to all.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lQuAE5robT3fvYlKtIi_smhegBNEwzJy).
-
Don't register appeal yet. If CP has offered to represent you, and you have accepted his offer (send him a PM) he will be in touch off-forum to arrange matters.
-
Ha, yes, I do agree, in a logical world that is, not sure that these people inhabit that logical world however ;)
A few things before I lodge with TPT:
1 - Should I mention in my appeal to TPT that they did not consider all the evidence? e.g., exactly as you say, if they had access issues then they should have raised that with me, because I have checked the links and they work etc. I can prove this as the links are working today and will be working when the tribunal convenes, and this seems to me a strong point, "they did not consider all evidence, which was made available and is still provably available", therefore toss it.
2 - Can I - as the driver - speak on the call at the tribunal?
3 - What's the significance of the wording point you raised (the PCN is defective, as it is missing the 'notwithstanding' clause)?
Links still working:
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/ESQ1tTi2q5VJtpqKlt85PQQBMCuwJ50QmQk7h9IjGlLFZA?e=UDA4d0
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/EdLtXWNj2U1Fg9vGJSLRWpkB9lWuDCEu2uqkQmI_o7eQ6w?e=5HdYQp
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/Ee2M9Pm1DCxHtu8s0OQuzRYBgrTXrFfHojUQpxOLzz1tqg?e=MjR3lt
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/Edjpde4LRjNPr6n9tQlA2MoBdZhWLgQNbfJ_YcaaeFpWDA?e=1T9mrL
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/Edjpde4LRjNPr6n9tQlA2MoBdZhWLgQNbfJ_YcaaeFpWDA?e=7kg7HO
https://prettysplendid.sharepoint.com/:i:/s/ParkingFine/EdLtXWNj2U1Fg9vGJSLRWpkB9lWuDCEu2uqkQmI_o7eQ6w?e=Rxrd3P
-
Got a rejection while away. They say they tried to access the links but were removed, I just checked them and that's not the case, they are accessible. I guess they know that's my word against theirs', so is a way for them to not look at the evidence, however I did attach 3 pics in the measly 3 pic allowance, so they must have seen those. It is also feasible they were blocked by their own proxy or other filtering function, so received some sort of error. I think providing links is perhaps too fallible, many orgs block downloads from external repositories, and councils are terribly backwards in terms of technical thinking.
I disagree, local authorities tell motorists to go onto various online portals to see evidence of contraventions, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same. If they have technical difficulties, it's for them to go figure it out.
If they couldn't have access the links they should have asked you to re-send the information by alternative means. To draw a parallel, if you'd sent something in the post and the ink had faded or smudge, the reasonable course of action would have been to ask you for a further copy rather than to throw the unreadle evidence in the bin.
If they want to maintain that the evidence had been removed, I'd want the council to provide screenshot evidence of that. If it turns out their own firewall blocked access, that's an issue internal to the council (they could have asked their IT department to whitelist the links, or to just download the evidence themselves and email it to the relevant department).
As they've not reoffered the discount it's a no brainer to carry on. I'm happy to represent you at the tribunal if you'd like.
-
Got a rejection while away. They say they tried to access the links but were removed, I just checked them and that's not the case, they are accessible. I guess they know that's my word against theirs', so is a way for them to not look at the evidence, however I did attach 3 pics in the measly 3 pic allowance, so they must have seen those. It is also feasible they were blocked by their own proxy or other filtering function, so received some sort of error. I think providing links is perhaps too fallible, many orgs block downloads from external repositories, and councils are terribly backwards in terms of technical thinking.
Anyway, rejection note is here: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkJcvdNgTzOS1ym1yzA?e=brfZGz
My concern is they still keep using their own small number of rather select pictures which do not show the sign on my parking bay, showing a restriction in the past, but instead keep showing the restriction photo from 4 bays away, which is valid, but very few people will check when they've seen their own bay is restricted for a date in the past.
Would be great to get some guidance on how to appeal this to TPT, in terms of wording, pictures etc.
-
OK great, thank you. What we get is a viewers count and trail (an external is shown as 'guest'), if never viewed then this is empty, so can be proven either way. As per this screenshot... I'll go ahead and raise the appeal and report back when I hear something.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes the appeal wording looks fine, and as long as you can prove they haven't clicked on the link I suspect you'll win on the failure to consider.
-
They don't need a account, I have configured for anon access via link, it will log access date as by 'guest', so that should do it. If they don't access it then it'll have no audit trail.
What do you think of my appeal wording?
-
You can't require them to go and create and account or log into something or anything like that, I think that would be a stretch too far. What you want is a link that they can just click on and access the image, and you want to be able to audit whether they've clicked on that link. If you know how to do that yourself then great, if not let me know and I can set it up for you.
-
here's the wrongbaysuspended pic: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkIpzZUEXW2ugbz25Mw?e=d8Aid7
should be an open link, please let me know if not..
I could host the whole thing on Sharepoint Online and give them a specific account to access, then that access will be audited, do you think that works? Or we could use your method with the click-tracker, perhaps that removes the risk of them saying, "the account did not work" or some other excuse.
-
Where's the wrongbaysuspended.jpg image?
I'm thinking we should host this online, create a link with a click tracker (I can do that for you), and simply give them the link. Then if they don't bother to click on it we can prove a failure to consider. If they then issue a rejection saying they've carefully considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well (which might open the door for costs).
-
Looking at the suspension logs, they put a suspension sign for houses 22/23 outside number 22, and another sign outside 24, which is very clear as directly pertains to the very next bays to both signs. Then they put a single sign for 27/28 suspension outside number 29 only, four bays away, so it feels like they made a mistake.
Anyway, thank you all for input. My appeal will be thus:
challenge due to = procedural impropriety, contravention did not occur (sign in the bay was for a very different date, so I did not contravene it). Something like the below:
"Driver arrived on 19th July and noted the sign directly posted on the parking post for the bay to be used, stating the bay - outside number 27 - is suspended on 5th July. Seeing that date is in the past, driver proceeded to park. This is evidenced by CEO photographs named 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170104.jpg' and 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170311.jpg'.
It is correct that, four bays away, outside number 29, is a sign stating the bay outside 27 and 28 are suspended on 20th July but, being as the driver had seen the suspension sign directly attached to the used bay, these were given a cursory glance, as a reasonable person will take direction from the sign posted nearest to their parking bay which, in this case, signalled a date in the recent past. Drivers are entitled to be able to rely upon clear and unambiguous signage, and the council have a duty to provide such clear and unambiguous signage, which was not done in this case.
The photograph 'wrongbaysuspended.jpg' shows the ambiguity in this situation, with the red circled sign showing the 20th and the red circled car parked in the bay marked as being restricted on 7th July. This photograph was taken by the driver the very next day, when the penalty was discovered, and the sign on the bay has been removed, despite it clearly being present in the CEO's photographs the day before. So it was obviously realised by the CEO, or other council worker, that the signage was confusing, and cleaned up. You can, however, see the presence of both signs at the time of the parking incident, in the picture name 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170224.jpg', which shows the S2000 parked in the bay with bicycle chained to the lamppost with the yellow sign showing 7th July as suspended: The sign clearly shown by the CEO in pictures 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170104.jpg' and 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170311'.
If there were two suspensions for this bay, then two signs should have been posted on the bay. Therefore, signage was misleading due to multiple conflicting signs, and signage cannot be said to have met the requirement to clearly show the restriction. Therefore, there was no restriction legitimately applied and therefore no contravention happened.
Secondly, the PCN is defective, as it is missing the 'notwithstanding' clause.
On both these grounds, I ask that the penalty is rescinded."
Please do feedback on how to improve this. I have an RSI at the moment so bashed this out rather quickly and I am sure could be worded better!
-
I guess it's OK that I am the one making representations, as the driver?
NO, to the NtO it's the keeper, not the driver. Some NtOs carry the warning 'do not pass this to the driver'.
You could have a letter of authorisation, but probably simpler for you to write it, she to sign/submit it. Remember, if you are writing it in her name, to refer to 'the driver' rather than 'I'. Post your draft reps here for comment before submitting.
You do not have to use the NtO form to make reps - use online facility.
-
For later, suspension logs (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Vv9STpmTUIBAWgmmeKeiggtnH76v0TJY).
Great, thank you.
NTO is in this folder: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkJNPmyovxYSUzcFI_A?e=WsdTwR
I'm actually the owner, my wife the keeper, I was driving at the time (well, I parked it). The NTO is addressed to my wife (as she's on record as keeper) but I guess it's OK that I am the one making representations, as the driver?
-
For later, suspension logs (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Vv9STpmTUIBAWgmmeKeiggtnH76v0TJY).
-
Ok, great thank you. Will let you know when the NTK/NTO arrives. I'm the owner but my wife is the keeper, but I was 'driving' (i.e., I parked the car) at the time.
-
Well let us know when you get the Notice to Owner. The PCN itself is arguably defective as it's missing the "notwithstanding" clause, so that' an additional ground we can throw at them.
I'd caution you against going to the tribunal on your own as that can end badly, as happened in this case (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/).
-
Sorry, just saw this, been on hols - thank you for responding and helping..
Penalty notice here:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkI5eKcP9AaCy7p3_jA?e=8H9cbL
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkI5gLfVfThRj3B6nFg?e=sn4aWq
-
If it's worth taking to the TPT I'll be happy to represent you, filing the appeal only takes me five minutes and there's at least a one in three chance they won't contest.
To start with, can you please show us both sides of the original PCN in full?
The CEO also took this photo which I think is a bit misleading, as one could easily assume that all the suspension signs relate to the same suspension:
(https://i.imgur.com/5YdJR3q.png)
Anyway I'll ask for the suspension logs.
-
With TPT, choice between telephone hearing or decision on papers. The latter is never recommended. Some of the experts here voluntarily offer to act as representative for telephone hearing if they think reasonable chance of success.
Ok, great thank you.
I think I am going to let it go to TPT, more than anything I am interested in how that will go, either way, so I view it as an experiment. My position will be that the signage is misleading, as the sign on the lamp post for my bay, was for a date in the past, as DancingDad says above. So, having been satisfied by the sign on my bay that the suspension was in the past, a reasonable person would not seek out other signs, or where would that end?
-
With TPT, choice between telephone hearing or decision on papers. The latter is never recommended. Some of the experts here voluntarily offer to act as representative for telephone hearing if they think reasonable chance of success.
-
However, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ? Councils are biased as they get all the money you cough-up if you pay the discount.
On the one hand, I have no issue paying parking fines on the rare occasions I make mistakes but, as you note, BHCC's behaviour here is illogical, lacks competence, and probably should not be rewarded. On the other, the sum involved is trivial, but preparing my case for the TPT (the alleged violation is not in London), will cost me more in terms of time than just paying the £35, which I am sure is part of the 'settle fast' game plan.
Is the TPT process a purely online appeal escalation, then a decision from an arbitrator?
-
When a motorist parks, they are expected, they have a duty to check for any restrictions.
In this sort of case where a motorist is parking in their normal bay, this may be little more then a cursory glance at the normal restriction sign... which would have shown the big yellow suspension.
Forget the bumf about distance or it being late and you were tired, there is still a duty.
OP obviously didn't and that is what the council is alleging, didn't bovver to look at an obvious sign so bang to rights.
But, big BUT, the council also have a duty to sign restrictions clearly and in this case, they clearly failed as shown by the CEO photos. Very helpful CEO?
They put a suspension sign on the normal pole AND a different sign on a lamp post.
The diligent motorist parks, sees the lamp post sign, reads it, finds it is not applicable and their cursory glance at the normal restriction post simply reveals another suspension sign.
The natural assumption is that it will simply say the same, after all, no council would be so stupid to stick differing suspension signs in differing places in the same bay would they (rhetorical question).
The signage position has misled, differing signs have misled, signage cannot be said to clearly show the restriction.
I would continue on that basis and expect to win.
-
Well, yes, it is sneaky ! The council correctly put a suspension sign on the sign for the bay, then along came somebody else in the council and put another one, not on the same sign, but on a lamp-post. So IMHO they have mislead you and others who were entitled to rely on the sign on the lamppost. If the later sign was also on the lamppost, the earlier one should also have been there, but there should also have been the two signs on the bay sign.
However, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ? Councils are biased as they get all the money you cough-up if you pay the discount.
See what the others say, but I think you have a good case
-
Reposted from Pepipoo, as requested:
Came back to my car this afternoon (21st July) and had a local council ticket for being in a suspended bay. There is indeed a sign for a suspended bay about 25 feet away, but I suspect there are multiple reasons this sign is not valid, not least of which being it's not in front of the suspended bay(s) or even the correct house numbers, plus I think the amalgamated signage could be a problem. Essentially, I came home from the airport at about 3am, so would have never seen this sign that's about 25 feet from my parking spot, especially as the parking bays are diagonally facing away from this sign.
Pics on my Onedrive:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkIprX2DArT3tBR7Gvw?e=AkgXU0
My car is the silver S2000 with the GB sticker on the rear bumper, and is 4 bays away from the sign:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkIpzZUEXW2ugbz25Mw?e=O9SlKK
The sign itself is between numbers 28 and 29, yet refers to 27 and 28, outside which there is no suspension sign for those bays. So it's all a bit of a mess and feels like they accidentally put the sign on the wrong house's lamp post, removing the ability to see it when parking in the impacted bay.
There is a suspension sign on the lamp post by my car, but it's for 5th July. I can't remember it from the other morning, but I guess I pulled up, saw that date for 05/07 and parked, and yet the CEO has ticketed me, but thankfully, they also did take a pic of the completely irrelevant sign on my lamp post:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkIpw95bF1NhYByjEyA?e=wVWosR
The council have rejected my appeal which was made on the basis of lack of a sign in the vicinity of the bays, and the non-compliant 'dual' sign, which I read about on Pepipoo but perhaps misinterpreted. This is the rejection letter:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkIpqxpCTIoK1Ov5bog?e=7fQhwW
I'm not averse to paying a legitimate fine, but this feels rather sneaky as I don't see how I could see a suspension sign 25 feet from me, and I consider the one on my bay's lamp post obviously misled me in that there was a previous suspension now passed, so I'm unlikely to look for another one. Whilst their statement is true that the suspension notice is attached to the nearest time stamped lamp post, I find it a strange claim that we're supposed to check the time stamp each time we park; as we live here, we know the times so just park in bays. If I take BHCC's words at face value, every time we parked, we'd be walking up and down the road on the off chance there's a suspension sign somewhere, which seems a bit ludicrous.
Thoughts?