Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: seanjean123 on November 10, 2024, 11:26:29 am

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: cp8759 on January 25, 2025, 03:32:09 pm
Hi please any advice on how best to proceed
@seanjean123 read the PM (https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=pm) I sent you.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 25, 2025, 12:27:36 pm
The authority were not permitted to use address B therefore IMO your primary grounds are:

Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to serve the Notice to Owner using relevant particulars obtained from DVLA as regards the owner at the 'material time'.

As the authority will see, the NTO was addressed as follows:

Your name
********(address B).

The regulations define 'material time' as follows:

“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.


Therefore the 'material time' was 7 November 2024 at which time your 'relevant particulars' held by DVLA were:

You..
******* (address A)

Your relevant particulars were amended by DVLA on ****(enclose a copy of your V5C and highlight the 'docref' date) following your change of address on 26 Nov.

The authority were obliged by virtue of Regulations 6 and 20 of the General Regulations to use ******* (address A) for the purposes of serving the NTO and this failure constitutes a procedural impropriety.

The contravention did not occur
**essentially the arguments given in your previous representations.


As per cp's post, put these together yourself and post a draft here.

Hi please any advice on how best to proceed
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 25, 2025, 12:26:29 pm


We note the comments made in your represenations. However the photographs show that only one wheel of your vehicle was on the paved/roadway area. In your representations you refer to a tarmacked area. Please be aware that the roadway in this area does not have a tarmac surface.


FFS, Bedford does resort to desperate measures.

Hi please any idea how best to address this ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: baroudeur on January 25, 2025, 12:12:48 pm


We note the comments made in your represenations. However the photographs show that only one wheel of your vehicle was on the paved/roadway area. In your representations you refer to a tarmacked area. Please be aware that the roadway in this area does not have a tarmac surface.


FFS, Bedford does resort to desperate measures.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: cp8759 on January 25, 2025, 11:03:55 am
@seanjean123 well the discount is not on offer so the obvious next step is to appeal, I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like me to represent you. I think you might even get a costs order against the council.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 25, 2025, 09:34:04 am
What was the date on the NoR - you've cut it off!

Did you post reps as per Reply#52?

NOR date = 16/01/2025
Yes i used reply 47 and 52.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: John U.K. on January 25, 2025, 09:14:47 am
What was the date on the NoR - you've cut it off!

Did you post reps as per Reply#52?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 25, 2025, 08:58:19 am
rejection of representation letter

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: John U.K. on January 25, 2025, 08:05:21 am
Disappointing, but par for the course.

Please post up the Notice of Rejection (redacting only yr name & address) and the plan.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 25, 2025, 08:01:26 am
Hi all,

I received a notice of rejection of representation from Bedford borough council.

Reason was
The photgraphy of the contravention, which may be viewed on bedford borough council website, show that your vehicle was parked partly on the grass verge

Signs are displayed in this area informing motorists that parking is not permitted on the verge or footway. Please find the enclosed copy of the plan showing the extent of the verge and footway prohibition in this area.

We note the comments made in your represenations. However the photographs show that only one wheel of your vehicle was on the paved/roadway area. In your representations you refer to a tarmacked area. Please be aware that the roadway in this area does not have a tarmac surface.

We also confirm that the details of registered keeper of the vehicle, used on the Notice to Owner were provided by DVLA.

The council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and there is insufficient mitigation to enable the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to be cancelled.

Please how best to proceed ? I am being asked to either pay GBP 70 which is against the initial PCN which said if i challenge the PCN, the 50% discount would be provided if it was unsuccessful. So they amount due should be GBP 35. I was told after 28 days it will become GBP 105. I was told i could appeal to a trafficpenaltytrobunal as well
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: cp8759 on January 05, 2025, 11:13:11 pm
@seanjean123 yes that will do.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 05, 2025, 08:09:20 pm
@seanjean123 I would add the map you've posted in reply 17, and the following text under the heading "The contravention did not occur":

In any event my car was not parked on The Embankment nor was it parked on a road at all: my car was parked in the private car park of the Swann Hotel, which is not a highway nor is it a road to which the public have a right to pass and re-pass, it is private land. While the council may own the freehold title to the grass surrounding the car park, the grass surrounding the car park is not a highway or road either.

It may well be that there is some local bylaw prohibiting parking on grassed areas, but that cannot be enforceable by means of a code 62 PCN unless the grassed area in question is part of a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which cannot possibly be the case in the circumstances.

It follows that even if my car had been parked further forwards with all four wheels on the grass, the contravention alleged could not have possibly occurred.


Do not send a letter by post, that causes no end of problems, the best option is to send a representation via the council website and also take a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation page. If the text doesn't fit in the representations box, put the representation in a PDF file and in the representations box just say "see attached representation", do not cut down the text of the representation to make it fit in the box.

Having had a good look at your thread, my view is that you basically cannot lose based on the point I have articulated above, but Bedford are a bit thick and may well force this to the tribunal. As you have a winning appeal, the discount is somewhat irrelevant at this point.

Thanks for this. Please is this what you mean ?

1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
a) Vehicle Was Not Parked on a Footway or Verge
The council’s photographic evidence shows that my vehicle was parked entirely on the tarmac hardstanding of the Swan Hotel’s car park. None of the wheels were fully positioned on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area.

b) De Minimis Encroachment
Even if the council contends that a portion of the vehicle (e.g., bumper or part of a wheel) marginally overhung the verge or grassed area, this is a minor encroachment falling under the principle of de minimis non curat lex ("the law does not concern itself with trifles"). Such a trivial encroachment caused no obstruction or harm and cannot reasonably justify enforcement.

c) Ambiguity in Boundaries and Signage
The "No Parking on Verge" sign visible in the council's photographs applies to the grassed areas beyond the sign, not the tarmac where my vehicle was parked.

There is no clear demarcation between the hotel’s private car park and council-controlled land.
The sign does not indicate that parking on the tarmac before the sign is prohibited.
This lack of clarity makes enforcement unreasonable and the contravention unenforceable.

d) Misapplication of Contravention Code
The alleged contravention under Code 62 applies specifically to parking with wheels fully on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area. This code does not apply to the location in question, as my vehicle was parked predominantly on tarmac. If the council believed a different restriction applied, a different contravention code should have been used.

In any event my car was not parked on The Embankment nor was it parked on a road at all: my car was parked in the private car park of the Swann Hotel, which is not a highway nor is it a road to which the public have a right to pass and re-pass, it is private land. While the council may own the freehold title to the grass surrounding the car park, the grass surrounding the car park is not a highway or road either.

It may well be that there is some local bylaw prohibiting parking on grassed areas, but that cannot be enforceable by means of a code 62 PCN unless the grassed area in question is part of a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which cannot possibly be the case in the circumstances.

It follows that even if my car had been parked further forwards with all four wheels on the grass, the contravention alleged could not have possibly occurred.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: cp8759 on January 05, 2025, 01:50:00 pm
@seanjean123 I would add the map you've posted in reply 17, and the following text under the heading "The contravention did not occur":

In any event my car was not parked on The Embankment nor was it parked on a road at all: my car was parked in the private car park of the Swann Hotel, which is not a highway nor is it a road to which the public have a right to pass and re-pass, it is private land. While the council may own the freehold title to the grass surrounding the car park, the grass surrounding the car park is not a highway or road either.

It may well be that there is some local bylaw prohibiting parking on grassed areas, but that cannot be enforceable by means of a code 62 PCN unless the grassed area in question is part of a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which cannot possibly be the case in the circumstances.

It follows that even if my car had been parked further forwards with all four wheels on the grass, the contravention alleged could not have possibly occurred.


Do not send a letter by post, that causes no end of problems, the best option is to send a representation via the council website and also take a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation page. If the text doesn't fit in the representations box, put the representation in a PDF file and in the representations box just say "see attached representation", do not cut down the text of the representation to make it fit in the box.

Having had a good look at your thread, my view is that you basically cannot lose based on the point I have articulated above, but Bedford are a bit thick and may well force this to the tribunal. As you have a winning appeal, the discount is somewhat irrelevant at this point.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on January 05, 2025, 09:22:52 am
OP, you posted: do i need to respond by post or via email ?

You have the options of post, online and email.

The instructions are in the NTO. Post is the least favoured option.

Make sure you keep a copy of what you send.

As regards 'Why is GBP 70 on NTO ? It is almost as if the PCN and PCN challenge never happened', with respect can we get off this subject. Yours is no different to many other threads we see and your reaction is in keeping with many OPs i.e. post goes astray (and therefore the re-offered discount period lapses) and then it's conspiracy on the authority's part rather than a c**k-up on the (Royal Mail) admin. front.

Just stay with procedure and submit your reps pl.

We can't access Bedford's online system for your PCN because we don't have the info. But you can. Have you checked to see if they display a PCN's progress online?

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on January 05, 2025, 12:54:34 am
Please just an addition... do i need to respond by post or via email ? Also i responded to the PCN within 2 weeks which should have meant a GBP 35 fine not GBP 70. Why is GBP 70 on NTO ? It is almost as if the PCN and PCN challenge never happened
Because all NtOs everywhere have the full PCN penalty. They should re-offer the discount when responding to your reps against the NtO. Does the PCN "small print" say they will re-offer the discount if informal reps are rejected ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 04, 2025, 11:38:31 pm
Please just an addition... do i need to respond by post or via email ? Also i responded to the PCN within 2 weeks which should have meant a GBP 35 fine not GBP 70. Why is GBP 70 on NTO ? It is almost as if the PCN and PCN challenge never happened
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on January 04, 2025, 11:06:27 pm
The authority were not permitted to use address B therefore IMO your primary grounds are:

Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to serve the Notice to Owner using relevant particulars obtained from DVLA as regards the owner at the 'material time'.

As the authority will see, the NTO was addressed as follows:

Your name
********(address B).

The regulations define 'material time' as follows:

“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.


Therefore the 'material time' was 7 November 2024 at which time your 'relevant particulars' held by DVLA were:

You..
******* (address A)

Your relevant particulars were amended by DVLA on ****(enclose a copy of your V5C and highlight the 'docref' date) following your change of address on 26 Nov.

The authority were obliged by virtue of Regulations 6 and 20 of the General Regulations to use ******* (address A) for the purposes of serving the NTO and this failure constitutes a procedural impropriety.

The contravention did not occur
**essentially the arguments given in your previous representations.


As per cp's post, put these together yourself and post a draft here.

Hi thank you. This is what i am thinking of sending. Pls can you have a read and let me know if its good to go or if i need to make any changes.

Subject: Formal Representation Against Notice to Owner for PCN BF55509843

Dear Bedford Borough Council / Parking Services,

I am writing to formally challenge the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued on 27/12/2024 for the alleged contravention of "parking with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)." I believe the NTO is invalid, and I request its cancellation based on the following:

1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
a) Vehicle Was Not Parked on a Footway or Verge
The council’s photographic evidence shows that my vehicle was parked entirely on the tarmac hardstanding of the Swan Hotel’s car park. None of the wheels were fully positioned on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area.

b) De Minimis Encroachment
Even if the council contends that a portion of the vehicle (e.g., bumper or part of a wheel) marginally overhung the verge or grassed area, this is a minor encroachment falling under the principle of de minimis non curat lex ("the law does not concern itself with trifles"). Such a trivial encroachment caused no obstruction or harm and cannot reasonably justify enforcement.

c) Ambiguity in Boundaries and Signage
The "No Parking on Verge" sign visible in the council's photographs applies to the grassed areas beyond the sign, not the tarmac where my vehicle was parked.

There is no clear demarcation between the hotel’s private car park and council-controlled land.
The sign does not indicate that parking on the tarmac before the sign is prohibited.
This lack of clarity makes enforcement unreasonable and the contravention unenforceable.

d) Misapplication of Contravention Code
The alleged contravention under Code 62 applies specifically to parking with wheels fully on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area. This code does not apply to the location in question, as my vehicle was parked predominantly on tarmac. If the council believed a different restriction applied, a different contravention code should have been used.

2. Procedural Impropriety
a) Failure to Serve the NTO Using Relevant DVLA Details at the Material Time
The council has failed to comply with its statutory duty to serve the NTO using the DVLA-registered address of the vehicle’s keeper at the material time, as required by Regulations 6 and 20 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.

The regulations define "the material time" as:

“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.

The alleged contravention occurred on 07/11/2024, at which time my registered address with the DVLA was:

[My Name]
[Address A]

I moved to my current address on 26/11/2024, and my vehicle’s DVLA records were updated on 01/12/2024 (see enclosed copy of my V5C logbook, highlighting the ‘DocRef’ date). The NTO was issued to:

[My Name]
[Address B]

This demonstrates that the council improperly relied on my updated DVLA details (post-01/12/2024) instead of using the registered keeper’s details at the material time (07/11/2024).

b) Breach of Statutory Obligation
By failing to serve the NTO using the DVLA-registered address at the material time, the council has breached its statutory duty. This constitutes procedural impropriety, rendering the NTO invalid and unenforceable.

Request for Cancellation
Given the procedural impropriety and the fact that the contravention did not occur, I respectfully request that the NTO and associated PCN be canceled.

I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been resolved. If the council does not agree with my representations, I am prepared to escalate the appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal .


Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on December 31, 2024, 08:25:19 am
The authority were not permitted to use address B therefore IMO your primary grounds are:

Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to serve the Notice to Owner using relevant particulars obtained from DVLA as regards the owner at the 'material time'.

As the authority will see, the NTO was addressed as follows:

Your name
********(address B).

The regulations define 'material time' as follows:

“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.


Therefore the 'material time' was 7 November 2024 at which time your 'relevant particulars' held by DVLA were:

You..
******* (address A)

Your relevant particulars were amended by DVLA on ****(enclose a copy of your V5C and highlight the 'docref' date) following your change of address on 26 Nov.

The authority were obliged by virtue of Regulations 6 and 20 of the General Regulations to use ******* (address A) for the purposes of serving the NTO and this failure constitutes a procedural impropriety.

The contravention did not occur
**essentially the arguments given in your previous representations.


As per cp's post, put these together yourself and post a draft here.





Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: cp8759 on December 30, 2024, 11:43:56 pm
If you know the NTO has been issued you can make representations, you don't need to physically receive it in your hands as the representations can be made online. Post a draft on here first.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 30, 2024, 08:25:58 pm
NTO posted 27th Dec.
Last day of 28-day period for making reps is therefore 27 Jan.

You have plenty of time....

..which is why I'm trying to nail the issue of addresses.

Date of contravention is 7 Nov. at which time you were the registered keeper living at address A which is the one still on your V5C;

You moved from address A to address B on 26 Nov;

(edit)

The NTO is addressed to B and not A.

Unless you have notified the authority in writing that you are the owner and that for the purpose of serving formal notices they should use address B and not A then IMO you win irrespective of the merits of the contravention. 


I did move house on the 26th of nov. I updated my V5c a week later due to all the moves (01/12/2024)

and....

I never notified DVLA of any.


Still causes me confusion!

OK let me clarify

Date of contravention = 07/11/2024
Address on day of contravention = A
Challenged the contravention online - 16/11/2024. When challenging the contravention, i did not admit to being the driver but i signed my name at the bottom
Moved homes from address A to Address B - 26/11/2024
Updated VSC to show address B on 01/12/2024
Received a NTO on the 28/11/2024 at Address B with my name on it. The NTO was sent to address B directly
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on December 30, 2024, 10:43:01 am
NTO posted 27th Dec.
Last day of 28-day period for making reps is therefore 27 Jan.

You have plenty of time....

..which is why I'm trying to nail the issue of addresses.

Date of contravention is 7 Nov. at which time you were the registered keeper living at address A which is the one still on your V5C;

You moved from address A to address B on 26 Nov;

(edit)

The NTO is addressed to B and not A.

Unless you have notified the authority in writing that you are the owner and that for the purpose of serving formal notices they should use address B and not A then IMO you win irrespective of the merits of the contravention. 


I did move house on the 26th of nov. I updated my V5c a week later due to all the moves (01/12/2024)

and....

I never notified DVLA of any.


Still causes me confusion!
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 29, 2024, 11:32:41 pm
Hi all,

I responded on the website to the charge and challeneged it. I did not receive anything back until today. I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70 as i did not pay the GBP35. I did not even receive anything about my challenge if it was successful or not. Please how should i proceed
Please post what you have received first. If it is a Notice to Owner, you must respond to it or lose any further appeal options.

I attached the picture. It is a Notice to Owner. I am just surprised my previous challenge was not acknowledged
Don't be surprised, council incompetence and stupidity means this sort of thing happens quite a lot.  In fact, the regulations demand that a warning be placed on parking PCNs served at the roadside. See here, (3.(1)(c): -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/part/2/chapter/1

Please what is the best way to proceed
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 29, 2024, 11:31:14 pm
OP, believe it or not the authority are not required by law to respond to 'representations before a NTO is served' in writing, merely to consider.

But most do.

Don't beat yourself up about this. We don't need to go into detail at this stage.

As you've given your account, something is seriously amiss within the authority and you have a 99.9999% winning hand. They MUST address the NTO to address A. Your current address is neither here nor there.

Please how you should i proceed ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on December 28, 2024, 06:48:09 pm
OP, believe it or not the authority are not required by law to respond to 'representations before a NTO is served' in writing, merely to consider.

But most do.

Don't beat yourself up about this. We don't need to go into detail at this stage.

As you've given your account, something is seriously amiss within the authority and you have a 99.9999% winning hand. They MUST address the NTO to address A. Your current address is neither here nor there.

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on December 28, 2024, 06:38:33 pm
Hi all,

I responded on the website to the charge and challeneged it. I did not receive anything back until today. I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70 as i did not pay the GBP35. I did not even receive anything about my challenge if it was successful or not. Please how should i proceed
Please post what you have received first. If it is a Notice to Owner, you must respond to it or lose any further appeal options.

I attached the picture. It is a Notice to Owner. I am just surprised my previous challenge was not acknowledged
Don't be surprised, council incompetence and stupidity means this sort of thing happens quite a lot.  In fact, the regulations demand that a warning be placed on parking PCNs served at the roadside. See here, (3.(1)(c): -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/part/2/chapter/1
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 06:09:39 pm
Hi all,

I responded on the website to the charge and challeneged it. I did not receive anything back until today. I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70 as i did not pay the GBP35. I did not even receive anything about my challenge if it was successful or not. Please how should i proceed
Please post what you have received first. If it is a Notice to Owner, you must respond to it or lose any further appeal options.

I attached the picture. It is a Notice to Owner. I am just surprised my previous challenge was not acknowledged
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 06:08:39 pm
OP, it's a simple NTO.

But what's not right on first viewing is: It has my current address..

On the face of it this is improper therefore we need to make matters clear.

The authority are required by law to issue the NTO to the 'owner' - deemed for these purposes to be the registered keeper on the date of the contravention and addressed to the keeper at the address held by DVLA at the date of the contravention.*

So, on 7 Nov:
1. Who was the registered keeper;
2. At what address(using an alphabetic descriptor i.e. A);
3. The NTO is addressed to address A or a different address?

*- there is one exception to this which is if the registered keeper has notified the authority formally that all correspondence should be sent to a specified address other than that held by DVLA at the date of the contravention.

I cannot see that this applies in the case of your draft informal reps.

1. I was the registered keeper
2. A
3. Different address - but my current address

I never notified DVLA of any.

Also on the 16/11/2024 i challenged the PCN but i have not received any information back from them regarding this. I go an email confirmation from parkingshop@bedford.gov.uk acknowledging this.

Please how best should i proceed ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on December 28, 2024, 05:56:10 pm
OP, it's a simple NTO.

But what's not right on first viewing is: It has my current address..

On the face of it this is improper therefore we need to make matters clear.

The authority are required by law to issue the NTO to the 'owner' - deemed for these purposes to be the registered keeper on the date of the contravention and addressed to the keeper at the address held by DVLA at the date of the contravention.*

So, on 7 Nov:
1. Who was the registered keeper;
2. At what address(using an alphabetic descriptor i.e. A);
3. The NTO is addressed to address A or a different address?

*- there is one exception to this which is if the registered keeper has notified the authority formally that all correspondence should be sent to a specified address other than that held by DVLA at the date of the contravention.

I cannot see that this applies in the case of your draft informal reps.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on December 28, 2024, 05:40:04 pm
Hi all,

I responded on the website to the charge and challeneged it. I did not receive anything back until today. I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70 as i did not pay the GBP35. I did not even receive anything about my challenge if it was successful or not. Please how should i proceed
Please post what you have received first. If it is a Notice to Owner, you must respond to it or lose any further appeal options.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 05:02:30 pm
I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70

Let's see this letter and confirm whether it has your current or previous address.

Leave in all dates.

It has my current address no previous address was on it.

There is a 5th page which is asking me to write my representations

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 04:54:06 pm
@seanjean123  -  how did you receive today's letter?  Was it forwarded from your old address or did it use your current address?  Had you informed the council of a change of address?

When you submitted your online challenge, did you get any acknowledgement or take a screenshot of your challenge?

It was not forwarded. I got an acknowledgment email with the challenge.

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on December 28, 2024, 03:56:56 pm
I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70

Let's see this letter and confirm whether it has your current or previous address.

Leave in all dates.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: ManxTom on December 28, 2024, 03:51:50 pm
@seanjean123  -  how did you receive today's letter?  Was it forwarded from your old address or did it use your current address?  Had you informed the council of a change of address?

When you submitted your online challenge, did you get any acknowledgement or take a screenshot of your challenge?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 02:17:33 pm
Have you checked the address on your V5C is correct and up to date?

I did move house on the 26th of nov. I updated my V5c a week later due to all the moves (01/12/2024). However in the letter i received today there was no communication about the challenge on the 16/11/2024. It referred back to their inital PCN issued on the 7/11/2024 and said i had not paid within the time frame.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: mdann52 on December 28, 2024, 01:52:21 pm
Have you checked the address on your V5C is correct and up to date?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on December 28, 2024, 12:12:54 pm
Hi all,

I responded on the website to the charge and challeneged it. I did not receive anything back until today. I received a letter from the post saying i should pay GBP 70 as i did not pay the GBP35. I did not even receive anything about my challenge if it was successful or not. Please how should i proceed
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on November 17, 2024, 10:52:09 am
IMO, the wrong contravention should be put to them as well. 'Urban road' went out with the Ark.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: stamfordman on November 16, 2024, 05:12:35 pm
I can't see any need for anything more than 'The contravention did not occur - the council's photographic evidence clearly shows that my vehicle was parked entirely on the tarmac hardstanding of the Swan Hotel's car park and not on the verge.'

But you may as well throw in the kitchen sinks.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on November 16, 2024, 04:26:12 pm
I'd just change 'formally challenge' to 'challenge' (the 'formal' stage is yet to come, see the enforcement process: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process) then IMO you're good to go. If they reject, then at least we should see their reasoning.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 16, 2024, 04:16:06 pm

Please can someone have a look at my reply and see if this is ok.

Thanks
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: baroudeur on November 16, 2024, 04:01:57 pm
The grass areas are council property, impose the boundary of the car park block paved area, and  the 'No Parking' signs relate to those areas. 

This is a case of de minimus and council enforcement at its worst.  But, that's Bedford's modus operandi unfortunately.

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carria
Post by: seanjean123 on November 16, 2024, 12:25:36 am
planning to go with something like this. please provide feedback. I plan to submit  tomorrow. Thanks

I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice for the alleged contravention of “parking with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway.”

I believe the PCN was issued incorrectly for the following reasons:

Vehicle Position:

The council's photographic evidence clearly shows that my vehicle was parked entirely on the tarmac hardstanding of the Swan Hotel's car park and not on the verge. While there may have been a minor overhang of the bumper or one wheel, this is negligible and falls under the legal principle of “de minimis.” As such, the contravention alleged did not occur.

Signage and Ambiguity:
The "No Parking on Verge" sign visible in the photos is positioned in such a way that it applies to the area behind the sign (i.e., further onto the grass verge). My vehicle was parked on the hardstanding in front of the sign, making the restriction ambiguous at best.

Incorrect Contravention Code:
The contravention code cited in the PCN is incorrect. If there were a valid reason to enforce a penalty, the correct code should have been for parking on a footpath or private road, as detailed in Annex B of the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance. The use of an incorrect code invalidates this PCN.

Private Property:
My vehicle was parked on private land owned by the Swan Hotel or its parking operator, as indicated by the signage at the car park entrance. The council does not have jurisdiction to issue PCNs on this land without a clear and applicable Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which I believe does not exist in this case.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the PCN be canceled.

I look forward to your response and am confident this matter can be resolved promptly.

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: John U.K. on November 15, 2024, 08:18:14 am
Please post yr draft here for comment before sending.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 15, 2024, 08:05:57 am
Quote
author=Incandescent link=topic=3829.msg45666#msg45666 date=1731626288]
Sorry, but surely the previous photos show a "No parking on verges" sign right at the front of your car ?
I thought the argument was that your parking was on the hardstanding, and the photos would seem to support this.

[img width=877.5 height=618]https://i.imgur.com/V0eWDiI.jpeg[/img]

[img width=877.5 height=1955]https://i.imgur.com/GRHVvfi.jpeg[/img]

I'd still go with my draft suggestion in post Reply#14


OK see what you are saying. There are two signs. But will go with the earlier draft suggestion thanks
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: John U.K. on November 15, 2024, 07:57:50 am
Quote
author=Incandescent link=topic=3829.msg45666#msg45666 date=1731626288]
Sorry, but surely the previous photos show a "No parking on verges" sign right at the front of your car ?
I thought the argument was that your parking was on the hardstanding, and the photos would seem to support this.

(https://i.imgur.com/V0eWDiI.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/GRHVvfi.jpeg)

I'd still go with my draft suggestion in post Reply#14[/i]
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on November 14, 2024, 11:18:08 pm
Sorry, but surely the previous photos show a "No parking on verges" sign right at the front of your car ?
I thought the argument was that your parking was on the hardstanding, and the photos would seem to support this.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 14, 2024, 08:31:31 pm
I have taken a screenshot and marked the location.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: mickR on November 14, 2024, 11:05:07 am
in the pic of front of car it does appear to me the passenger front wheel is over the (sort of) kerb. but the drivers isn't so maybe the edge is curved??
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: stamfordman on November 14, 2024, 10:27:09 am
The car looks clearly parked on tarmac in a car park. There is encroachment by vegetation. I really don't think there is anything more to this.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: John U.K. on November 14, 2024, 08:57:36 am
I, too, see no blue spots, nor legend. :( Could it be that your link takes us to the origional Google earth view, without your annotations?

In the Gooogle satellite (google earth uses too much memory on my ancient PC!) view here

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ezb3kfRjHuJEGnuU7

you were presumably parked where either the blue car or the white car is parked, or one of the three spaces in between?? Which one? And the sign too, faces one of these spaces?? Again, which one?
EDIT on further study I do not think this is right - could you take a screenshot of sattelite view and mark the locations of your space and the sign before posting, please.

I still think you should run with something along the lines of

AS can be seen from the Council photograph the vehicle was parked with all four wheels on the hotel's hard-standing. Some small part of the front bumper may have been overhanging the grass verge, but so small as to be
de minimis in law. In any case, the sign on your grass verge covers the area behind it and not that before it. The contravention alleged in the PCN did not occur and I look forward to its cancellation.

See what others say but do not miss deadlines.
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: mickR on November 14, 2024, 08:42:55 am
OP, that's a Google earth link not Google street view so not viewable by anyone without GEV
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on November 14, 2024, 08:25:47 am
'Fraid not, sorry.

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 13, 2024, 10:36:17 pm
Thanks for the view. However, I don't know how you've marked your parking location or the sign. What should we be looking for?

There are two blue points. one blue spot is saying car parked and the other saying do not park on verge markings. If you zoom out the location is the car park and you will be able to tell where i have parked compared to where the do not park on verge marking is. Hopefully that will provide more clarity
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on November 13, 2024, 08:00:46 am
Thanks for the view. However, I don't know how you've marked your parking location or the sign. What should we be looking for?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carria
Post by: seanjean123 on November 13, 2024, 04:30:19 am
OP, GSV is of little use at ground level. Could you look at the aerial view and indicate where you were parked.

At present, I think there's literally a turf war between the council and the hotel.

You were parked somewhere on the private property (AKA hotel car park and ancillary areas) which is controlled by a private parking operator as indicated clearly by entrance signs. The car park seems to be bounded on all sides by grass as regards which only that part which fronts The Embankment may IMO be correctly termed 'verge'. In one of the CEO's photos - which were almost exclusively taken from the private property- a No Parking on verge sign can be seen. But this is facing you and there's grass between you and it which IMO means it applies beyond the sign, not in front. If they mean in front then place it on the border of the car park hardstanding and grass.

Subject to getting more detail as regards exactly which piece of grass is involved, I don't think the contravention occurred. At worst, for you, de minimis, at best there's no order restricting parking where you were.

..and it's the wrong contravention, it should be:

 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. (Annex B to SoS's Stat Guidance refers)

I could not get the GSV aerial view so i used goodle earth and marked the location for car parked (where i parked) and the sign saying do not park on verge

https://earth.google.com/web/search/bedford+swan+car+park/@52.13510285,-0.46457904,37.19683276a,137.690249d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CiwiJgokCfQ-zKirJDZAEf11QFSrJDbAGWM28WIm2UhAIYPiG1cpYkvAQgIIAToDCgEwQgIIAEoICN3xnpYHEAA
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carria
Post by: seanjean123 on November 13, 2024, 03:44:29 am
OP, GSV is of little use at ground level. Could you look at the aerial view and indicate where you were parked.

At present, I think there's literally a turf war between the council and the hotel.

You were parked somewhere on the private property (AKA hotel car park and ancillary areas) which is controlled by a private parking operator as indicated clearly by entrance signs. The car park seems to be bounded on all sides by grass as regards which only that part which fronts The Embankment may IMO be correctly termed 'verge'. In one of the CEO's photos - which were almost exclusively taken from the private property- a No Parking on verge sign can be seen. But this is facing you and there's grass between you and it which IMO means it applies beyond the sign, not in front. If they mean in front then place it on the border of the car park hardstanding and grass.

Subject to getting more detail as regards exactly which piece of grass is involved, I don't think the contravention occurred. At worst, for you, de minimis, at best there's no order restricting parking where you were.

..and it's the wrong contravention, it should be:

 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. (Annex B to SoS's Stat Guidance refers)

Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: H C Andersen on November 12, 2024, 09:10:31 am
OP, GSV is of little use at ground level. Could you look at the aerial view and indicate where you were parked.

At present, I think there's literally a turf war between the council and the hotel.

You were parked somewhere on the private property (AKA hotel car park and ancillary areas) which is controlled by a private parking operator as indicated clearly by entrance signs. The car park seems to be bounded on all sides by grass as regards which only that part which fronts The Embankment may IMO be correctly termed 'verge'. In one of the CEO's photos - which were almost exclusively taken from the private property- a No Parking on verge sign can be seen. But this is facing you and there's grass between you and it which IMO means it applies beyond the sign, not in front. If they mean in front then place it on the border of the car park hardstanding and grass.

Subject to getting more detail as regards exactly which piece of grass is involved, I don't think the contravention occurred. At worst, for you, de minimis, at best there's no order restricting parking where you were.

..and it's the wrong contravention, it should be:

   Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. (Annex B to SoS's Stat Guidance refers)
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 11, 2024, 11:48:50 pm
Even if part of a car is on verge or footway as your's seems to be, it is in contravention, I'm afraid.  I would suggest that it you submit reps on the basis that the front wheels are clearly on the hard surface, not the verge, and point out that the restriction is clearly there to prevent parking from damaging the verge and its grass surface. As such, your car caused no damage to the grass verge whatsoever, and you are very surprised that a PCN was served.
Thanks
Should i admit to being the driver ? I have heard a number of people say i should not.
Also how should i phrase the reply ?
Should i include mitigation ? wife pregnant and coming from the hospital ?
Who was driving is totally irrelevant in PCN cases, because the owner of the vehicle (assumed from the keeper on the V5C), is responsible for a PCN, payment or appealing. So who is the keeper, or is the car leased ?

i am the keeper. pls how do i phrase the appeal
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on November 11, 2024, 10:46:18 pm
Even if part of a car is on verge or footway as your's seems to be, it is in contravention, I'm afraid.  I would suggest that it you submit reps on the basis that the front wheels are clearly on the hard surface, not the verge, and point out that the restriction is clearly there to prevent parking from damaging the verge and its grass surface. As such, your car caused no damage to the grass verge whatsoever, and you are very surprised that a PCN was served.
Thanks
Should i admit to being the driver ? I have heard a number of people say i should not.
Also how should i phrase the reply ?
Should i include mitigation ? wife pregnant and coming from the hospital ?
Who was driving is totally irrelevant in PCN cases, because the owner of the vehicle (assumed from the keeper on the V5C), is responsible for a PCN, payment or appealing. So who is the keeper, or is the car leased ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 11, 2024, 10:25:41 pm
Even if part of a car is on verge or footway as your's seems to be, it is in contravention, I'm afraid.  I would suggest that it you submit reps on the basis that the front wheels are clearly on the hard surface, not the verge, and point out that the restriction is clearly there to prevent parking from damaging the verge and its grass surface. As such, your car caused no damage to the grass verge whatsoever, and you are very surprised that a PCN was served.
Thanks
Should i admit to being the driver ? I have heard a number of people say i should not.
Also how should i phrase the reply ?
Should i include mitigation ? wife pregnant and coming from the hospital ?
Title: Re: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: Incandescent on November 10, 2024, 07:46:32 pm
Even if part of a car is on verge or footway as your's seems to be, it is in contravention, I'm afraid.  I would suggest that it you submit reps on the basis that the front wheels are clearly on the hard surface, not the verge, and point out that the restriction is clearly there to prevent parking from damaging the verge and its grass surface. As such, your car caused no damage to the grass verge whatsoever, and you are very surprised that a PCN was served.
Title: Re: Support with Penalty Charge Notice. Parked on verge with any or part of wheels of an urban road
Post by: seanjean123 on November 10, 2024, 06:49:07 pm
Is not the front of the vehicle over the grass verge?
Please give/re-instate PCN number and reg.mark, (see
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/

and give a GSV link to the location.

I have updated this thanks
Title: Re: Support with Penalty Charge Notice. Parked on verge with any or part of wheels of an urban road
Post by: John U.K. on November 10, 2024, 02:23:45 pm
Is not the front of the vehicle over the grass verge?
Please give/re-instate PCN number and reg.mark, (see
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/

and give a GSV link to the location.
Title: Bedford, Code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriage way, Embankment
Post by: seanjean123 on November 10, 2024, 11:26:29 am
Hi Please some support with this.

i received a PCN notice on my car for parking on verge. Honestly not aware i was parked wrong. I was booked in at the hotel and asked the hotel staff and they said i could park anywhere except for on the grass. The car park was clearly marked Swann Hotel Car park before i entered. I did see a sign saying do not park on the grass which was what led me to ask the hotel staff if i was parked right which they said yes and i registered my car.

Also i dont know if this helps i was actually coming back from the hospital to pick up some items as my wife who was pregnant and some issues and we had to go very early in the morning. I came back to pick her drugs and parked exactly where i parked the previous day and was approved by the hotel staff.

Also the area parked in does not block any pedestrian is it was clearly stated a hotel car park.

Please what viable defence do i have or ideas on how to challenge this

Fine is GBP 70, dropped to GBP 35 if paid within 14 days. If i appeal i still get 14 days to pay GBP 35


GSV of car park: https://maps.app.goo.gl/axmpctATK4yPayCb7

Link to pictues : https://imgur.com/a/6MWGAMp

[attachment deleted by admin]