Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: guest968 on November 19, 2023, 06:18:58 pm
-
DNC'ed.
-
..and 'will send you a charge certificate'.
Obviously and off day at Hillingdon.
-
Hillingdon are currently not fighting many tribunal cases
-
It's a surprising own-goal by the council but the 28 day period to pay or appeal is stated as being from the date of the notice, rather than the date of service of the notice. Truncating the statutory period like this is accepted by all adjudicators as a procedural impropriety, so I'd say you have very strong grounds for carrying on.
I'll drop you an PM with your options for representation.
-
@Scientist and Saint well they've opened one of the links, but not the other three. As HCA says, please post up all pages of the notice of rejection.
@cp8759
(https://i.postimg.cc/Q9CWxDqh/NoR-p1.png) (https://postimg.cc/Q9CWxDqh)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zbQHyQdW/NoR-p2.png) (https://postimg.cc/zbQHyQdW)
-
One could think that the driver knows the area intimately and that there's no confusion over the meaning of signs and restrictions.
One could.
Or one could think that the driver had always thought the SYL restrictions were as per the signs on the lamp posts.
-
@Scientist and Saint well they've opened one of the links, but not the other three. As HCA says, please post up all pages of the notice of rejection.
-
Well - they rejected my appeal.
We need to see this pl.
Reviewing GSV again, there's a remarkable similarity between the car in the photos and the one parked on the drive of no. 17 5 years ago, even to the same sticker on the windscreen. One could think that the driver knows the area intimately and that there's no confusion over the meaning of signs and restrictions.
Anyway, the NOR pl.
-
@cp8759
Well - they rejected my appeal.
I'll scan and upload their letter, but in the meantime here is what I sent them as representations.
I've ringed the only link which I created which got any clicks (1).
Obviously I don't know abut the arp4 links you created.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5QbTyQBC/Representations-240204-image.png) (https://postimg.cc/5QbTyQBC)
-
I don't think we've seen the photos of your car in situ.
They're on the council website:
(https://i.imgur.com/5tfdZWP.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ofW6iQ6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/VjAS8im.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8esnma6.jpeg)
-
The PCN states that your car was parked 'o/s 17[Clovelly Close]'
You're bombarding us with signs from other locations, including in Clovelly, but these aren't relevant.
According to GSV, o/s 17 is a single yellow line between 2 parking places.
The line is terminated at these bays.
There isn't a waiting restriction sign on this length and therefore the applicable restricted hours are those indicated on the CPZ entrance signs, in this case Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
Further along on your side and opposite are additional restrictions which apply to buses and lorries. They aren't on your stretch of SYL anyway and in any case they're additional restrictions, not alternative. (this is the 'There are signs on lamp posts along the road in question which could be taken to mean that the SYL has different restrictions to the CPZ,' to which you referred)
I don't think we've seen the photos of your car in situ.
-
Rest of the attachments
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@cp8759
OK - council web page URLs, and links to screenshots. I'll try to attach the screenshots as well, but last time I tried to add 2 attachments it was a struggle, so 5....
Council site URLs:
https://engage.barnet.gov.uk/4569/widgets/13867/documents/5280/download
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20082/parking_permits/2373/controlled_parking_zone
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pts-stl-cpz-faqs.pdf
https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/parking/cpz/cpz-regulations
https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx
Screenshots:
https://i.postimg.cc/bYRfNL2W/Barnet.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/cChp94S0/Hounslow.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/zvqmFH4x/Lambeth.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/JnNVX5Yy/Merton.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/k5tdJmxv/Tower-Hamlets.jpg
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have PM'ed you.
-
@cp8759
Thanks for that offer - if you no longer have time because this was late please let me know & I'll sort something.
One photo - PNG is better, but have also included a JPG in case the PNG is too large.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As the NTO was issued on 4 January you have until midnight on Sunday to make representations. If you can get a relevant photo over to me tomorrow I'm happy to set up a link with a click counter, it only takes 2 minutes.
At this point the discount is not in play so you might as well throw everything at it.
-
@cp8759
Re the CPZ entry signs, I've not taken photos of them. I could, tomorrow, but I don't believe that any case for them being obscured could be made. The ones on GSV show them as they are, pretty much.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mPMxS84n/CPZ-entrances-unredacted.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mPMxS84n)
Subject to seasonal variations in leaf cover obscuring the one on the RHS of the road in the top photo (if you zoom in on that one you can just about make out where it is).
I don't know to what extent that one would have been covered in October when the contravention occurred, but the one on the driver's side of the road is never obscured, and as I have lived in the CPZ since before it was created I would have driven past that sign thousands of times. What I'm trying to say is that I can't envisage any credible case for claiming that I couldn't have known about the CPZ because of signage issues.
As I said earlier, there are only two entrances to the CPZ, at points marked A & B on this map:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XXjFyZY4/Screen-Hunter-1778.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XXjFyZY4)
In the photo, A is the top one, B the bottom. At location B there is still only the one sign on the LHS of what is a single track road.
I've got 28 days from when the NTO was served to make representations. They don't say when they regard it as having been served, but if we assume that they use the same system of second working day after the date of posting which they did for the rejection of my initial appeal, then with an NTO date of 04/01 that takes me to 05/02/24.
All I can think to do is to ask them to use their discretion to cancel the charge, because of the following:
1) There are signs on lamp posts along the road in question which could be taken to mean that the SYL has different restrictions to the CPZ, and to add weight to that
a) the fact that within the CPZ there is at least one SYL with a sign which does carry different hours to the CPZ times
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X7tHWgtc4Tq2NmJh6
close-up: https://maps.app.goo.gl/G2nev91bEukgH6xAA
I'll take a photo of that tomorrow - seems like a good candidate to upload and set up a view counter?
b) referencing documents from several other London councils which establish the principle that there can be SYLs within CPZs which define different restrictions to the CPZ.
2) In mitigation that I was parked across the driveway of my own house because I had a skip there which prevented me from parking on it, so I was not causing any obstruction or inconvenience to others.
I know it's all a bit straw-clutchy, but it's all I've got...
And apologies for not getting back with this sooner - been meaning to do it for days, but have been swamped with getting stuff back into the house from storage now that the builders have finally gone...
If it's too late for you to help I'll quite understand, but if I could at least beg the details of how to set up a click counter (or is it Linkly?)
-
I'm not sure how good Hillingdon's CPZ evidence packs are, but if you want to take a belt and braces approach see the tactic of last resort described here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/city-of-edinburgh-02-parked-in-a-restricted-street-lochrin-buildings-gilmour-pla/msg7413/#msg7413).
Have a read and if you want to use that, we can discuss setting up the links etc and also what they should point at. If the CPZ entry signs are currently in any way obscured, some photos of that would be ideal.
-
Didn't know about adding '@<userid>' to trigger an email....
@cp8759
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-for-cpz-contravention-01-parked-in-a-restricted-street-during-prescribed-hou/msg13746/#msg13746
-
NTO has arrived
(https://i.postimg.cc/0rqj92zt/NTO-p1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0rqj92zt)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zyJ7RrV5/NTO-p2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/zyJ7RrV5)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HrB2whyM/NTO-p3.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrB2whyM)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DWNPD45y/NTO-p4.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DWNPD45y)
-
So anyway - I've now got until 15th December to pay the discounted £55 vs the full £110.
I guess it's a question of odds. If the consensus is that I've got a greater than 50% chance of prevailing at a tribunal (assuming there are grounds for going to one) then the maths says take the gamble.
If the consensus is that I'm more likely to lose I should cut my losses and pay the £55.
-
Well, it's not exactly difficult to "interpret". TBH it doesn't really need any "interpretation", reading will suffice.
Bear in mind that it's a response to my complaint to them about how long their appeal rejection letter had taken to arrive, and a request for them to extend the 14-day discounted payment window to reflect when it actually arrived rather than when they presumed it had.
(https://i.postimg.cc/476pjr00/Screen-Hunter-1728.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/476pjr00)
-
OK - today I got a letter saying that "on this occasion" they've decided to re-offer the opportunity to pay the reduced £55 within 14 days of the date of the letter, which was 1st December.
It only says whatever it says when we SEE it, not your interpretation of it.
-
OK - today I got a letter saying that "on this occasion" they've decided to re-offer the opportunity to pay the reduced £55 within 14 days of the date of the letter, which was 1st December.
Presumably the NtO issuing process won't start until the deadline of 15th December has passed, so we're in the dark until then, and I've got to decide between hanging on and hoping that some kind of escape appears, or pay the £55 and move on, with at least the crumb of satisfaction that the penalty charge was less than the cost of a resident's permit.
-
That's a hefty tome...
-
For later, The Hillingdon (Waiting & Loading Restrictions) Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=12iaCsLv-HnXxm6iZXOWpxcB5mqPUTyTD).
-
I've requested the TMO, let us know when you get the notice to owner.
-
In the end I didn't pay the reduced amount by the end of the deadline, so if anybody thinks there might be a viable tribunal appeal open to me I'll sit and wait for the NtO, otherwise I might try throwing myself on their mercy re the appalling Royal Mail delay and ask them to accept the reduced payment a few days late.
-
Well - they didn't get back to me today to say they would reschedule the 14-day discount period to start when I actually received the appeal rejection rather than the date they presumed I'd received it, so I've got a few hours to decide whether to pay the £55, or hang on and hope they do grant me an extension.
I have to say that following the recent Ofcom RM investigation & fine this presumption of theirs that letters will be delivered within 2 working days of being sent is utterly unsafe. Mine came 10 days after that, giving me 4 days of discount period left, not 14.
Whatever I decide to do, or whatever happens, I'm minded to make complaints about this.
-
Am I right that it's the owner or keeper who is liable from the outset, and there's none of the driver-is-liable-but-POFA-allows-liability-to-be-transferred-to-keeper stuff you get with private parking charge notices?
Correct. The keeper is assumed to be the owner, and has full responsibility for a PCN. For parking PCNs, if the PCN is served to the car or driver, the driver can submit an informal challenge, (or pay of course), but if, after 28 days has elapsed since service, a Notice to Owner is sent to the name and address recorded by DVLA for the vehicle.
All postal PCNs are sent to the keeper. Apart from a driver submitting an informal challenge, the driver has no role at all in the enforcement process. Private parking tickets are totally different hence two separate forums.
-
Don't worry about the discount, as long as you challenge the notice to owner within 14 days, even if they reject again they normally reoffer the discount anyway for a further 14 days.
"Normally". Hmmm.
How does a Notice To Owner differ from a Notice To Keeper?
Am I right that it's the owner or keeper who is liable from the outset, and there's none of the driver-is-liable-but-POFA-allows-liability-to-be-transferred-to-keeper stuff you get with private parking charge notices?
-
I did fear that might be the case.... :-(
-
I think you would serve yourself best by paying the discount as offered, and put this episode down as a learning opportunity in "Life's Rich Pageant". If you take things further, the full PCN penalty will be in play, and I can't see a win at London Tribunals, sorry to say it.
-
The background is that I parked on the SYL because I thought it was fine, based on ignorance.
I did not know that the SYL was actually part of, i.e. governed by the hours of, the CPZ - I thought the road had yellow lines, and what the CPZ did was to create gaps in the SYL with resident's parking bays, i.e. in the road you could park in a bay according to the rules for the bays, or you could park on the SYL according to the rules for that.
In a somewhat feeble, straw-clutching claim in my defence, there are a number of London boroughs who say that there can be situations where SYLs on roads within a CPZ operate at different times etc, and when that happened there'd be signs associated with the SYLs to tell you
So I didn't think that the CPZ days/times defined the period of operation of the SYL - I thought that was defined by the information plates on the lamp posts along the road, and in a further display of idiocy I thought that this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tY47Jbh7/Yellow-line-sign.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/tY47Jbh7)
was a SYL info plate, not something totally nothing to do with yellow lines.
So I appealed on the basis that the SYL on which I was parked did not prohibit parking at the time I was on it.
This was their rejection:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rKSgNBWr/LBH-rejection-less-redacted-p1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/rKSgNBWr)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nXp2R3Yw/LBH-rejection-less-redacted-p2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/nXp2R3Yw)
-
There are various potential issues, but you say you've made representations already and received a rejection?
In this case please show us exactly what they sent, and what they sent back.
Don't worry about the discount, as long as you challenge the notice to owner within 14 days, even if they reject again they normally reoffer the discount anyway for a further 14 days.
-
The PCN was affixed to the car windscreen
(https://i.postimg.cc/G9TXH8mz/LBH-PCN-unredacted-front.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/G9TXH8mz)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jLVZNxWT/LBH-PCN-unredacted-rear.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/jLVZNxWT)
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TqcH5HeWDB7Xnbsq9
There are only 2 entrances to the CPZ, and this is the signage:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mPMxS84n/CPZ-entrances-unredacted.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mPMxS84n)
I think there are now signs on both sides of the road in the lower location - I could go and check but I doubt it's material, any more than the leaves obscuring the RH sign in the upper photo.
I don't dispute that I was parked where and when they said, and the evidence is very clear.
The only error I can see is that they have miss-spelt the name of the road on both the ticket and the appeal rejection as "Clovely" rather than "Clovelly".
BTW - I've not been sitting on my hands since they rejected my appeal, they posted it on 2nd November, which was a Thursday, and therefore their presumption was that it would be delivered within 2 working days, i.e. Monday 6th, which is when the 14-day countdown for the discounted payment window started. The day after it came I started a topic on Pepipoo.
It was actually delivered on Thursday 16th, 10 days late. I have asked if they would extend the 14-day window by 10 days, on the grounds that they must know that it is unsafe to assume that Royal Mail will deliver when they should, and that injustices can arise if they do just assume.
If they don't then tomorrow, Monday 20th is my deadline to either pay £55 or decide to "make further representations".
So I guess what I'd like to know is are there any "technicalities" which give me a sporting chance of getting this dismissed, or should I just pay up while it's going to cost me £55 rather than £110.