Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EVMGK

Pages: [1]
1
I received a PCN at an EV charging point on Binfield Road contravention code 12A. Due to the heavy rain that night I didn’t realise it was a permit only zone (my permit had lapsed)

Received a generic response from Lambeth on the subject.

Wondering whether there’s any chance of winning if I take it further or whether I should just bite the bullet for the £65

2
Case reference: 2230400654
Any rough indications on how much I should try to claim for?

3
Judgement was passed in my favour;

Thanks all, much appreciated with the assistance  :)

any examples for cost request? It says to provide evidence to cost which may assist the acceptance? Time for research I can provide logs?

4
How do they decide the rate? I mean do they not take into account time taken to fight the tickets or to research? I thought they might take into account roughly a persons per hour rate (optimistic thinking) would probably force the industry to function properly if they could end up being made to pay out

5
And then a claim for cost after the adjudicators decision as this  has taken a fair bit of time

6
Yes, I have; any tips based on their preliminary pack would be appreciated

7
Find their new response which they have uploaded ahead of the tribunal; quite a few contradictions mainly the appendix stating times allowed in bays on Macaulay road “3 hours” where as signage states 4 hours. Not relevant to my case but does show they fail to maintain accurate documentation on their Local Parking zones

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
Please find the Notice of Rejection. No, I should be fine at tribunal, wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t contest at trial

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

9
Got the letter today saying they rejected the formal appeal with the exact same reason as from the informal appeal. Time to take it to the adjudicators

10
I appreciate that it’s quite waffly, will look to refine it. Should I keep the indicative statement regarding cost aligned with my time? I found it annoying as it could have ended at the informal point

11
I’ve received the NTO and I am planning for the following response:

The Civil Enforcement officer issued a Contravention Code 14 stating the vehicle was not charging however within the pictures illustrated you can clearly see the colour on the MG is green indicating that it was indeed charging. I do not appreciate the part of the Local Authority to cause me to take time out of my day to fight a ticket for a contravention that did not happen. The lacklustre approach your CEO has taken to not even look at the charging station screen which would have clearly shown the vehicle was currently charging. I await your prompt response, should this exceed the current stage I would like to enquire with the LA as to how I can apply for reimbursement for wasting my time. Here is a link if your 3PT vendor does not understand what the lights mean https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4HUY3ggOc&feature=share7 ; I have highlighted in the pictures your CEO took that show the vehicle was charging.

As previously stated, the council has no grounds to enforce any contravention other than the one listed on the NTO and the original PCN which states contravention 14 “Parked in an electric vehicles' charging place during restricted hours without charging”; The LA has no right to append additional context to the accused Contravention 14 to state the charge was longer than is permitted given this would then not be a Contravention 14 but a contravention 30 “Parked for longer than permitted”. The LA only has the authority to implement action based on that which was documented on the original contravention which happens to be Contravention 14; this did not take place as I was clearly charging and have provided the invoice to that effect. I have also attached my own invoice for the lost time attributed to challenging this PCN which could have been avoided had the LA taken the letter of the TMA with regards to prosecution alongside Department for Transport Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions.

12
Yes V5C and address are up to date

13
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

14
Location: Macaulay Road
Civil Enforcement Officer: LH2380
Who had reason to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred and that a penalty charge is now payable: 14

14 Parked in an electric vehicles charging place during restricted hours without charging

Contested Argument:
The Civil Enforcement officer issued a Contravention Code 14 stating the vehicle was not charging however within the pictures illustrated you can clearly see the colour on the MG is green indicating that it was indeed charging. I do not appreciate the part of the Local Authority to cause me to take time out of my day to fight a ticket for a contravention that did not happen. The lacklustre approach your CEO has taken to not even look at the charging station screen which would have clearly shown the vehicle was currently charging. I await your prompt response, should this exceed the current stage I would like to enquire with the LA as to how I can apply for reimbursement for wasting my time. Here is a link if your 3PT vendor does not understand what the lights mean https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4HUY3ggOc&feature=share7 ; I have highlighted in the pictures your CEO took that show the vehicle was charging.

LA Response:
We have clearly considered what you say but have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)

You were issued a PCN for parking in a bay for electric vehicles to charge their batteries. There is a sign explaining this. Even if you have an electric vehicle you can only park there if you are charging your battery.

We have noted that you parked to charge your vehicle. The CEO believes that your vehicle parked owner then the 4 hours permitted. Your vehicle was first observed at 09:15 before returning at 14:33 which was when the PCN was issued.



Is it worth further challenging this as the incorrect contravention code was used. This seems more inline with a contravention 30 which would be Parked for longer than permitted. Should I challenge this further or would you recommend conceding and paying given the incorrect contravention code appears to have been used

Pages: [1]