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 - AFMAC

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
When I paid the PCN online, I was astonished to have to pay £130 and not £65, with no option.  I did so to ensure that it was paid.

The reject letter said
“You can pay the discount charge of £65.00. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will close the case.”

Assuming that the letter was posted on its date of 24 December 2024, I believe that the deemed date of service is on the second business day after that.  25 and 26 December were not business days, so deemed service took place on 28 December.  14 days after that is 11 January 2025.

It seems clear that the Lambeth system is incorrect so that I have overpaid.

Am I right in this, and am I best to complain by telephone or by email or by post?

Thanks.

3
Thanks.

I am trying to work out whether it is worth doing that, or whether I should just pay the discounted £65 while I still can.

Hippocrates kindly offered to represent me at the Tribunals on my previous PCN, which was then cancelled, but he has not commented on this one.

4

It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly allowed me to enter as a permit holder.

It was subsequently replaced with this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing

Streetview does not yet show this sign.

The change of wording is the problem.


5

Thank you.

The answer is that I did not ignore the sign, which said “Except authorised vehicles and loading”, and I interpreted “authorised” as (in those particular circumstances) as including having a permit to enter the street, given that there are bays still marked as being part of the Zone.

But I agree that it would be a gamble, which is why I am planning to pay if there are no other grounds for an appeal.

6

I have had no comments on this, so I propose to pay the discounted rate tomorrow if nobody suggests appealing. 
The basis of an appeal, in the absence of a technical argument, would be that the Controlled Zone notices are still there, and I am entitled to think that they mean something.  The only thing that they could reasonably mean is that I am allowed to enter that street to enable me to park if there is a vacant bay, on the strength of my parking permit for that zone.  The rejection letter did not deal with that point at all.

7

I now have the rejection notice for the second PCN as follows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DNV3AQiz67lIZxg6m1_S6Sg8aTjx8YDw/view?usp=sharing

This has slightly different wording from the first one, but still ignores my comments about the Controlled Zone notice.

I propose to pay the discounted rate (£65) for the first PCN today.

Is it worth appealing the second PCN on the grounds that the presence of the Controlled Zone notice must be there for a reason?  My argument is that if it has no effect, it should have been removed.


8

I see that the discount expires 14 days from date of service, not from date of letter.
Letter is dated 16 December, so deemed service was on 18 December?
In that case the discount expires on 1 January. 
If I appeal, is the discount preserved for longer?

9

Very useful to have this reference.  In my case, the car was in for more than 20 metres, however.

10

But of course Hippocrates may have a much better argument.

11
I understand your first paragraph. 

However, my point is that the signage for the parking controlled zone is still there, which is what I am relying on.

12

I have finally received (forwarded in Christmas post) the rejection notice sent by Lambeth on 16 December, but not emailed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QjGPSr37aV4tOYvIhnYlK0I_36vnfecB/view?usp=sharing

And there was also information about an appeal.

The discount expires on Monday 30 Dec, so I can either pay now or appeal.  I can appeal online if you advise me to do, and would repeat my previous submission, with the following addition.

“ Lambeth’s rejection letter states
“We sent you a PCN because our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicle going where vehicles are not allowed.  The sign is round white and has a red border, with a picture of a motorcycle and a motor vehicle.”

This is not a complete description of the sign, which also states “Except authorised vehicles and loading”.

My representations pointed out that as a holder of a parking permit for Controlled Zone S, and given that Stockwell Terrace has signs indicating that it is part of that zone, my vehicle was an authorised vehicle in the normal meaning of that phrase.

Lambeth has not commented at all on that element of my submission, which I now repeat.

Can I have some advice, please?

13

To complete the record on this case, I attach the letter from TFL which arrived by post while I was away, so the email from the Tribunals reached me first.
No indication, of course, what the “administrative error” was.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KlV6c8ykohs6fiHCBySk_Zh63xUh5lBS/view?usp=sharing



14

Sorry.  The links to the videos don’t work from here, although they did from a word document

15
Thank you.

I have submitted my representations without the last sentence.
And as expected, I have received another identical PCN for 3 November:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eprFcBYhH99mlJQPTOojHFY4U48xJEag/view?usp=sharing

I propose to submit identical wording tomorrow Wednesday, unless you advise me to refer to the earlier PCN.

I have now seen that the online information for the PCNs includes a video in each case:

Link to video of 1 November PCN
https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/liberatorImageProxyRaw.php?noderef=workspace%3A%2F%2FSpacesStore%2F678bb1bf-aa73-4a1c-85ef-0984def1b220&mimetype=video%2Fx-flv

Link to video of 3 November PCN
https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/liberatorImageProxyRaw.php?noderef=workspace%3A%2F%2FSpacesStore%2F6a971e58-a2d7-43ed-b817-22abb0d12145&mimetype=video%2Fx-flv

Regards

Pages: [1] 2 3