Show Posts - tasty_snacks

Ha! Well, three trains and a cart horse, in my case. 

Quote from: Incandescent on 03 Feb, 2025 09:54QuoteThis is your clue to why this zone exists. The old mantra of "when something looks too good to be true, it usually is too good to be true.Perhaps so. But not relevant if the signage is non-compliant (which sadly, is not looking to be the case here)? Besides, my experience of parking at local stations (admittedly here in the West Country) is that you can park very close to the station without restriction.Quote from: H C Andersen on 03 Feb, 2025 11:04What did you do with the PCN which was attached to your vehicle?Were informal reps made and if so pl post along with the council's response.I have the hard copy, can post if helpful.I didn't make any informal reps. I've never had any success with them in the past - so just waited for the NtO.

Sorry about that, now set to unrestricted. Damn it - I didn't see that sign at all. Have now checked the rest of the road and there are signs at entrance points to the zones on one side of the road:Google map - North (Ladyfields)Google Map - West (Colson Rd)Google Map - South (Lushes Rd)Would've been more visible were it not set just after the turn from a busy road, and on both sides of the road. In fact, isn't there an obligation to place the warning sign on both sides if roads are over a certain width?EDIT - have just found a resi permit sign on G maps, albeit on the other side about 30 yards away. I didn't see any of these at teh time. Thanks

Hi allReceived the Notice to Owner for this alleged offence. I parked here whilst using the train station nearby. I had a good look around the road, there were no signs on the roadside, no marked bays, no yellow lines. There weren't any CPZ signs on approach either - at least, not that I saw (subsequently confirmed by Google view). The evidence of photos online includes a picture of a road sign, but I'm not sure where this is - the houses in the background certainly don't look like the ones where I parked. I've looked for 50+ yards along the road from where I was online and there is no evidence of signage. It's been a while since I've dealt with resident bays - I guess my appeal will likely be 'contravention did not occur' based on the above / 20 min rule for loading?Front pageBack pageGoogle Maps viewCheers

Thought I'd add my two pennies to this conversation. I've just had a CEL PCN appeal upheld, thanks entirely to advice from this forum. Years ago, when less risk averse, younger and crucially - had no kids, mortgage nor a serious job and therefore had more time - I would fight every ticket I received. With the help of Pepipoo, and some self learning, I managed to win every single PCN battle. Brilliantly, I also told family members and they to, time willing, won several appeals. I remember winning those appeals at The Angel, then going for a celebratory pint each time at (I think?) The York, just up the road from the appeals office. It was often easy. Rarely did the issuing party turn up, and sometimes they didn't even send the paperwork. They even on one occasion sent a representation for a different offence, car and date.... I was always 99% sure I'd win going into that office.Thing is, those days I lived in London, and could afford the time to attend. Several years later, and faced the option of £60 - £100 versus the effort of going to London, even to win, the fine feels like the sensible choice. It was only really that I found myself hacked off with the injustice of it all that I Google'd Pepipoo after all these years and followed the paper trail here. I guess my point is this - busy people (which is most people) would rather through gritted teeth suck up a penalty. They don't know what recourse they have, and even when they do, it feels too much of an effort. I've confused council issued notices with private notices above purposely, because therein lies a problem. The whole system needs full reform, with a single penalty fare set by central Government, with a single appeal place for both private and council issued PCNs. It's wholly ridiculous to expect the average motorist to be aware of their rights dependent upon where and when they received a PCN. Ah, but how can Government impose a flat fine for PCNs I hear the cowboys cry? Easy, amend the act to state that EVERY issuing body must be a regulated body and therefore adhere to centrally set fines and standards, with centrally set appeals processes. No sign up, no authority. And penalties for organisations that issue PCNs who haven't signed up. If a vehicle is parked illegally and can't be removed, it's a police matter (which will swiftly get the police on board with encouraging those that issue PCNs to sign up). Returning to the issue of whether or not a recipient of a PCN chooses to challenge - under a regulated agreement, the appellant is offered recourse at the collective expense of those who (must) join the regulated scheme. This has to follow a process of issuance, and right to appeal. If the appellant wins, it is an the expense of the issuing company (including travel costs, time off work etc). You have to make it clear, and cost neutral, for the person who receive the ticket. If it worked properly, you could even have a triage centre (which is where the more experienced members here could monetise it) to inform the recipient of the likely chances of success - which is essentially what you good folk here do for free. Ultimately, IMO, people just don't have the time to fight. But if provided with a free recourse system that was made abundantly clear from the offset, with the option of triage to weed out the no hopes, and if that was regulated to make sure it was clear on every single PCN, that's the only way more would be encouraged.

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know that a reply from CEL was received, simply stating that the appeal had been upheld. I can't thank you all enough. Is there a way to make a small contribution to the running of this site so that others may continue to benefit?

Quote from: DWMB2 on 17 Sep, 2024 09:04Unusual, can you show us please?Of course!Here's the latest PCN received:[/url]20240917_090925 , on Flickr[/img]And the original, per post #1 on this thread:[/url]20240912_213441, on Flickr

Thanks - just to be clear, it is the same PCN number, simply different (later) issue date and more complete info (i.e. the 'to' section has been completed).

Thanks all, submitting today. Coincidentally, received another notice today (different issue date of 11th Sept), but this time it contained the 'to' date and time. I assume that as a default CEL will reject the initial appeal, leaving POPLA (and ultimately civil court) as recourse. V happy to go the full distance if required. 

Yes, address is correct and unchanged in > 12 months

Thanks bothYes, I am the registered keeper and am in possession of V5C, no changes in >12 months

Howdy allReceived this delightful little number in the post on Sept 7th. It claims 'payment not made.' The driver paid using a physical pay machine on site. The driver does not recall whether physical tickets are issued from pay machines at this location, and no display ticket (if issued) has been retained. The driver has a debit on their bank account on the date in question to CEL Ltd. The driver's bank has confirmed that the transaction occurred 3 minutes after the alleged offence, with payment being received by Civil Enforcement Ltd. Evidence of this can be provided. This corresponds to the driver's Google timeline which shows arrival at the location moments before a ticket was purchased.The driver is unable to revisit the location to take photos of signage at this stage.Front Page[/url]20240912_213441 , on Flickr[/img]Back Page[/url]20240912_213530, on Flickr[/img]It's been a while since I've received one of these, but as a default, doesn't the 'from' and 'to' time need to be completed for validity (or is that only Penalty Charge Notices)? And whilst not mandatory for validity/ enforcement (I think?), in looking at several other Civil Enforcement PCNs posted on this site, they seem to contain photographic 'evidence,' whereas this one does not. Note I have not yet appealed to CEL. Thanks for any assistance!