3. Messages

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 - AmikoFrizz

Pages: [1] 2
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: February 27, 2026, 04:18:11 pm »
Quote from: tincombe on February 26, 2026, 12:14:33 pm

I get very annoyed when councils misuse their power in this way.

I would write to the head of parking services.


---
Dear Mr [---],

Thank you for your email.

Our records show your formal representations were received on 17th December 2025. The Notice of Rejection was posted on 10th February 2026 and, in accordance with Regulation 3(3) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, is deemed to have been served on 12 February 2026 (the second working day after posting).

This is 57 days after the date we received your representations. Under Regulation 6(7) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, if a decision is not served within 56 days of receiving formal representations, the representations are deemed accepted, and the authority must cancel the enforcement notice and refund any sums paid.

Accordingly, we have cancelled the PCN.

This email is confirmation of the cancelled PCN.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused, this matter has been raised with our Parking Contractor APCOA.

Kind Regards
---

Thank you very much to you all, what a great team of helpful experts! I'll try to stay on this forum and support the community. Cheers!

A special shout to Tincombe, that spotted this crucial bit and suggested the right channel to use with the correct wording. Success!

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Stayplyton Road Car Park 10 second overstay
« on: February 26, 2026, 05:06:01 pm »
Quote from: elpscar on February 26, 2026, 12:55:13 pm
Submitted an appeal explaining:
- I did pay for the full time period at the correct location
- It was an honest mistake between two similar registrations I own
- I clearly intended to comply (returned exactly when parking expired)
- Attached both the PayByPhone receipt and the PCN

Result: Appeal accepted and PCN cancelled! ;D

This almost never happens!

Wow! Was not expecting that, especially from Barnet...

Good for you, case closed and no more time to spend on it.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: February 23, 2026, 10:14:32 pm »
Quote from: tincombe on February 21, 2026, 06:24:02 pm
For me only question at this stage is how you submitted your reps which you say were made on 17 Dec.

This is a parking contravention subject to the TMA and regs which provide that if an authority do not SERVE notice of their rejection within the 56-day period they are deemed to have accepted them.

NOR dated 10 Feb, therefore deemed served 12 Feb.

If you submitted your reps online or by email on 17th Dec, then the elapsed period is 15+31+12=58 days.

Indeed, I sent my formal reps online via the Council website on the 17th Dec 25. On the NOR, they state "thank you for your correspondence received on 17/12/2025, etc.". So we have a firm confirmation of that, in writing, from their side.
Page 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/16T_83uZn4NpClZwYP51WLtjrYtFWM6Fn/view?usp=sharing
This seems a crucial point. Now how do I submit the request of cancellation of the PCN on these basis? 1) Adding this point on the appeal to the Adjudicator? 2) Or I can just use a shortcut and write again to the Council, maybe using again the form for formal reps and get another confirmation code?

Quote from: Incandescent on February 20, 2026, 08:18:12 pm
OK, so for an appeal to London Tribunals, your reps need to be based on what you submitted to Barnet, but updated to reflect their very poor response to those reps, incl a complete failure to consider the two main points of your representations.

Good luck with London Tribunals !!

Thank you so much. I'll start to draft my appeal and post for review here, amend if necessary and submit before the 28 days.

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: February 20, 2026, 07:51:00 pm »
Dear @H C Andersen, @stamfordman, and anyone can help

After exactly 56 days (10/2/26) from my formal representations (17/12/25), I received what seems a very rushed notice of rejection from Barnet Council.

Page 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/16T_83uZn4NpClZwYP51WLtjrYtFWM6Fn/view?usp=sharing
Page 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/11oCfK9ZZ-5ngnP5zCZGSylKp-SoeousL/view?usp=sharing
Page 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zK9ho5GjpQ2NT_VmTlUCfQvpz2cWmeFX/view?usp=sharing
Page 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1luPPBa7O0_c61owNjrHBN9xt3Y0Nwy80/view?usp=sharing
Page 5 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sWQ5NZUWwAydl_B7J50HOjNNIBnfCPFp/view?usp=sharing
Page 6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/143K0PLjj-MCasOT1MFU6n392rLYRX424/view?usp=sharing
Page 7 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lzo5nwNbOw2N8yD-6bw4ejvbpvdHKsMZ/view?usp=sharing
Page 8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18H4ZCIhQ4OxDsJ_j2mZz-lqsKVLYBojT/view?usp=sharing

They ignored the only 2 points raised, completely. Not even a word about it.

Instead they went back again to an old point that I didn't even mention this time, telling one more time that the CEO's photographic evidence clearly confirms the upright lampost signage was just ahead of the parked vehicle. False information; their own photo evidence attached proves it. The Mercedes car under the signage is not my car (a Nissan). My car has been photographed in a different place with no adequate signage at all in sight.

They offered the payment at a reduced rate (£80) for 14 days.

I'm prepared to test the case with the Adjudicator, well knowing that this, in the worst case, can cost me £160 and more time to spend on this. Working already on the Appeal.

Any help would be highly appreciated at this stage, as this would be my very first time.

Thank you very much in advance!
AmikoFrizz

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet, Regents Park Road(N3), junction tillingbourne, yellow box
« on: December 29, 2025, 06:02:22 pm »
That is an oversized yellow box junction, much bigger than needed. Definitely is not due to older rules pre-2016 (requiring touching kerbs) as up to 2017 there was just a keep clear white marking. On GSV I can see a YBJ appeared later in April 2018.

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: December 16, 2025, 11:50:45 pm »
Thank you, hope for good at appeal stage, that would save a lot of time for all. I'll surely update the post with the outcome of this step, either positive or negative.

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: December 16, 2025, 11:12:29 pm »
Thank you stamfordman

She was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time, she parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight (timeplate missing at pole no. 43).

Revised draft

---
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.

The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'. The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27. This confirms that no observation period whatsoever was carried out.

A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) is required to form a reasoned belief that a contravention has occurred and obliged to consider whether any statutory exemptions might apply. The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading (including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding (including being assisted). At least 2 reasonable minutes of observation are required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued.

I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27, because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location.

While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with Council policies.

In short, the CEO, instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30, at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.

As this took place just before the 2 minute window recommended by London Councils it falls well within triviality and reasonable time to consult a timeplate as this is not a controlled parking zone with entry signs.

It is necessary to emphasise that the driver was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time and parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight, as the timeplate is missing on pole no. 43. Therefore, the driver needed to walk down the road to look for a sign (approximately 50 mt / 55 steps), found it on pole no. 42, examined it, checked the actual time and went back up (50 mt / 55 steps) with the intention to move the car. In the same time, the CEO quickly completed the PCN with no observation time, and went up the road (50 mt / 55 steps in the opposite direction) photographing as evidence a totally different car (Mercedes) under a different timeplate (on pole 44).

The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
---

What do you think?

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: December 16, 2025, 08:57:34 am »
Hi Mr Andersen (or anyone can help),

I need to send the formal appeal today or tomorrow at least (from Thursday I'll offline for a business trip).

A final advice on the above would be highly beneficial, thank you so much in advance.

Look forward to hearing from you.

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: December 14, 2025, 04:58:58 pm »
Quote from: H C Andersen on November 30, 2025, 11:48:14 am

My fear is that you'll want to go into minutiae which in return would allow the authority to do likewise and ignore/overlook the procedural issues.

IMO, stay detached. Act ONLY upon what you as the RK can see in the photos and PCN and, sorry to say, ignore your wife's recollections which IMO carry limited evidential weight.

Thank you very much H C Andersen, spot on, I normally tend to go into minutiae, so here I will have to do my best to be direct and concise. Please review this draft and let me know what you think. I'll amend it if necessary and submit it.

I assume nothing from my informal challenge (Link --> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hh7QINy2PDErJR-HwoD9aYPE21eMhEvFbqDzj2770Qw/edit?usp=sharing) is worth being saved and reused (please advise if otherwise), and I will stick to your points only.

I'm quite new to this game, so I appreciate your patience in correcting; wording and general tone might not be the right one.

---
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.

The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'. The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27. This confirms that no observation period whatsoever was carried out.

A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) is required to form a reasoned belief that a contravention has occurred and obliged to consider whether any statutory exemptions might apply. The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading (including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding (including being assisted). At least 2 reasonable minutes of observation are required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued.

I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27, because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location.

While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with Council policies.

In short, the CEO, instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30, at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.

The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
---

What do you think?

10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: November 30, 2025, 11:21:32 am »
Quote from: H C Andersen on November 28, 2025, 05:05:11 pm

If all the uncorroborated elements are stripped out then all that remains is the CEO's photos and the PCN.

[...]

Personally, I'd approach this without reference to uncorroborated references.

Authority confirmed that contravention is instantaneous. B******s. The CEO is obliged to consider whether any exemptions might apply, namely 'loading' and 'boarding'. If you ask for the council's policy, I'm certain you'll find that at least 2 minutes' obs is required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued. Put this to the council in formal reps and see what response you get.

The time you have available is more than enough IMO to draft reps for review here, amend if necessary and submit.


Thank you so much. I'll start to draft reps and post for review here, amend if necessary and submit before the 28 days (19 Dec).

Is it worth mentioning again as a point in the appeal the set of photo evidence by the CEO? Photos of: 1) my car not at all next to any timeplate visible in the surroundings, 2) a zoomed photo of a timeplate without my car in the vicinity, 3) enlarged photo of the timeplate and surroundings, with a totally different car (Mercedes) underneath the timeplate and again no presence at all of my car (Nissan) in the whole background.

More in general, there's anything I can save from my informal challenges (rejected twice) and maybe reuse for the formal representations? This is the 2nd letter I sent to the Council to informally challenge the PCN. Posting it for review and feedback.
Link --> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hh7QINy2PDErJR-HwoD9aYPE21eMhEvFbqDzj2770Qw/edit?usp=sharing



11
The Flame Pit / Re: Advice on collision with Virgin Media/O2 van in private car park
« on: November 30, 2025, 10:54:09 am »
Thank you for all your comments, it's good to test an opinion with other points of view and reflect on it, that's why I posted on this forum.

Quote from: DWMB2 on November 29, 2025, 05:33:10 pm
I think you have perfectly highlighted Andy's point. Despite the length of the opening post, we don't even know whether the OP's car was parked at the time.

My car was moving slightly and carefully, reversing from the car park, and there was a collision with the van that was reversing from the 1st car park to the 2nd, and then quickly forward to the 3rd. Minor damage to our car and minor/no damage to the van. I have the impression that the van was moving erratically and unpredictably and created the conditions for the collision, but this opinion doesn't count anymore as is now an insurance matter, and, of course, the van driver disagreed and had a different view. We have full and clear CCTV coverage.

Quote from: roythebus on November 27, 2025, 09:09:57 pm
Was it substantial damage to your car or just a few little scratches? As others have said, the bulk of you post is sadly irrelevant. Send a complaint to Virgin/02, get their drivers details and let your insurers deal with the rest. Bear in mind you may well have to pay the excess if you claim and your insurers can't get it back from the van's insurance.

A few little scratches, but I had to report the fact to the Police as the driver refused to exchange details, and this led to opening an insurance claim. I understand that this might cost me money, but I think this is the right thing for protection and to be on the safe side, considering the whole behaviour and attitude of the counterpart. On a separate track, I'm definitely sending a complaint to Virgin/O2 about their driver.

Quote from: The Slithy Tove on November 28, 2025, 05:56:54 pm
Why submit (and pay for) a V888 form where you could simply contact the company whose name is plastered all over the van? I'm sure they will be interested if one of their vehicles was in a collision, especially if the driver never reported it. Don't go in all confrontational and hurling accusations about the driver. Just start by reporting that one of their vans has collided with your car, and the driver would not provide details, hence you contacting them. Only once that channel is established should you start any complaint about behaviour.

Thanks, I'm reporting to Virgin Media/O2 the facts and then going into the details, with a complaint about the whole behaviour of their employee.

Quote from: andy_foster on November 28, 2025, 07:59:54 pm
[...] why give so much detail [...]

Quote from: DWMB2 on November 27, 2025, 06:17:00 pm
Concerning the collision, what exactly are you hoping for advice on, and what is your intended outcome?

All the stuff about visitor permits, reporting to management, etc, etc was preceding a question that I actually forgot to ask to the forum in the initial post. Considering that this is now in the hands of the insurers and I can have some other costs, to recover these, do I have grounds to involve, in some ways, Virgin Media and/or the driver itself, Flat 17 landlord, or the block management Company?

Thank you all.

12
The Flame Pit / Advice on collision with Virgin Media/O2 van in private car park
« on: November 27, 2025, 06:04:03 pm »
Hi, we request your advice on a collision that happened with a Virgin Media/O2 van in the private car park of our block of apartments. Your point of view would be highly appreciated, as me and my wife are shaken after all what happened. This is the story.

1) This Virgin Media/O2 van driver entered the private car park at a speed, without the necessary green visitor badge. Signage is on site and at the entrance of the block. Not sure if he checked what the rules are with the flat owner/tenant he was visiting.

2) He parked initially in the private car park of flat no. 18 and then quickly reversed, still at speed, moving into no. 10 private car park, but all of a sudden he moved up again for the 3rd time to go into no. 4 private car park. None of these car parks had anything to do with him, as he went instead to work in flat no. 17 (we have evidence of this and spoke with the no. 17 tenant). In first instance, he shouldn't have been at all in that area, as he didn't have a green visitor badge and indeed nothing to do with flats 18, 10 and 4.

3) He caused a collision with our car, while carelessly reversing and moving the van from one space to the other for 3 times, without any apparent logic. We have video of the collision, taken from the CCTV system of the apartments block.

4) He argued a lot with my wife, was not cooperative, and at the end of the conversation, he refused exchanging insurance details, including driver's name, the registered keeper's name and their address. We managed to see and therefore obtain only the vehicle registration number. This individual was driving a Virgin Media/O2 Van and wearing the full Company uniform. We asked for these details several times, including his badge number, but he refused. The tenant of flat 17 is a witness of this.

5) He also started recording and even threatened to call the Police on us (not sure for which reason).

6) After over an hour of this incident, the van was still wrongly parked in flat no. 4 private car park (while he was working in flat 17, which doesn't have a private car park) and still without any green visitor badge displayed.

- After all this, I had to report it to our block management company, which should issue the charge of £100 for misuse of the car park, as per signage and block regulations.
- I also had to report the incident to the Police, as this individual refused to exchange insurance details. Police gave me a case number.
- I'm sending a V888 form to DVLA to get the vehicle details of registered keeper, address, etc. For this, I need to obtain first a repair quote from a car body repairer.
- Obviously, I'm preparing the insurance claim, even if the damage is nothing to the van (photos were taken) and just cosmetic damages such as paint transference, scuffs, minor scratches on the rear left corner of our car.
- I'm going to open a very strong case/complaint with Virgin Media/O2. What is concerning is that this unstable individual while I write is still allowed to drive this way and even worse, enter people's homes.

Thanks for your opinions and advice on what to do. We are not "litigators", but this wobbling guy pulled us into all this.

Look forward to hearing from you.

13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: November 27, 2025, 05:43:32 pm »
Hi, today, 27/11, I received the NTO by post. On the NTO, there's 21/11 as "Date of this notice". The letter mentions a period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the NTO was served. With this, have I already lost 6 of my 28 available days?
In the next 3 weeks, I have 2 business trips abroad already booked, which will take away more crucial days. Is there something I can do to have more time, my whole 28 days, to prepare the formal representations?

This is the NTO:
Page 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vEdCaLCokqrJqS09D-tEMt65ffA_mD_0/view?usp=sharing
Page 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MA9wZMxZs2OGc17usebzfmbaVQoooS14/view?usp=sharing
Page 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PolG9JmYiiJrH2js9udVf2rfYW_zQ6a8/view?usp=sharing
Page 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/19pwtSFHr5rj00fnU-pNGg0-ZxS_olzHu/view?usp=sharing

Previous timeline: 31/08 ticket issued on windscreen, 12/09 date of rejection of my informal representations, 22/10 2nd letter of rejection to my further correspondence.

All the other details are in the earlier posts.

I'm preparing the formal representations. Normally, I pay tickets when I get it and I have to, but here I still have many doubts.

The CEO took many photos of my car with no signs at all in sight. Then he went up to the road to look for a sign to photograph and, as obviously my car was not there, he took a photo of a totally different car near the signage and added it as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.

The driver is my wife. In the same time, she went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination of the sign, checking the actual time etc etc), found it, checked the road markings, and yes, indeed when she was back she found the ticket slammed on the windscreen.

Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign where the car was parked. In first instance, in the presence of a time plate, my wife would have never parked there. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!

I never paid a ticket where another car was posted as evidence. Your support in reviewing the NTO and the whole situation would be highly appreciated.

Thank you!

14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: October 27, 2025, 11:52:29 am »
Quote from: stamfordman on October 27, 2025, 11:44:21 am
Who is the driver?

So they went to the other sign rather than the one the CEO went to?

That's fine but you need to be clear about the event.

It's no good worrying about the CEO - in large areas they often use motorbikes and cars to patrol and here this is presumably just a commuter restriction at start of morning.

The driver is my wife. She went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), and yes, the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.

Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!

15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet Council - Winnington Rd - Code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: October 27, 2025, 11:13:17 am »
Quote from: stamfordman on October 27, 2025, 11:00:19 am
There isn't a missing sign, which would have been a good point.

Which way did the driver walk to check the sign.

The obvious hole in the argument is there were two people there - driver and CEO yet driver didn't see them?

One possibility is that the CEO was driving that Mercedes...

The driver went down the road to look for the sign (55+55 steps, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), while the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence".

It's possible they didn't meet, or if they did she easily could be distracted from her phone or have not recognised the person as the CEO, plus that person probably well knew what he was doing and made sure to slap the ticket on the windscreen just when she was not looking.

I'm seriously thinking too that the CEO was sitting in the Mercedes... I thought that since the beginning. If is true, to take the liberty to act like that they must be on a high bonus scheme and know to be well covered from any possible trouble...

Pages: [1] 2