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 - H C Andersen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74
IMO, you are boxing us into a corner by deciding what's relevant and what is not and yet apparently seeking help to get a penalty charge which has advanced to a NOR cancelled. 

' the circumstances of the case' was IMO written with such procedural matters in mind.

So, rather than limit what we can see in order to help you, which must necessarily limit your chances of success, pl may we see the PCN, the video, your reps, their NOR and (because you'll redact your name and address) confirm that you are the registered keeper. 

There's a lot of info in the link, seemingly obtained with respect to a 2023 request.

Having trawled through the papers, I cannot find anything which provides for part-time footway parking.

OP, I would put forward the argument along the following lines.

The signs at the location comprise a compliant 'No Waiting' black on yellow traffic sign conveying a waiting restriction for other than for exempted purposes Mon-Sat 8.30-6.30pm and a non-compliant sign disapplying the London-wide footway parking prohibition.

The latter states 'At other times and Sunday'. This is not formatted as specified in the Traffic Signs etc. Regs. As the restriction does not involve parking places, the applicable signs are to be found in Schedule 7 of the regs which prescribe the use of 'white' on 'blue' signs i.e. all writing to be in white on a blue background(as per all parking place signage, Schedule 4 of the regs refers). Instead the council have used a 'shared use' format applicable to parking places - see Section 13 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3.

However, the use of the words 'At other times' is permitted although the addition of 'and Sundays' is tautological and therefore questionable(a Sunday being self-evidently a time other than Mon-Sat 8.30-6.30pm).

It is clear that the signs do not in general conform to the prescribed form and therefore it may be argued that they do not adequately convey the restrictions which apply, which is the legal (i.e. Local Authority Traffic Orders etc.) requirement. However, my argument is in respect of the specific conditions which apply in my case.

That I parked on a yellow line displaying a valid disabled person's badge in the prescribed position is not at issue. The CEO issued the PCN because their interpretation of the disapplication of the footway parking prohibition was that this applied only outside of the times given in the no waiting sign i.e. at other times. My interpretation was different.

I believe that in law as I was exempted from the waiting restriction in any event, footway parking was permitted at all times for an exempted motorist or for an exempted purpose e.g. loading. I also looked at the matter intuitively and concluded that it could not have been the council's intention to force exempted motorists to park wholly on the carriageway at a location where the existence of a relaxed footway parking policy showed an overarching traffic management concern as regards the width of the carriageway and available space. If indeed the council's policy is to require disabled motorists to park in the road alongside vehicles of up to 7.5t then this would seem absurd.

I therefore carried out some research on the policy and restrictions and found what appears to be a straightforward policy which is that footway parking has been disapplied 24/7 in this road, and indeed others. The council were well advised and haven't made the mistake of thinking that lifting of the prohibition permits 24/7 parking, it doesn't: it only allows otherwise permitted parking 24/7 e.g. in the case of a part-time waiting restriction waiting on the footway outside of the restricted hours other than for exempted persons and purposes.
It therefore follows that it is not the underlying policy which is at fault, it is officers' subsequent misinterpretation which manifested itself in the design of the 'footway parking' sign.
As regards the legal position (based upon the available evidence of the council's decisions to disapply the prohibition) this is as follows:

Footway parking disapplied 24/7;
Part-time waiting restriction; which means
Motorists displaying a valid BB and other exempted motorists may park with 2 wheels on the footway 24/7.

If the CEO's interpretation is correct then the footway parking sign must be removed and replaced with the standard permissive sign, without timings, and loading restrictions (and sign) put in place which run concurrent with the waiting restriction.

Maybe a bit long, but I thought I'd put down what I consider to be the relevant issues.


Where I specifically parked was at a junction of three roads joining and my specific space even looks like it goes over different roads.

That's because it does, as observed by mickR.

Can't wait to see the traffic order, which of course would be laid out by reference to roads. You are in two roads i.e. the bay markings to the rear of your car and those ahead are in different streets. I've never seen such a ****-eyed layout.

Looks fine, I'd go with it.

Why have you rejected the idea of the discount which expires on 25th?

An adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, so none of your circumstantial reasons would avail you.

As far as I can see the video shows you passing the signs, which are visible, and their rejection details the advance signs - not that of themselves these are a legal requirement.

So other than an unspecified point in a post - which hasn't been put up for peer review - I cannot see on what grounds and with what expectation you would reject the offer bearing in mind that adjudication is for the full penalty.

The orders' references to ECNs are not grounds for appeal IMO because they don't bear upon the issue. PCNs are issued pursuant to primary and secondary legislation, not what an order might or might not state.

OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly applicable.

However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these technicalities, please.

As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to register your appeal.

Contravention did not occur;

You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.

Non-motoring legal advice / Re: Query on returning Online Goods
« on: Yesterday at 09:07:43 am »
OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'
The first place I would look is your contract, not Consumer Rights legislation. And if the answer isn't apparent then simply write to the company and ask the question. When you've exhausted all internal options and if you are dissatisfied with the outcome then would be time to look elsewhere to see whether the result you need may be achieved by other means.

So far you're quids in i.e. a new iron, possibly upgraded, and no request to return the one with the fault which - you never know- might be of a temporary nature. You must be happy with the VFM aspect of their goods otherwise it would be common-sense to take the refund.


Some time after I reached back home in the USA, I got an email from the rental company saying the following ...

The rental car company:
1. "processed" the citation, which means they sent the parking lot operator my information, and the citation to me by email.
2. they did *not* pay the fine. They explicitly told me that I will be paying the fine separately.
3. they went ahead and charged my credit card 35 pounds per ticket for processing - without getting my consent beforehand.

Next, the hotel administrator canceled the two citations - they were issued by mistake ...

.....may I posit that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus(it would broaden my knowledge if the OP could give us a US equivalent!) would simply write to the hire company and ask for their money back?


Private parking tickets / Re: Charge on credit card without consent
« on: July 21, 2024, 08:48:48 pm »
I disagree.

3. As regards the distinction between the terms fines, traffic violations, offences and parking charges, IMO don't nit-pick or, in the paraphrased words of Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, 'on a straightforward down-to-earth reading of [the contract term] without legalism or exegetical sophistication” the context is designed to cater for your event and is an enforceable contract condition.

But there are other views!

What appeal did the keeper submit?

PP's response is clear that they inferred that the keeper was the driver. If this cat is out of the bag then PoFA is redundant. Also, they claim that the driver admitted to entering the 'incorrect vehicle registration'

On this occasion, as you have admitted you paid for the incorrect vehicle registration, we were unable to allocate your payment.


The offer is in their NOR, I suggest you read this.

You can pay the discount of £65. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served to do this.

Date of letter Friday 5 July. Therefore date of service is Tuesday 9 July, 14 days from which is 23 July.

They cannot renege/resile/backtrack on this offer, it's against the law.

The question is how could this be exploited.

Others will comment.

Let's see your reps pl.

You have until the 23rd to decide whether to appeal or accept their offer of the discount sum.

Which might all be grist to the time, but IMO not now.

You do not have hard evidence to support your phone calls. My suggested draft focuses on irrefutable evidence, the vast majority of which has been generated by TfL.

I would not intend to expand on the draft unless something which is essential to the issue has been omitted. Frankly, if they can't see their error - in disregarding your reps, and let's be clear this is the issue - then IMO next step is their complaints procedure. IMO, they may not hide behind them having already followed prescribed procedure- which would otherwise deny you a second bite at the cherry- because the evidence shows they have not.

For the future, I am interested in your recollections regarding receipt of their correspondence, in particular a letter dated 12 July, carried by registered mail and being delivered on 19th. Unless there's something untoward at your end, this challenges any reliance upon the presumption of service at a time based upon the date of enclosed letters. But IMO this can be filed for later if required.

PCN dated 10 April(deemed received 12th April);
Request for DVD sent 12 April;
CC dated 4 June;
Latest date for making reps 'in time' was 9 May;
DVD sent 14 June, 36 days after the last date for submitting reps;
DVD received 21 June;

Should be enough.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter dated ****(OP we can't see it) disregarding my representations. In your response you offer to reconsider your decision and provide a list of possible reasons why you might do so.

Let me add another.

  You issued a PCN on 10 April;
  The latest date for submission of representations was therefore 9 May.
  I contacted you on 12 April requesting a copy of the DVD - which you offered   in the PCN;
  On 4 June you issued a Charge Certificate(a permissive power once the 28-day   period has elapsed);
  On 6 June and in desperation after receiving the CC I submitted   representations without the benefit of seeing your evidence, which is my right   under the legislation;
  You issued the DVD on 14 June(36 days after the latest day of the 28-day   period and 10 days after you had issued the Charge Certificate). In addition,   you provided a covering letter which omitted any reference to the CC;
  On *** you disregarded my representations.

I would suggest you revisit this decision.

Your failure to act fairly is contrary to your public law duty and I would have no hesitation in escalating this matter within Transport for London and, if necessary, to the Ombudsman.

Should you consider and subsequently reject my representations, so be it. But at least proper procedures would have been followed.



Wait for other views and post the date of their letter.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74