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 - flash2005

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Failure to put the correct Reg Number on the PCN is, (or should be), fatal to the validity of the PCN. Does this reg. number actually exist ?

What you can do now is just wait for the Notice to Owner. This is sent to the registered keeper using information supplied by the DVLA.
No this REG number doesn't exist (the one on the PCN).  However if they have the photos of the car then they can pickup the correct number from there.  They won't be able to get NTO on the incorrect number from DVLA though.

2
Screenshot when the correct registration is entered.  I can only find the details with the incorrect registration number


3
There is no grace period for parking on yellow lines, only in designated parking locations.
I wasn't able to file the informal challenge, because when I input the correct registration the PCN doesn't show. So I just realised that the CEO has made a typo in registration number of the car and one of the numbers is actually incorrect !!  Does this mean I don't need to file the challenge as the PCN is invalid ?

4
OK, so you should now submit an informal challenge to the PCN. I would suggest on the following lines: -

Dear Sirs

Re PCN <PCN Number> dated <dd/mm/yyyy served at <hr.mn> at Lambourne Road

I deny responsibility for payment of the about PCN penalty on the grounds that the contravention did not occur as I was engaged in loading.

On the day concerned I arranged to pick up a 5kg package of food from <address of church>, but found all nearby parking full, so was forced to park on the double-yellow lines nearby. I then walked to the church, collected the food package and returned to the car when the served PCN was seen. AS loading is an exemption to yellow lines restrictions, I request that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.

Yours faithfully
Many thanks.  What about the other points (e.g. grace period), also any evidence needs to be uploaded to support this ?

5
The driver made a mistake and didn't notice the double yellow lines in a hurry, so a bit stupid to stop here for loading purposes. 

What were you loading and from where?
I was picking up a food packet from the church opposite.
Loading is an exemption to yellow lines, but you have to justify the loading on the lines. So tell us more about the goods, like weight and bulk.
It was a personal pickup. Picking up a food box from the church opposite the road - 5 KGs approx. 20cm x 15cmx 30cm size.  The whole side street and the car park was fully blocked up with cars so there was no other space to stop

6
The driver made a mistake and didn't notice the double yellow lines in a hurry, so a bit stupid to stop here for loading purposes. 

What were you loading and from where?
I was picking up a food packet from the church opposite.

7
The driver made a mistake and didn't notice the double yellow lines in a hurry, so a bit stupid to stop here for loading purposes.  However in their defence - the driver goes to this location few times every month, and there is a single white line on this road, however the council recently put double yellow lines (against the wishes of the residents), and since the driver was in a hurry and very familiar with the road, didn't notice the sudden change.  Also upon noticing the officer issuing the ticket, the driver immediately moved the car within the first 10 minutes, however the CEO gave the ticket within 9 minutes. Car was parked at 11:51, and moved at 12:01.  CEO issued the ticket at 12:00.  Evidence from the car logs with GPS location below. Also there doesn't seem to be any way to view the PCN evidence as the online portal is asking a web-code which is not on the ticket. Are there any grounds to contest this ? - not allowing grace period or any mistakes in the PCN ?

PCN Front


PCN Back


Evidence of moving the car at 12:01 from the internal car logs


Car Front


Car Back


Road


Google Street View
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oDNNJshs9xsMaEMa8

8
Well the obvious next step is to appeal, you have to decide whether you want to do this yourself or whether you would prefer to have a representative.

There is also a served v delivered flaw in the notice of rejection, which is an argument some adjudicators accept.

As the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, there's no point in paying now.
Yes I am happy to appeal.  Any good examples of appeal I can leverage ?

9
The council has rejected the formal representation.  No links have been clicked either from the first appeal or the second representation. Please see below
Can I get advice on the next steps please ?  @Hippocrates, @cp8759, @mrmustard








10
I've added one final comment, also please note this is a formal representation, not an appeal.
Many thanks, I have changed the word appeal to formal representation in the document and also submitted it to the council now. 
I have removed sharing on the draft document so that there is no risk of anybody clicking the short.io links by mistake.

11
@cp8759 - There is still time available for the appeal, but I wanted to check if there is any further feedback ?

12
Should I submit the appeal now ?

13
I would not deploy the link tactic at this stage: it's warning them that they have a problem and they can fix it by opening the link. A failure to consider at the informal stage has very little weight, you really need them to fail to open the link now when they consider your challenge to the notice to owner. You would then deploy the click statistics at the tribunal stage, when it's too late for the council to go back and remedy their error.

On the second ground (date of service vs date of contravention), there are these three cases you can cite:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RJouvEIzKoxr0VLtZ6EnMSiquc3Y9QMT/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjkKYJxAHhFvrWhpwTqGwhrUfa-pD5Sv/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HLgXkoFeKSPDT1k09A_jPyaybFvP98ac/view

I would quote them by only giving the names of the parties, to Richard Weisz v London Borough of Barnet, Malcolm Newman v London Borough of Hounslow and Branislav Baca v Portsmouth City Council, that way they're far less likely to claim they looked them up in the register (and the last one can't be looked up anyway).

You then have multiple links and to prove they've considered the representations as required by law they would have to open all four, which they're unlikely to do.

I've also added a few comments to the google doc.

I have made the suggested changes in the document.  Please let me know if there is any further feedback.  I haven't added the final links yet to reduce the risk of accidental clicks.

14
Please see the draft appeal here (link below) which combines the strategy from both @cp8759 and @mrmustard.  Kindly let me know any feedback.  Commenting privileges are enabled in the document.

Appeal Draft

Needs to be tidied up. But the basic points are there.
Many thanks.
Can you suggest what tidying up is required, as I have tried to do the best possible draft.  If you need edit access please click on the button in google docs.

15
Please see the draft appeal here (link below) which combines the strategy from both @cp8759 and @mrmustard.  Kindly let me know any feedback.  Commenting privileges are enabled in the document.

Appeal Draft

Pages: [1] 2 3