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 - tincombe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
1
Who's the registered keeper and are their DVLA details current?

I ask because you're beyond the 28-day period for making informal reps and it's possible that a NTO has been sent to them.

Silver Fiats in Stroud car parks must be like buses, they never come singly!

2
The payment was successful, and I have attached a photo of the Visa payment receipt for the transaction that was issued by the machine at the time

Where is this pl?


The Council submits that upon purchasing parking time motorists are required to accurately enter the full vehicle registration by using the correct letters/numbers on the keypad (Evidence 17).

17. Photographs of keyboard at paystation

??

The requirement to enter the VRM must be in the Order. If it isn't and all it requires is payment, then this isn't at issue and your appeal must be allowed.

Where are items 19 and 20 pl?



3
Surely the PCN acts as the NTO, hence one bite at the cherry before adjudication.


If these facts fit...I would suggest..


The council alleges that my car was in contravention at 13.10 and served a PCN by post because it claims that:

A contravention had occurred, and

The CEO......a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or ..


In support, the council has posted photos taken by the CEO, one of which shows my car and me (together with the CEO) in situ at 13.15 therefore fundamentally undermining the second limb of its assertion that the 'vehicle was driven away [at or immediately after 13.10] or that the CEO was 'unable to serve [the PCN]'.

It therefore follows that based upon the council's evidence alone there was no legal power to serve the PCN which must therefore be cancelled.

4
I fear we're at cross purposes.

OP, there are 2 signs in this saga i.e. the one within the parking bay and the CPZ sign at the entrance to the zone.

You posted: The sign is the only thing I checked as well as seeing if there was a match on at the stadium via the website.

Whereas 'I find that the signs appear to be in disrepair and the panels zig zag, which make it more difficult to read.' I think applies to the CPZ sign which you didn't read.

Be careful when you draft your appeal and don't mix the two.

6
Pl post the full NOR.

With this person's lack of knowledge we could well find a procedural impropriety or two waiting to be discovered!

7
My take for formal reps:

I was parked as can be seen in the council's photos. I arrived at the location by passing a very clear Controlled Parking Zone sign which stated Pay and Display zone and proceeded to park immediately beyond this sign in a marked parking bay. I then looked beyond my car, saw a pay and display traffic sign and immediately paid for my stay. On my return I found a PCN which alleged that I was parked in a 'permit holders' only bay.

As I now know, this bay in fact commences prior to the Pay and Display(P&D) zone entry sign and is marked by its own traffic sign which is dwarfed by the adjacent P&D entry sign. The bay then extends into the P&D zone, but the council expects drivers to disregard these indicators and instead notice that the bay terminates prior to the pay and display traffic sign which I saw ahead and which lies clearly within a driver's vision.  The junction between my bay and the pay and display bay is not signed as recommended in the Traffic Signs Manual i.e. with a traffic sign at the junction of the bays carrying two traffic signs indicating clearly the change of restrictions whose presence would remove ambiguity and ensure that drivers would then be alerted to the change in restrictions. Instead, the council relies upon road markings which are invisible from the footway when, as in this case, a car is parked so as to overshadow their presence.

Drivers know to look for traffic signs and do not carry a Sherlock Holmes-like magnifying glass to enable them to examine every inch of carriageway.

In my opinion the contravention did not occur because, having regard to all the on-site indicators, the council has failed to convey the restriction clearly.

8
It's an attempt to pre-empt them taking the simple and lazy way out.

9
+1.



But I would suggest amending 1 to read:

Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does not state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is a mandatory item under the legislation. If the authority's position is that the time of contravention could be inferred from the photo in the PCN, then this would clearly be untenable because the photo reads 18.26 whereas your website(see snapshot enclosed) states '..time of contravention 18.27'.

The PCN does not comply with the regulations and must be cancelled.

10
The NOR pl, all sides and only obscure your personal details.

11
Agreed. Now you can spread the message about this site and, by dint of your experience here and your first-hand knowledge, of the problems that can follow in the wake of not keeping DVLA info current! 

13
I spoke to the garage owner and he tells, he did advise the recovery van driver to park with no wheels on the footway.

Really! So out of the frying pan into the fire because the car would still be on DYL which is also a contravention!

Make reps and do it now.

Forget about the towing company etc. until you get a response to your reps.

14
Where's the provision which creates and defines the prohibition of 'obstruction'.

The Case Summary is insulting: the photos are not self-explanatory (as regards showing obstruction'), they simply show a car parked. ONLY by reference to a provision in an order which is then conveyed by clear signage on site could they begin to prove a contravention of 'causing obstruction'.

15
GSV and photos pl.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30