2. Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
« Last post by hectic_Lift on Today at 11:47:30 am »
Today I received this rejection, Please can you share your wisdom for next steps.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EdAoXjnTLP9e7HFeInMh1Hz1V2Y7XDd8/view?usp=drive_link

To follow through to London Tribunal, kindly suggest draft for appeal. Appreciate your time.
42
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN Eternity Fire and Security LTD Parking without clearly displaying a valid ticket. Mumbles Pier
« Last post by VicMbe on Today at 11:34:14 am »
Would this work as a Popla Appeal?

I am appealing this parking charge notice as the hirer and long-term lessee of the vehicle. The operator has failed to satisfy the strict statutory conditions required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the registered keeper to the hirer.Failure to Provide Mandatory Hirer Documentation:Under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2), a Notice to Hirer is only valid if it is accompanied by specific mandatory documents. Specifically, Paragraph 14(2)(a) and (b) require the operator to provide the hirer with a copy of the hire/lease agreement and a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer.The operator's Notice to Hirer consisted of a single piece of paper. None of these statutory documents were supplied. Because the operator has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 14, they have no lawful right to transfer liability to me as the hirer.No Driver Identified:The operator has only established that the vehicle was present, but has not identified the driver. PoFA Schedule 4 does not place any legal obligation on a keeper or hirer to identify who was driving, and I am choosing not to confirm who was driving at the material time.Because the operator cannot establish hirer liability due to their non-compliance with Schedule 4, and the driver has not been identified, there is no legal basis upon which to hold me liable for this charge.As the operator has failed to meet the strict legal criteria to enforce this charge against a hirer, I respectfully request that POPLA directs the operator to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
43
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / PCN Danesmoor Road Manchester | Parked in a residents or shared use parking space without permit
« Last post by Mizchiefman95 on Today at 11:23:40 am »
Hi all,

I recently received 2 Penalty Charge Notices (https://imgpile.com/m/5SokKKw) from Manchester council after parking on a suburban residential street for a number of days while I stayed in the city centre. The PCN was issued after I parked on Danesmoor Road, M20 3JS (https://maps.app.goo.gl/P4wSxuqY9mxDk4Vw5), which I have since found out is a residential permit holders area, but I believe that this is insufficiently signposted due to the direction of the sign. Would anyone have any advice on if this is worth appealing further after my first informal appeal was rejected, or should I just take the hit and pay at the reduced rate? My full explanation and grounds are below:

When I arrived I drove down Lyndhurst Road and turned right onto Danesmoor Road (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Em3NcXafKc4DRYPh9). After I parked I observed no yellow lines, and looked up and down Danesmoor Road after the junction with Lyndhurst Road for any indication that there were parking restrictions . On the junction of Lyndhurst Road and Danesmoor Road there is a sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZbwxddtCrdWMZXSA6) facing Lyndhurst Road stating there are parking restrictions to the left of that sign (i.e. on Danesmoor Road going towards St Aldwyn's Road). As this sign had an arrow pointing to the left with no indication of restrictions to the right (i.e. towards Mayville Drive) I assumed there were no restrictions in place. The sign is admittedly slightly visible if you are completely on the left hand side of the road while turning right onto Danesmoor Road, however there are parking spaces on both sides of Lyndhurst Road meaning that you're forced to drive in the middle of the road until you turn.

However, the pole with the sign on has another sign 90 degrees clockwise around the pole showing that there are indeed restrictions on Danesmoor Road in the area marked with the black arrows. My grounds of appeal would be that this sign is not visible when turning right from Lyndhurst Road and there is no further signing along the area marked with a black arrow. My initial informal appeal rejection (https://imgpile.com/m/66U1vxZ) has stated that there is another sign on the junction of Lyndhurst Road and Holmwood Road stating that Holmwood Road is similarly residents permit holders, and therefore I should have known that Danesmoor Road has the same restrictions, but I fail to see how that can be a valid grounds for rejecting the appeal, as they're 2 different roads?

If anyone has any advice on next steps it'd be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards
44
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Kingston Council – N244 + EX160 not showing at TEC – PCNs on hold – Equita bailiff
« Last post by min502 on Today at 11:18:26 am »
Quote from: tincombe on Today at 08:01:26 am
As I said, getting the PCNs reduced to the full amount is the objective.

As it stands, you are exposed. We haven't seen any correspondence, particularly regarding your contact with TEC, but you say you have it. I'm certain that it's possible to tease out the essentials from your account and that if you have a copy of your original OOT submission and TEC's rejection then a simple comparison of addresses would show that TEC used the wrong address for service, they used the one on the Order for Recovery as opposed to your submission.

You seem to have met a brick wall regarding feedback, I therefore suggest you contact external advice: bailiffadviceonline has a good reputation.

If you have a car which could be seized you might consider making it invisible. If you leave it on the highway or at your property, it's exposed.
Thank you for your advice.

I do have copies of my original PE2 and PE3 submissions. On both forms, my full and correct name and address were entered in section 1.

However, I have never received a copy of the Court Officer’s refusal decision/order.

When I later spoke to TEC by telephone, I explained that I had not received the refusal decision. The person I spoke to checked the records and told me that the decision had been sent to the incorrect address. They then sent me the N244 and EX160 forms and advised me to submit an N244 application for a review.

If the actual refusal decision/order is important for establishing exactly what happened, would TEC provide me with a copy if I telephone them and explain that I never received it and ask for it to be sent to me?

There is also one other issue I am struggling to understand.

I submitted both N244 applications on 17 June 2026 and received automated acknowledgements, but when I contacted TEC on 26 August I was told that neither N244 was showing on their system. I was advised to resend the original applications and acknowledgement evidence, which I did that same day.

What I still cannot establish is what actually happened to the original N244 applications — whether there was a problem with the applications, the EX160 Help with Fees forms, or something else that prevented them from being registered.

TEC have only been able to tell me that the N244 applications are not showing on their system.

Do you know who I should contact, or what I should ask for, to find out exactly why the N244 applications were not registered despite the acknowledgement emails?

I will also contact Bailiff Advice Online as you suggested.

Thank you again for taking the time to help me.
45
Private parking tickets / Moorside Legal - texting wrong person about debt
« Last post by Bluefin on Today at 11:12:35 am »
I apologise that all the information I have here is second-hand, but I'm hoping someone can advise on how to proceed.


We have a relative in her late 80s who has received a number of aggressive 'pay now' type text messages from Moorside Legal (on behalf of Trace Debt Recovery, we think). She has rung Moorside, ascertained that it concerns a debt of £170, and that the name of the person owing the debt is not her. The Moorside representative apparently said that they would update the phone number in the records, but our relative has since had a 'Final Warning' text message and on trying to talk to Moorside again this morning they apparently put the phone down on her.


We have no *actual* information about this debt. We have a reference number, but there has been no communication that we're aware of that wasn't a phone call or a text (so nothing in writing). We don't know what the debt is for (although I assume it's a parking charge based on googling Moorside), if there's a car registration involved, who they're actually trying to contact (she said she was told a name, but it didn't mean anything to her and she can't remember what it was), etc. etc.


My assumption is that Moorside have identified an individual for the debt, but have somehow found the wrong phone number (or mistyped it). Our relative is extremely concerned and upset about it all, worrying that bailiffs are going to turn up at the door any second. [Personally I'm in two minds about that - I *assume* that Moorside have a name and address and as there has been no written correspondence then it's not our relative's and any proceedings will go to the whatever name/address Moorside have. But maybe Moorside only have a phone number and as they've had contact they'll track down a name and address from that?] Or I could be completely wrong!


It occurs to me that there might be some GDPR accuracy issue with Moorside contacting an incorrect number now they've been notified that it's wrong? Is that a possible approach?


It's unfortunate that we live a long way from this relative so we can't easily visit to have a 'joint' call with Moorside. And I assume they'd hang up on me (with some justification) if I tried to call them about it directly. So what do we do? All advice gratefully received!
46
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: DOUBLE PCN - Havering, code 52 Failing to comply with prohibition, South St RM1/Eastern Rd RM1 (PCN 1) AND South St/
« Last post by shucks on Today at 11:11:07 am »
Thank you for your reply - and do you have any advice on what are my strongest arguments are likely to be when I appeal, please?

for example... regarding PCN 1:-

- I had a right to use that road since I was accessing the station
- there is no evidence of prohibiting signage in the photos or videos the council has provided
- this PCN is within twenty one seconds of another PCN along the same road so they should be counted as a singular infraction deserving only one fine

regarding PCN 2:-

- the signage is insufficient and confusing
- this PCN is within twenty one seconds of another PCN along the same road so they should be counted as a singular infraction deserving only one fine
47
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: DOUBLE PCN - Havering, code 52 Failing to comply with prohibition, South St RM1/Eastern Rd RM1 (PCN 1) AND South St/
« Last post by Incandescent on Today at 10:47:00 am »
We've seen this location a few times now, and appeals at London Tribunals have been won. As there is no discount you should now register appeal at London Tribunals
48
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: DOUBLE PCN - Havering, code 52 Failing to comply with prohibition, South St RM1/Eastern Rd RM1 (PCN 1) AND South St/
« Last post by shucks on Today at 10:37:49 am »
*New information*

I emailed my councillor and he responded with the following.  "I have looked at this one before and what the council informed me was that the first PCN was issued for driving along South street past the station. What they say is the driver then has an option to turn left into Havana Way, but continue along into South street which why a second PCN was issued, If you had turned left into Havana Way the second PCN would not of been issued." (Presumably he means Havana Close rather than Havana Way.)

I have two issues with this regarding the first PCN:-

1) I was accessing the station. All the signs I can see around the station which prohibit cars say 'except for access' - since I was accessing the station then surely travel along that stretch of road was permitted.

2) The location of the first PCN, according to the PCN letter, is not near any prohibition signs.  The PCN location is north of the station while the aforementioned signs are south of the station.  (Here is a map to illustrate: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qptdPvaadpa7XAGX9)

Regarding the second PCN, I maintain that the signage could be clearer. It could also be reinforced rather than just a single sign.
49
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Glasgow City Council PCN - Parking adjacent to a dropped Kerb at a know crossing point - Whitehill St, Glassow
« Last post by falsestart on Today at 10:30:53 am »
This is the rejection notice:

https://ibb.co/DP04mD0P

The vehicle is owned by my limited company Audioelements (Scotland) Limited and I was the one who parked.
50
The Flame Pit / Re: Complaints v adjudicators
« Last post by roythebus on Today at 10:29:21 am »
Yes you're probably right there, but then someone has to do the job. It's a bit like employment tribunal judges, I felt sorry for the judge dealing with a claim I'm involved in, a lengthy case still not finished but legally quite complex. But a very understanding and fair judge.

And top marks to the judge who heard one of my PCNs at Station road Barking a few years back. He went out of his way to find in my favour by noticing the council didn't show the no stopping except buses sign. It may be a bit of a dead-end job in some people's eyes but someone has to do it. and of course these days they can work from home.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10