Parking Ticket Appeals successes and failures

CardiffAntony

AlexisV wrote: »

I'd start your own thread Antony. What was the first you heard of this fine? What have they sent you - a PCN, a Notice to Owner, a Charge Certificate or a custom letter?

The 'offence' happened on the 10yth of June according to the letter, but the first I heard of it was on the 26th August the date letter was sent., I have the 23rd of September to pay it. I had a notice to owner letter.

casa123

A new success story
I received a PCN from Glasgow City Council after allegedly "parking in a designated taxi rank".

The road involved has restricted parking: parking prohibited Mon-Sat 8am-6pm; Except 9.15am-4.30pm 30 mins No return within 30 mins; No loading Mon-Sat 8.00-9.15am 4.30-6.00pm. My vehicle was parked on a single (75mm) yellow line immediately in front of a sign displaying this information. The ticket was issued at 20:04 for "parking in a designated taxi rank". Subsequently transpired that there are 3 signs in this area: One at either end of the yellow line displaying the information on restricted parking times as above and a third sign in the middle of the other 2 signs stating "Stand for 7 taxis, Hours of operation Mon-Sun 6pm-2am". The road involved is approx 50m long.

First appeal stated that I parked immediately in front of the sign explaining restricted parking times and reasonably did not look further. Appeal rejected.

For the second appeal, the "formal representation", I got researching. Firstly took plenty of photos of the road and the signs. Secondly, got to grips with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002:
1. A taxi "stand" does not exist in these regulations
2. With reference to Schedule 2 Regulatory Signs and Schedule 6 Road Markings: Diagram 1028.2 demonstrates the appropriate markings for a taxi rank at the edge of the carriageway. As set out in the permitted variations, if a taxi rank is in force at restricted times, the road markings should be placed in combination with a sign- either 650.1 or 650.2 (depending on whether stopping or waiting is prohibited)- and a continuous longitudinal yellow line 200 or 300 millimeters wide shall be placed along the edge of the carriageway in the manner shown in diagram 1025.1. Neither of these criteria are met on the road where the PCN was issued and as such, this area is not a designated taxi rank.
3. The original appeal reply referred to the sign displayed approximately 30m from the vehicle advising “stand for 7 taxis, hours of operation Mon-Sun 6pm-2am”. This plate does not comply with (nor is it similar to) any plate demonstrated in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

I should point out that there was some evidence that the road had been painted with a yellow line marking a TAXIS box at some point in the past and also painted with a white box for parking bays but the lines were not maintained in either yellow or white and I did also refer to the poor maintenance of paint markings in the representation.

Got reply stating
"This matter had been carefully considered and, in view of the circumstances, I am prepared to direct cancellation in this instance."

Success. Not worth the effort to save £30 but worth the effort to show they are wrong.

C

fightback123

My wife has just received notification from the Council that a PCN issued to her for having one wheel on a kerb has been cancelled! I thought other users may benefit from using the approach below (subject to their fact pattern, etc).

Basically, as I see it the whole PCN process is set up to make appealing both a hassle and potentially an expensive risk to take as your fine increases with time; the easy way out is to just to pay and make it go away. From the Council's point of view the opposite is true; they want to raise as much revenue as possible and deal with appeals as quickly as possible through the use of standard letters to reject appeals.

Our approach as been to exercise our rights under the Equality Act 2010 and Freedom of Information Act 2000, which has the effect of making rejecting our appeal as costly and as time consuming for them as possible, with the 'easy way out' being to accept the appeal. The hope is that this will make them properly consider the facts, rather than being able to generate a rejection letter with a few clicks of the mouse, and should the PCN not be cancelled to obtain potentially vital information that may aid the later stages of an appeal and shed light on information held by the Council that the public has a right to access.

I have copied the relevant extract from our appeal letter below - Lambeth wrote back to say they were using their discretion to cancel the PCN!

"As my first language is not English, I have had to seek advice to explain the PCN to me and to draft the above PCN challenge, which has caused me considerable difficulty. I would therefore request, that if you do not cancel the PCN, that in order that I can understand your grounds for doing so and to ensure that I am afforded equal access to justice and services, that your response and future correspondence be translated into my first language, which is [enter first language if not English]. In this regard, I would point out that Lambeth Council is obliged to ensure equal provision of services, inter alia, under s149(3)(b) Equality Act 2010. If you are unable to do this, I would be grateful if you would set out, with supporting evidence, why this is not feasible in this case and how the Council proposes to ensure equal access to services for me in this instance. I would add that this Penalty Charge alone equates to almost half my weekly earnings and I cannot afford professional advice and translation costs on top of this.

As a further step, as mentioned above, if the PCN is not cancelled I will wish to consider these matters in the light of any further information available. In this instance, you should therefore take this email as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide the information described below. Under s8(2)(a) Freedom of Information Act 2000 the request can be made to the relevant public authority in writing in electronic form, which is fulfilled by this email. I would be grateful if you would pass this request to the appropriate person at Lambeth Council (or any other public body) if you are unable to deal with it personally (as per the code of practice issued under s45 Freedom of Information Act 2000).


Freedom of Information Request



1. Please provide a List of all documents held by, or on behalf of, Lambeth Council which contain information in relation to the issue of PCNs, including but not limited to policies, procedures and guidance. If it is not feasible to provide a full list of all documents, please explain why and provide a list of the classes of such documents.

2. Please provide copies of policies and internal guidance in relation to the procedures for affixing PCNs to vehicles in Lambeth, along with minutes of any meetings in which such policies or internal guidance were discussed.

3. Please provide copies of any legal analysis or advice (to the extent not covered by legal professional privilege) held by, or behalf of, Lambeth Council which contain information relating to the definition of a footway.

4. Please provide copies of policies and internal guidance in relation to the procedures for deciding on exercising discretion to cancel PCNs issued in Lambeth that are the subject of an informal challenge including what constitutes 'extenuating circumstances' for these purposes, along with minutes of any meeting in which such policies or internal guidance were discussed.

In accordance with published guidance at [apparently as a new user I cannot include a link] to the extent it is feasible I would like the relevant sections of the information above translated into my first language, which is [enter first language if not English]. I would also request that under s11(1)(c) a summary of the information is provided to me - also in the [enter first language if not English] language if feasible."

misstjb

When I got back to my car after parking in a retail car park I had a euro car park parking charge notice for £70, I was eight minutes over my two hour stay. Am I liable to pay them this outrageous fee, what do I do next, as I do not want to pay late penalty fees.

Coupon-mad

You haven't got a fine and I guess you are not used to forums as you have posted on a random thread nothing to do with fake PCNs like yours.

Read the 'sticky' threads at the top of the board, called 'welcome, please read before posting' and 'PPC letters, what to expect'. Make sure you watch the Watchdog clip on one of the stickies:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Bottom line = this is a scam. Ignore the letters, DO NOT APPEAL, but read the forum. Do not reply here as this thread is nothing to do with fake PCNs. If you want to start a new thread then please do so on the forum I have linked. But you shouldn't need to if you read up about this well-known con, read any other private parking co (PPC) thread that catches your eye on the link to the whole forum view.

It's just a game of playing snap with each scary letter that matches our sticky info. Been there, done that with ECP myself.

Oh, and welcome to MSE, you just dodged a SCAM. :T

RENEGADE_2

misstjb wrote: »

When I got back to my car after parking in a retail car park I had a euro car park parking charge notice for £70, I was eight minutes over my two hour stay. Am I liable to pay them this outrageous fee, what do I do next, as I do not want to pay late penalty fees.

What next? Ignore it.

Two reasons not to appeal: the first is that you will cut their work out regarding tracing the driver, they can advance no further than the DVLA who can only provide keeper details; secondly, appeals are virtually never successful, once they slap the notice on, they think they have the money in the bank. They are a business and have no morals and fair play is foreign to their nature.

...but why shouldn't it be? Let's face it. The initial demand is illegal in the first place, they seek an amount that does not constitute losses and this breaches Contract Law. They also run straight to debt collectors, also part of the scam, before going to court. That too is to be expected since they know they cannot win in court. The debt collectors are not bailiffs and without a County Court Judgement, you don't have to pay them anything.

They don't know the driver, they cannot find out this information, keep them in the dark, ignore everything. Come back if you get worried when debt collector letters arrive, my latest came today and went straight in the bin.

maryhillgirl

Like Casa123 above, I too challenged a Glasgow PCN on the grounds of non-compliant signage. They cancelled the ticket before formal appeal, stating "This matter has been reviewed and, in view of the circumstances, I am prepared to direct cancellation in this instance." No acknowledgement of their obsolete signage which they obviously were unable to defend or explain.
So I'd recommend anyone who receives any kind of PCN in Glasgow to photograph the road markings and signs, as so many are not legally enforcable. And seek help from the Pepipoo forums, they were a great help.

guccilass

I let someone use my car and i recieved a Parking Charge Notice. I advised the ticket company i was not the driver and legally was not obliged to say who was. That was 27th May this year. Totally forgot about it thinking they had accepted my appeal. Didnt here a thing untill 23rd August i recieved a final reminder saying it had now been increased to £125. The ticket was issued for not having a permit. I was actually abroad at the time the reminder came and didnt return untill 5th Sept. There was also a letter from a debt management company issued 27/08. They advised their client as instructed them to recover the monies. i advised them i was not the driver and was no obliged to say who was. thy started quoting tha it i illegal for someone else without insurance to drive my car and they will take me to court. I have stuck to my guns and just responded with the same information. i recieved a letter 5/10 saying i have 1 more chance to pay ( now increased to £148) otherwise they will take me to court and register a CCJ agaisnt me. I replied via email saying again i was not the driver, i was ot legally obliged to say who was the driver and this could be deemed as harrassment. Im now awaiting a response fom them. QUESTION - CAN THEY DO THIS.

Sirdan

guccilass wrote: »

I let someone use my car and i recieved a Parking Charge Notice. I advised the ticket company i was not the driver and legally was not obliged to say who was. That was 27th May this year. Totally forgot about it thinking they had accepted my appeal. Didnt here a thing untill 23rd August i recieved a final reminder saying it had now been increased to £125. The ticket was issued for not having a permit. I was actually abroad at the time the reminder came and didnt return untill 5th Sept. There was also a letter from a debt management company issued 27/08. They advised their client as instructed them to recover the monies. i advised them i was not the driver and was no obliged to say who was. thy started quoting tha it i illegal for someone else without insurance to drive my car and they will take me to court. I have stuck to my guns and just responded with the same information. i recieved a letter 5/10 saying i have 1 more chance to pay ( now increased to £148) otherwise they will take me to court and register a CCJ agaisnt me. I replied via email saying again i was not the driver, i was ot legally obliged to say who was the driver and this could be deemed as harrassment. Im now awaiting a response fom them. QUESTION - CAN THEY DO THIS.

It is harassment but you will be hard pressed to find anyone to do anything about it .
Your best bet is to ignore them and therefore refuse to be harassed.

If you feel you wish to communicate further I would invite them to take you to court or desist with their demands.

Yes they can take you to court where they will lose as you are able to show that you were not the driver.
In fact if they dare to claim against you at County Court (very very very unlikely) then provided you can give good evidence that you were not the driver and therefore there is no basis for any claim against you in your initial written defence statement , it is most likely that the Judge will throw it out without there even being a hearing at all.
No win in court = no CCJ.


As for the insurance that's a load of old tripe. It is an offence for you to allow your vehicle to be driven by a person who is not insured to do so. True.
However that does not mean you have to know who was driving at any given time / date, just that all the persons who you allow to drive are properly insured.
Always worth remembering that almost all fully comprehensive policies provide third party cover to the policy holder to drive "any vehicle with the vehicle's owners permission".
These idiot debt collectors seem to think that you have to know all the time who is driving AND that the driver has to be named on your insurance ..all of which is totally untrue.

Beware Private Parking Companies and their debt Collectors they are quite happy to lie and lie and lie in order to attempt to bully you into parting with your money !!

guccilass

We are regulated by the British Parking Association and adhere to their code of practice (AOS) Approved Operator Scheme.

If a case progresses to court after an appeal has been heard and rejected then the court will decide if all parties have attempted to resolve issues fairly and amicably and resorted to legal action as a last resort. (Under Civil Procedure Rules parties are specifically instructed to use the courts as a last resort)

If a case goes to court and a defendant has sent obstructive defences the court could draw to the conclusion that a person has something to hide for going to extraordinary lengths to avoid a minor parking charge.

To get to the ‘Private land in question’ the ‘driver’ would have had to enter onto the public highway. Under section 143 (1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 – The keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured, if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence – By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant cannot state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

Many forums /sites advise people to ignore parking charges, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the charge notice, it is not advisable to believe what you read on the forums as we DO take people to court this was proven in Oldham County Court in November 2008 by an operator.

Who won a case where the keeper stated that they were not the driver, but claimed they could not remember who was driving. The judge decided that on the balance of probability he was the driver and declared that he did not have to have seen the warning signs, only that they were present.
It is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, we will request that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

We also feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. We are making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome and your actions may be viewed as obstructive to this aim.

Should you fail to provide the driver details, we can confirm the account will continue in your name.

We are able to split the account into monthly instalments and if you would like to discuss this option, please contact the office on the telephone number below.

Should the account continue to remain unsettled the account will be considered for legal action.
It is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, we will request that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

We also feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. We are making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome and your actions may be viewed as obstructive to this aim.

Should you fail to provide the driver details, we can confirm the account will continue in your name.

We are able to split the account into monthly instalments and if you would like to discuss this option, please contact the office on the telephone number below.

Should the account continue to remain unsettled the account will be considered for legal action.
It is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, we will request that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

We also feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. We are making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome and your actions may be viewed as obstructive to this aim.

Should you fail to provide the driver details, we can confirm the account will continue in your name.

We are able to split the account into monthly instalments and if you would like to discuss this option, please contact the office on the telephone number below.

Should the account continue to remain unsettled the account will be considered for legal action.
It is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, we will request that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

We also feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. We are making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome and your actions may be viewed as obstructive to this aim.

Should you fail to provide the driver details, we can confirm the account will continue in your name.

We are able to split the account into monthly instalments and if you would like to discuss this option, please contact the office on the telephone number below.

Should the account continue to remain unsettled the account will be considered for legal action.