Appealing a parking ticket that was not recieved

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

Next sub heading (bold) 'The Notice to Owner'

Going back to where we were then. My suggestion.

'It has come to my attention that the Notice to Owner is a legal document and as such is required to comply with the requirements of the applicable legislation. It seems yours does not.

I refer specifically to two matters and all references are to Schedule 6, of Chapter 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

1/. Your NtO advises that service is taken to be 7 days from the date of posting. There is no such provision in legislation. You are simply required to tell me the actual time period in which I may make representations or payment. Sch 6 para 1 sub para (2) (c) states "that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served;" . This is further confirmed in para 2 sub para (3) which you may wish to read. There is no provision for you to presume a date of service and by doing so you miss-state my true legal position and prejudice me.

2/. A NtO must not potentially prejudice any recipient even when such a circumstance may not apply to the particular recipient.
On the matter of the vehicle being taken without the owner's consent, had that been the case, you quite clearly insist that this must have been an incident of theft. This is clearly potentially prejudicial since a number of other circumstances may apply and the "crime report" evidence you insist upon may not be applicable.
Again, the applicable legislation says nothing of the kind. It actually says. Sch 6, para 2 sub para (4) (c) only "that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;" nothing more. By leading a recipient to believe that this must have been an incident of theft you fetter their right of appeal where other legitimate circumstances might apply.

---

In both instances your NtO fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of content specified by legislation and is therefore invalid.'

---

Maybe i'll do a brief sum up in a while but gotta eat now mate!

s1clark

Again, your time and expertise are much appreciated.

I will aim to get the letter back to the Council tonight.

I will of course make sure to post any outcomes!

Fred_Flintstone_4

I have just received a ticket exactly the same as s1clark. No PCN on windscreen, parked in a loading bay as I was collecting a table in a private car. Offence "committed" 'Parking in a parking space not designated for class of vehicle'. All other details as per notice to s1clark.
Noted all of your points and if OK will use your legal arguments to fight this PCN. Very good information many thanks. :T

Neil_B

Fred_Flintstone wrote: »

I have just received a ticket exactly the same as s1clark. No PCN on windscreen, parked in a loading bay as I was collecting a table in a private car. Offence "committed" 'Parking in a parking space not designated for class of vehicle'. All other details as per notice to s1clark.
Noted all of your points and if OK will use your legal arguments to fight this PCN. Very good information many thanks. :T

"legal arguments" are my opinion only, I am not a lawyer - although legally qualified have commented in the background. Still only my opinion and should be taken as such.

You are jumping the gun a bit. Was this the same Council? RTA is only used in Scotland.

Your situation is entirely different as well, different circumstance and different contravention. Other factors, particularly around the actual rules for loading as opposed to what a Council will tell you, come into play. Also the issue of 'definition of a goods vehicle' - often discussed and interesting.

You need to give full details, docs and pics or you may be making a wasted effort.
-

Fred_Flintstone_4

Hi,
Yes same council - and in the same location - Great Western Road Glasgow.

Neil_B

Ok, well that makes the legal issues useful but your own common sense circumstances are also important.
It's a tactical and psychological game. They will certainly not be quick to admit their docs are non-compliant or misleading in any way. Hence it is important to include other detail. your loading situation is interesting as is the alleged contravention.

You really need to start a separate thread an give pics of location and signage/road markings for that. It is quite important. ok?

Neil_B

Any news on this Clark?

Glasgow have refused to provide a PCN copy to FredFlinstone. (as expected)
-

Neil_B

Clark.

How did you get on with this??

I can't recall if I mentioned it but it seems established that they are unable to produce duplicate PCNs when requested. Totally incompetent and they technically lose by default on that alone.

there have been several other Glasgow 'ghost tickets' and i'm beginning to wonder if this is the work of just one PA???

Instead of a duplicate PCN have they sent you a spreadsheet called 'case report' ?? That will ID the PA - can you please PM me that if you have it.

If this is the work of one person - he/she needs dealing with!
-
-