Parking ticket challenged 113 days ago

maa299

Neil - I'll check and get back to you tonight.

Neil_B

Cool. You have plenty of time.

maa299

There's no CPZ. Only two timeplates for the single yellow line, restricting it Mon-Sat 8am-6:30pm.

Neil_B

Well I asked in relation to your common sense argument of leaves covering the lines. That doesn't really help does it - cos the plates indicate a line is present even if you can't see it.
-

maa299

Yes, but the line doesn't run for the full length of the road, making it impossible to tell where it starts and ends without looking down. And with the unmarked part of the road almost always having cars parked on it, it's hard for the unfamiliar to work things out.

I'd like to sort this out now; if this can't go further, surely they should make an exception and allow me to pay the 50% charge?

Neil_B

I'm not knocking your common sense point. I am only saying it is slightly less strong because of the presence of the plates.
You should include it and maybe politely point out it is they that is supposed to clear the leaves?
Also, in view of how you now explain it semms the yellow line extends a distance beyond a plate. I think there is a Reg covering the maximum distance of a plate 'in' from the start and finish of a yellow. I'll have to check on that but 'BogsDollocks' who posts here would know.

It also serves to give them a 'way out' in view of the procedural/legal points.

Failing to consider your informal challenge, if it can be shown, can feasibly win on its own.

The date flaw on the NtO is also good. That's a relatively new version from Barnet and the matter is untested at Adjudication AFAIK - but similar issues have been succesful.
My explanation above was long winded to make sure you understood. i'll try and knock up a couple of sentences for you to use to put it in the appeal.

---

As for being satisfied with paying 50% if they were to offer it - ok fine if you want but if they have failed in procedure and notices you are not really liable for anything.

maa299

Sure, thanks. I'll wait to hear from you again, and in the meantime prepare my letter.

Neil_B

My attention has been drawn to a procedural error on your part. You have served a Notice to Owner despite failing to respond to my informal challenge.
Whilst I appreciate that there is no specific requirement for you to respond in the Regs it appears that you have failed to consider my challenge. I refer you to the CEoPC Representation and Appeals Regulations 2007, reg 3, para (2) which says -
'(b)
that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—
(i) those representations will be considered;'

Kindly advise me which of your officers considered the matters in my challenge of

---

, when this took place and why they chose not to advise me of the outcome or to exercise discretion to re-offer the discounted amount.

---

It has further come to my attention that your Notice to Owner has misleading content which prejudices a recipient. As such I believe it is invalid and unenforceable.
I refer specifically to your noting of a 'Date of Service'. This is wholly a presumption on your part and clearly creates prejudice since it deviates from the actual timescale defined in the Regulations. That is CEoPC Reps and Appeals Regs 2007, Reg 3 para (3) (a) which defines the period for both payment and representations, ("the payment period") as '28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served'
That period is fixed in its definition to an actual event. There is no provision to vary that period as you have done. You have no way of telling when the document was served and I can confirm and show that you are in fact incorrect.
Any recipient is potentially prejudiced by this additional unnecessary content. I should remind you though that there is no requirement in law for that prejudice to have actually occurred.
Should you refer to the particular Regulation that defines 'deemed' date of service I should point out that it exists, in my opinion, only to guide you on a timescale for progression of the enforcement process. It does not in anyway change the actual true period.
I suggest you also note that your 'estimate'/'presumption' of service bears no resemblance to that in the Regulation concerned, Reg 3 of the CEoPC Gen Regs 2007

Neil_B

Ermm - yeah, soory about that - but as a formal representation thought we may as well get it right. not quite 'a couple of sentences'.
Should frighten them off though.

If you want to add to the reps then I suggest you get pics of the signs and maybe 'Bogs' will take a look at them. He is very hot on the sign regs as well as some other stuff.
-

---

always close a formal representation with a polite request to cancel the PCN. Then say that should they not do so you will have no hesitation in proceeding to the Adjudicator.
-

maa299

Thanks Neil - and maybe I should send them this by email again (they accept that) rather than recorded post...as long as I get the automated reply, I'd have proof of receipt, and maybe they'll be disorganised enough to "overlook" it again? What do you think?