OMBC PCN parking ticket

tellmah

Sorry, it won't let me do it as a new user, i can't post with links.
Any other ideas?

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

You need to host them at an external site. Tinypic
just tell me ALL the dates on the PCN.
-

yep ^^^that^^^^ !!

don't understand the new user thang. that's a stupid rule if correct. Ask board guide about it?
-

elvch01

tellmah wrote: »

Sorry, it won't let me do it as a new user, i can't post with links.
Any other ideas?

Make a couple more posts - I think the limit is around 10 posts before you can post links. This is to make it less attractive to spammers writing automated programs which join up on forums to post their spam & links to whatever they are spamming us about

tellmah

Try this with hxxp forward forward slash i39.tinypic.com/iwjdxl.jpg

tellmah

Try again with test message

tellmah

http://i39.tinypic.com/iwjdxl.jpg

tellmah

Yep it works after 10 posts. Thanks.

Neil_B

Oh well, that's half of it then.
shane to miss out on the possibilty of other errors but I'll work with what you've shown for now.

Yes, now seen, the misalignment is quite significant isn't it. particularly in getting the amounts of money misplaced and potentially confusing. Might count.

The part I was talking about is involved in that misalignment.
they give dates for payment of 19/4/09 and 3/5/09 (when you eventually manage to decode through the printing!

both dates are wrong. Read the text descibing the period, which they have written correctly. Count for yourself and you will see that dates should be 18/4 and 2/5.
They have added a day in each case and misinformed you of your true legal position. Note that actually writing a date is not required anyway so they have confused the issue.

They are required to accurately advicse you of certain things on a PCN. if they don't it is effectively invalid.
Adding a day was covered in the well known PATAS key case of 'Al's Bar v Wandsworth'

You might note that not too distant Salford used to make this mistake. proof of the pudding is that they corrected it at the beginning of the year.
-

tellmah

Neil b,
thanks for yor assistance in this matter.
Before i go any further with it, the dates stated on the ticket are actually 19/04/09 and 09/05/09 which given the date of the ticket being 05/04/09 is actually in excess of 30 days which makes the non compliance even worse.
I've read "Als bar" and it quite clearly says -
Mr Pitt-Payne also argued that if the wording of the PCN differed from the language of the statute, the effect was to give an extra day for payment to be made. If there was an error, it was in favour of the person liable to pay; so nobody was prejudiced by the error. This argument might well be relevant to the second substantive question - the effect of non-compliance - but it does not support the argument that the PCN is compliant. The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law. The fact that it may as a matter of administrative practice allow longer than the prescribed periods (an issue I will return to) is a different point and cannot justify a misstatement of the legal position, which is the purpose of the requirements of section 66(3).

The PCN therefore fails the compliance test in this regard also.

Thanks.

Neil_B

i was beginning to doubt you but you have listened and done some nice research there.

presumably you see how Al's Bar confirms the non-compliance - even when countered.

I still think that is a 3. look closely and you will see that it is turned into a 9 by the o of 'of', being right on top of it!

'3' being 1 extra day is the usual error but the fact you are correct that it clearly looks like a 9 and , in any case, is not required content, it is VERY misleading and , as you say, worse.

still worth seeing the rest!
-