OMBC PCN parking ticket

Neil_B

just one thing on the Al's Bar case. The reference to section 66(3). No longer relevant cos satute has changed. The principal still applies though - that would be adjusted to 'requirements of the Schedule to CEoPC Gen Regs 2007.

tellmah

Neil,
sorry for not replying earlier i've only just noticed there was a second page.
You are quite right about it being a 3 and not 9 (i had to get the magnifying glasses out though).
I've posted the reverse of the slip

http://i42.tinypic.com/2dbjj9f.jpg

With sec 66(3) changing, i take it you are saying the same conditions still apply but it is now under Gen Regs 2007?

Thanks.

Neil_B

section 66 (of Road Traffic Act 1991) hasn't changed exactly. It is now defunct apart from in Scotland.

It has been replaced by TMA 2004. TMA uses a separate set of Regs to go into the detail of PCNs, procedures, etc.
(2 sets for England and 3 for Wales - just for a laugh).

Consensus is that where certain rulings have been made in relation to the General equirements of the previous legislation, then there is no reason why they don't still apply.

Where, in Al's Bar, the Adjudicator referred to S. 66, the replacement for that --- yes ----would be the Schedule to - 'Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007'.

The point being that S 66 and the replacement mentioned are the parts that specified the mandatory content for a PCN.

---

More in a mo

Neil_B

I wouldn't bother going into too much detail for an informal challenge, which is presumably your intention. Just a reference to the case 'Al's Bar etc.' would probably do. It's most likely to be ignored anyway.

This should be in amongst any other matters you raise. You had some issue about whether you were actually obstructing? If not in a bay then that may count as 'wrong contravention alleged' - because there was no obstruction but you were simply not in the markings of a bay (possibly the correct contravention).

all this helps to give them alternatives to admitting their documents are rubbish.

tellmah

Thanks Neil,
so mentioning S66 on its own is not going to be the "golden bullet" for them to throw it out then if they will ignore it?
Do you mean its only part of the evidence I will have to present?

Neil_B

tellmah wrote: »

Thanks Neil,
so mentioning S66 on its own is not going to be the "golden bullet" for them to throw it out then if they will ignore it?
Do you mean its only part of the evidence I will have to present?

It is always advisable to throw everything at them at every stage.

however - awwww, this is hard to explain without back up on a relatively quiet forum. This informal appeal is going to be dealt with by a numpty!. Even at formal stage they may get intransigent. It might be that only an application to the Adjudicator will win it.
I say 'apllication' because in such cases Councils very rarely contest once they know you are on to them and their legal Dept may have seen it. Technically they can't win. Only a very fickle Adjudicator could lose this for you.

whilst S 66 is no longer relevant, as i said the general principal is. Al's bar is one of the most significant cases - and is backed up by general findings of a High Court Case we haven't even covered yet!

Board guide Crabman won't mind I'm sure in this circumstance >>>> ya need to take this to PePiPoo forums for confirmation. Seriously, it will make me feel better if you can get several voices of confirmation.

If you say that they are recommended and just post a direct link to this thread then I will try and nudge them into helping. Think up your own title 'Is Neil B talking tosh?' LOL. Seriously I wouldn't mind if you did! It would get attention and raise a few smiles!
-

tellmah

Thanks, Neil,
I'm on a break until Wednesday, so only have limited Internet access. I'll try PePiPoo then and put this link in to it.

tellmah

Neil,
i've registered on pepi.
the link is attached.
Thanks.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=39767&hl=