PCN issued complete lie!

Ted232

Yes I got the NtO already. I thought the guys at the parking team would just accept my informal challenge once they saw some evidence. I asked to see the evidence (as I am sure there is none) and they responded that I would have to wait to get the NtO. Now I am ready to formally challenge this. Has anyone seen this type of PCN issued this way?.

Mrs_Arcanum

Appeal again and include any evidence you can that you were at work the whole time. In addition I would ask for photographic proof the car had been moved. Anything else is hearsay.

It is well worth appealing, as a colleague got a ticket for moving from short stay to a long stay place, because the signs were not clear that the return rule applied to the whole car park, not just the differently timed zones. Hers was overturned because she kept appealing.

vax2002

My Honest opinion is they wont challenge it at adjudication level.

Ted232

The thing is that I did not move the car at all!

Stephen_Leak

Ted232 wrote: »

I am just appalled at how can a pcn be issued on lie!

He has his quota to fill, or lose his job.

TrickyWicky

Ted232 wrote: »

It just drives me mad that they can just issue a PCN based on a complete lie and then make you go through hoops just to see if you pay it!. Are they getting some sort of commission or bonus to issue PCN?. Is this legal?.

How do you know its a lie? - How do you know your car wasn't nudged backwards or forwards by another car? - Did you note your own valves when you parked and came back? Was the handbrake applied properly?

Just because you didn't move, doesn't mean that the CEO has lied. The CEO may of had genuine reason to "believe that the following contravention has occurred". Be careful about claiming its a a lie from the CEO at an appeal, funny things happen in legal circles. Instead of 'lie' I prefer the word 'mistake'. That saves everyone from any accusations of perjury, defamation etc.

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

He has his quota to fill, or lose his job.

Wrong. It's illegal to set quotas for PCNs. There was an employment tribunal a few days ago against NSL (formerly part of NCP) for doing just that. NSL lost the tribunal.

vax2002 wrote: »

My Honest opinion is they wont challenge it at adjudication level.

Depends, if the CEO has photos of the valves at the time of issue then they may well go the whole hog.

marleyboy wrote: »

Unless he has photographic evidence of "valve movement" he wont have a leg to stand on and you can appeal the decision for a judge to decide.

I always used to photograph the valves because I didn't want my integrity called into question. Most others do too however it is definitely worth looking at the pics on the council website to see if they have pics of the valves. If they don't this does as you say strengthen the appeal. As for pictures of the valves before, they're not needed. As long as they were recorded at the first observation in a way that can not be edited then those notes stand. If however it's been crossed out and altered in their pocket boot (which isn't allowed) then your PCN would be quashed at appeal.

give_them_FA

Councils operate a simple policy of ALWAYS turning down appeals as they have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. This is because when you take it to the independent tribunal, costs are not normally claimable, so all that happens is that you win the appeal but the Council doesn't pay your expenses. Usually they don't even bother to attend as they rely on the fact that a high proportion of people won't take it to a tribunal.

This will continue to be the case until Councils are forced to pay the appellant's costs if they lose. Then, they would think more carefully about turning down anything other than hopeless appeals.

The facts in this case are equally consistent with your having shifted the car a foot or so to facilitate parking by another driver for example. Or, as has been said, because you got shunted by someone else. Your explanation of the downright lie is also valid but it is one that puts pressure on the adjudicator. Mistake or innocent explanation is better.

Kite2010

This is when councils should be made to pay a nominal fee to cover costs in appealing dodgy PCNs issued by target seeking CEOs. Say £20 per successful appeal. That would decrease the number of dodgy tickets being raised

Stephen_Leak

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Wrong. It's illegal to set quotas for PCNs. There was an employment tribunal a few days ago against NSL (formerly part of NCP) for doing just that. NSL lost the tribunal.

That was why I made the comment. It may have been illegal, but that didn't stop the company doing it.

taffy056

The problem with PCNs of course is that you are guilty until proven innocent , and you must go through all the hoops to prove that, and you must be the one spending time researching, going to an judicator and then must lose holidays etc sorting out a mess very often you are not guilty of.