PCNs and Bailiffs

Crabman

I've moved this over to the Parking sub-board

Coupon-mad

AdrianC wrote: »

And you were with the vehicle, which was there for only the bare minimum amount of time to be recovered - right...?

I sent through a challenge to Lambeth council saying in these mitigating circumstances would the consider cancelling. They wrote back on 17/10/16 saying no.

Okay... So you then paid it, right?

Well now that WOULD be stupid! PAYING a Council PCN just because the inevitable 'pay up or else' computer says no rejection arrived? Everyone gets that and it never means a person has no case! Almost everyone who appeals at NTO stage or adjudication then goes on to win, when assisted on pepipoo.

takman wrote: »

If you broke down and just abandoned the car then I can't see what reasoning you are using to say you shouldn't have go the ticket?. If breaking down and leaving the car was a good reason then everyone would use it when they got a ticket!.

And on pepipoo everyone would, and they would likely win...because they know most Council PCNs can be successfully appealed and cancelled. that's why this thread needed to be on this parking forum not the motoring forum - the knowledge is more in depth re Council PCNs on pepipoo because they do this every day - but we do know that pretty much all Council PCNs can be appealed and won.

I used to post on pepipoo Council PCNs forum myself (never have time now, too busy beating the scummy private parking firms). A vehicle breaking down is very often an exemption stated in the Traffic Order...

This OP could try to get it reset at TEC but should never have missed the NTO stage appeal. That's the only issue here.

takman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And on pepipoo everyone would, and they would likely win...because they know most Council PCNs can be successfully appealed and cancelled. that's why this thread needed to be on this parking forum not the motoring forum - the knowledge is more in depth re Council PCNs on pepipoo because they do this every day - but we do know that pretty much all Council PCNs can be appealed and won.

I used to post on pepipoo Council PCNs forum myself (never have time now, too busy beating the scummy private parking firms). A vehicle breaking down is very often an exemption stated in the Traffic Order...

This OP could try to get it reset at TEC but should never have missed the NTO stage appeal. That's the only issue here.

I would be surprised if "pretty much all" council PCN's can be challenged and won. If that is the case then the councils really need to close the loopholes to stop people from thinking they can park where they like and challenge it.

Coupon-mad

takman wrote: »

I would be surprised if "pretty much all" council PCN's can be challenged and won. If that is the case then the councils really need to close the loopholes to stop people from thinking they can park where they like and challenge it.

It is true. The fact is, people don't realise and it is not about closing loopholes, nor rogue parkers, for goodness sake. What makes you assume it is the driver at fault, rather than the Council?

The example we have here is a broken down vehicle. In many Traffic Orders, that is a clear exemption. So, if an appeal comes in about a broken down vehicle and the Order says that's an exempt issue, the Council (if playing with a straight bat) *should* accept the appeal.

Guess what they actually do? Yep. They reject 'computer says no' and dangle the discount carrot. And what does the UK public do? Pays because they think ''that's it then''. No, it isn't. The case WOULD be won at adjudication, of course! It's exempt activity, should never have been ticketed.

Often, the first challenge from the driver has not even been seen by any Council employee, often first appeals are routinely rejected by untrained goons working for the agents...the ones who have a vested interest in issuing & upholding PCNs.

Rinse and repeat with other clear exemptions such as:

- loading/unloading on single or double yellows (perfectly OK for up to 20 mins but often ticketed)

- assisted boarding or alighting on single or double yellows (perfectly OK for a reasonable amount of mins but often ticketed)

- dropping off/picking up a passenger on yellows - same as above

People pay PCNs when they have no valid reason to, that is the scandal here, not thinking the councils need to close loopholes. The Councils need to apply the rules in Traffic Orders and their own appeals policies properly. Be fair, consistent and transparent. They are not.

And as for towing away - the practice is so draconian that pretty much 100% can be appealed & refunded.

You would be surprised! Try asking on pepipoo first if you get a Council PCN.

AdrianC

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What makes you assume it is the driver at fault, rather than the Council?

Unless the council re-designated the bay while the car was in it...

The example we have here is a broken down vehicle. In many Traffic Orders, that is a clear exemption.

You'll note how the OP didn't answer my question about whether they stayed with the vehicle while they waited for it to be recovered at the earliest possible opportunity.

takman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is true. The fact is, people don't realise and it is not about closing loopholes, nor rogue parkers, for goodness sake. What makes you assume it is the driver at fault, rather than the Council?

The example we have here is a broken down vehicle. In many Traffic Orders, that is a clear exemption. So, if an appeal comes in about a broken down vehicle and the Order says that's an exempt issue, the Council (if playing with a straight bat) *should* accept the appeal.

Guess what they actually do? Yep. They reject 'computer says no' and dangle the discount carrot. And what does the UK public do? Pays because they think ''that's it then''. No, it isn't. The case WOULD be won at adjudication, of course! It's exempt activity, should never have been ticketed.

Often, the first challenge from the driver has not even been seen by any Council employee, often first appeals are routinely rejected by untrained goons working for the agents...the ones who have a vested interest in issuing & upholding PCNs.

Rinse and repeat with other clear exemptions such as:

- loading/unloading on single or double yellows (perfectly OK for up to 20 mins but often ticketed)

- assisted boarding or alighting on single or double yellows (perfectly OK for a reasonable amount of mins but often ticketed)

- dropping off/picking up a passenger on yellows - same as above

People pay PCNs when they have no valid reason to, that is the scandal here, not thinking the councils need to close loopholes. The Councils need to apply the rules in Traffic Orders and their own appeals policies properly. Be fair, consistent and transparent. They are not.

And as for towing away - the practice is so draconian that pretty much 100% can be appealed & refunded.

You would be surprised! Try asking on pepipoo first if you get a Council PCN.

I'm not saying the wardens don't make mistakes in issuing tickets. I've actually only ever had one council issued PCN which was incorrectly issued, i emailed them and explained this to them and it was cancelled within a few days.


But i disagree that the person parking the car is rarely at fault. I regulalrly see cars parked overnight on double yellow lines because they want to be near their house.


Plus there are people who park inconsiderately who may not be technically breaking the rules, this is where they need to tighten up rules.
For example there is a Chinese Takeaway on a main through road in a place i often drive through. There are double yellow lines outside but from around 5 - 8pm there is constantly atleast 1 car parked there while people pick up food. This causes congestion because its a busy road.
You may think this is acceptable but almost directly opposite (20 metres down) there are spaces that are free to park in but people are too lazy to use them.

Coupon-mad

Unless the council re-designated the bay while the car was in it...

Happens!

You'll note how the OP didn't answer my question about whether they stayed with the vehicle while they waited for it to be recovered at the earliest possible opportunity.

Well he didn't say it was abandoned either. And Traffic Orders I have seen exempt broken down vehicles awaiting recovery and do not stipulate that the driver has to be with the car (no more than a loading/unloading driver does) After all if the problem is something simple like running out of petrol the driver is best leaving it and going to get some from the nearest garage. Or they might not have a phone with them and has to walk to the nearest phone to contact the AA, etc.

AdrianC

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Happens!

Incredibly rarely.

Well he didn't say it was abandoned either. And Traffic Orders I have seen exempt broken down vehicles awaiting recovery and do not stipulate that the driver has to be with the car (no more than a loading/unloading driver does) After all if the problem is something simple like running out of petrol the driver is best leaving it and going to get some from the nearest garage. Or they might not have a phone with them and has to walk to the nearest phone to contact the AA, etc.

...or they might have put it there, got the bus home, and left it there for a day or three.

Coupon-mad

I can see you are arguing 'for the Council side but the fact is, if the Traffic Order creates an exemption it is a valid appeal point which would win at adjudication.

Coupon-mad

Plus there are people who park inconsiderately who may not be technically breaking the rules, this is where they need to tighten up rules.
For example there is a Chinese Takeaway on a main through road in a place i often drive through. There are double yellow lines outside but from around 5 - 8pm there is constantly atleast 1 car parked there while people pick up food.

Exempt activity if pre-ordered & paid for...what is the problem? It's not about drivers being lazy - THEY CAN stop there to load pre-ordered/paid goods.

If the Council want to ban stopping they can, by adding kerb blips. Simple. But maybe the Council is being lazy...

Double yellows (no kerb blips) are NOT a complete ban: NOT ''no parking''. If people could just get that in their heads and not get irate about normal loading/unloading exempt stopping it would be easier.