District Enforcement ticket - grounds to appeal?

Guys_Dad

After having parked at Beddington Park in Wallington near Croydon the other week for football, I later received a PCN in the post for £100 fine for "Parking on any access road, grass verge or unmarked ground"


I have just found on another thread where a PPC was Out of Time with their NtK, so

Date of contravention?
Date on NtK?

The Beckham get out!

BlueHamster1975

Minor hinderance... i've just found out that my flatmate has accidentally thrown my postal NTK away. I've got pictures I took of the entire letter but not the actual letter.

Would this be an issue should I contest and it goes to court?

Should I request another letter from District Enforcement?

Redx

send DE an SAR and get copies of everything they have on you and your vehicle

BlueHamster1975

Great, will do thanks. Is it worth doing this prior to sending my letter of appeal telling them why i'm not paying?

Also are there any DAR templates? Sending a DAR doesn't admit responsibility/acceptance in any way - does it?

Umkomaas

What's a DAR?

Redx

its SAR not DAR


see the GDPR 2018 FIGHTBACK thread by coupon_mad


sending an SAR is asking for everything they have on you and your vehicle, because the new DPA called GDPR allows you to do so, by law


send them any rebuttal that you see fit to send , whenever you wish too

BlueHamster1975

Does this letter to DE check out? Anything to change/add/remove??

Dear Sir/Madam,

Charge Reference –
Vehicle –
Date & Location – , Beddington Park

You issued me with a parking ticket on xx/xx/xxxx but I believe it was unlawfully issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for paying for the following reasons:

• The absence of any painted road-markings or signage to denote where is acceptable to park renders it impossible for members of the public to knowingly determine which areas are designated for parking. In this instance, the parked vehicle was positioned in line with metal poles which look to be placed to prevent vehicles passing through. The gate next to this which allows access for vehicles to pass through was not in any way obstructed nor was it in line with any part of the parked vehicles, and as such no meaningful interpretation of a block of access road can be considered. This, coupled with the lack of parking bays or signs denoting parking areas, looks to directly mislead users’ honest intentions.


• Appendix 7 shows the Notice to Keeper reads “Reason for Issue: Parked on any access road, grass verge or unmarked ground”. Appendix 6 shows the parking sign fails to mention “grass verge or unmarked ground”. This demonstrates a lack of clarity when advising the user and an unfair stance to penalise should the terms be deemed to have been breached. The remaining ‘reason for issue’ (“access road”) which again cannot reasonably be determined due to the lack of road markings or signage and cannot be deemed to have been breached as the vehicle was not in line with any through-road nor was it obstructing any person or blocking any vehicle’s ease of access (Appendix 5). Behind the vehicle was a single track bridge, which was still easily accessible.

• Relating to the above, as part of the Beddington Enforcement Trial, it is stated '' Signage will clearly define where you can and cannot park (Appendix 1).'' This is clearly not the case in this instance. If you are not able to park where the sign is placed, the sign should read ''no parking'' and there would be no reasonable doubt about whether to park there or not. Furthermore, any kind of road marking could have been used to indicate parking was not permitted in the area in question. Instead, there is a large unmarked courtyard, clearly with enough space for a number of cars to park.


• Relating to the above, the aforementioned website states '' You will only be allowed to park in the designated car parks, not on other areas such as grass or access roads (Appendix 2).'' If this was the case, signage in the park should have signalled that only parking in designated car parks was permitted - there is no visible signage of this ilk where the vehicle was parked. Additionally, other signage in areas other than car parks should state ''no parking'' or indicate where is designated and not designated rather than the inadequate signs which are present (Appendix 6).

• The trial website also states ''The Enforcement Officers are trained to be reasonable when handing out notices. They will provide warnings and act in an advisory capacity before issuing penalties (Appendix 4).'' There was no such ''advice'' available to any cars parking in the area, and I presume all cars in the same row as the vehicle in question were issued with a fine without warning. Additionally, no tickets were placed on any windscreen, to prevent a warning being passed on the further drivers considering parking in the area. There was no prior warning before a ticket was issued.
• At the time the vehicle in question parked, there were 5 cars parked in a row, causing no blockage to any access road. I do not believe this is an isolated incident of drivers thinking the signage meant they could park in this area. For example, Google Maps shows a row of cars parked in precisely the same manner (Appendix 5). The signage clearly does not suggest parking is forbidden in this area.

• (Point about £100 not being reflective sum for breach of contract???)
To summarise, the signs in the area in question are deliberately misleading in their vague nature in order to penalise members of the public. If the true reason for the parking enforcement and signs were to prevent parking in the area, ''no parking'' signs would be present. Instead, we see disproportionately large fines for the scale of the alleged offence, enforcing vague and insufficient parking instructions.

If you do choose to pursue me, please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Yours faithfully,

Appendix (website links have been removed for this forum post):
(1) Beddington Enforcement Trial (website)

''Where can I park?
All designated parking areas have signs nearby saying that this is an area you can park in. Signage will clearly define where you can and cannot park. For the main parking areas, please see the map below.''

(2) Beddington Enforcement Trial (website)

''parking enforcement. You will only be allowed to park in the designated car parks, not on other areas such as grass or access roads. Parking in designated car parks remains free of charge. Parking elsewhere in the park may result in a Parking Charge Notice of £100''

(3) Beddington Enforcement Trial (website)


''Why introduce an enforcement trial?
In the Summer of 2017, Beddington Park faced a number of problems with regards to the use of the park. Large numbers of cars were parking in undesignated areas, which often caused blockages.''

(4) Beddington Enforcement Trial (website)

Will enforcement be fair and proportionate?
The Enforcement Officers are trained to be reasonable when handing out notices. They will provide warnings and act in an advisory capacity before issuing penalties.

(5) Google Maps Satellite View Of Parking Area.
Please find attached.

(6) Photo of Sign Next To Parking Area
Please find attached.

(7) Parking Charge Notice to Keeper
Please find attached.

BlueHamster1975

Considering also appending a previous case of this rebuttal that didn't end well for them.

In the Gary Hudson case (A3QK0123) was held on NOvember 17th 2014 at the Stoke-on-Trent County Court. The judge dismissed their claim for £160 (£70 parking charge plus recovery costs). The judge said “I don’t accept that the sign is clear and I don’t see that Mr Hudson is in breach of these District Enforcement parking conditions. I can understand that where there are marked bays anyone parking across the lines and taking up two bays would be causing a problem and be in breach of contract. But for that to apply, there must be a marked bay and all down that area there are no marked bays. There are no double yellow lines or hatched areas to indicate no parking. The District Enforcement claim is dismissed.”

Thoughts?

Umkomaas

Keep all that stuff for a Judge, should it ever get to court.

No matter what you put into your appeal, there is no likelihood of a PPC accepting it. Just use the initial appeal template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1. Copy and paste it, don't go adding anything further to it.

Thereafter, follow the advice in the sticky for IPC operators.

BlueHamster1975

Thanks for your reply.

I was considering sending this to both District Enforcement and Sutton Borough Council (as the landowners) - who could overturn the decision?

Do you think if I put my case forward clearly and coherently on why it is unfair also then it is less likely they will try to take me to court? In this instance, they will surely lose as there is no markings whatsoever.