Court form received help requested

sadwithoutmynelson

So I've just looked through the pcn properly again and is says the pcn is for non display of the permit! I have circled the permit! I had no yellow ticker on my car and the permit is there on the dashboard circled! I alwsy put the permit on without fail! . Its there clear to see!!! Unbelievable!

sadwithoutmynelson

Here it is 

Snakes_Belly

sadwithoutmynelson said:

Here it is 

Do you think that they may have ticked the wrong box when they were inputing the details into the roboclaim? Just appeal and state that you were displaying a permit as shown in their image. See what happens. Hopefully it will be cancelled. Then I would look at what to do about the MC. 

sadwithoutmynelson

No idea. I just sat down and read it properly.  I alway display my permit. It's there clearly visible  . 

I will sort the line issues too whilst I appeal this. 

Hope you can see the lines I was referring to and can see that next door have no lines and so are flush against me whereas I have that extra room to allow them to not bang my door and get car seat out etc 

Snakes_Belly

sadwithoutmynelson said:

No idea. I just sat down and read it properly.  I alway display my permit. It's there clearly visible  . 

I will sort the line issues too whilst I appeal this. 

Hope you can see the lines I was referring to and can see that next door have no lines and so are flush against me whereas I have that extra room to allow them to not bang my door and get car seat out etc 

I noticed that and I wondered if they had input the wrong reason for the infringement. Personally I would not waste too much time on this PCN and just get it off my back. It should be easy to get it cancelled as you were displaying a permit. 

CM posted that when the consulation is available for comment that we should be insisting on white lists for residential properties.

I think that the MC is the biggest villain but to take them on legally would be very stressful and might backfire.  Better to try and chip away sometimes than to go in with all guns blazing. You could tell them though that the covenant does not give them the powers to introduce Parking Enforcement and use that as a bargaining tool.

I would also obtain the costs of installing gates and see how much they are paying the PPC.

The new CoP is suggesting a higher limit of £100.00 for residential PCN's outside London. This is higher than for other PCN's so there will be a number of PPC's that will go after this type of business. The detail in these covenants will become more important.            

Snakes_Belly

I came across this case whilst searching for details on the  the private parking sector's desperate bid for a Judicial Review which has reportedly failed.

The website is not allowing me to attached the full transcript but here is a link to a page from the Law Gazette.

 https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/penalised-for-parking-on-your-own-land/5104843.article
 
I did wonder if this case may be useful to your own scenario however I am not legally trained. That said the PPC's cite Elliott v Loake.

My understanding (which is simplistic) is that the landowner had every right to park their car on their own land without hindrance providing that the public were able to pass with a pram etc. 

In your case their is no public access to your land. You are however parking in such a way to allow your neighbour room when they get out of their car. 

The full transcript is available online and judges do like cases that were heard at a higher level court. 

I would also note the thread regarding the VCS case whereby VCS had to pay a motorist £1500.00. 
  

Le_Kirk

That is referring to a council issue (Penalty Charge Notice) not sure if it makes any difference.

Snakes_Belly

Le_Kirk said:

That is referring to a council issue (Penalty Charge Notice) not sure if it makes any difference.

The PPC's cite Elliott v Loake.

My simplistic understanding from what is a complex case is that the landowner had a right to park on their own property providing that a pedestrian (with a buggy) would have the right of way. The landowners parked in tandem on the hedge strip allowing such pedestrians the right of way.

In the sadwithoutmynelson's case there is no right of way for pedestrians so that right to park on their own land would be unimpeded.  

Le_Kirk

I agree there is no "right of way" issue especially as @sadwithoutmynelson owns the apartment and the parking space whereas the case you cited seems to be a council issue where, presumably it is council owned property with parking privileges.  Elliot v Loake is often used (erroneously) as that was a criminal case and forensic evidence was used to prove who the driver was.

sadwithoutmynelson

*house not apartment