DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15530--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 12, 2024, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve
positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the
separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for
parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to
another does not trump the 2 hour limit.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to
the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The
signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic
order supports what the council is doing, the signs are
inadequate.
IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard
to see how you could lose.
Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is
right on this occasion.
[member=1233]volavola[/member] if you let us know once you've
got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.
#Post#: 15539--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 12, 2024, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
--- End Quote ---
Er, No !
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various
bays in the St. John's Green parking bays. I didn't say whether
this was correct or not. Clearly they get away with it, and will
continue to do so ad infinitum until adjudicators are given
powers to rule on the enforcement practices of councils. Why,
for instance do DART continue to issue PCNs that a TPT
adjudicator ruled were unlawful in 2018 ! The whole apparatus
is a scandal !
#Post#: 15576--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: volavola
Date: February 13, 2024, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=1311.msg15210#msg15210
date=1707351087]
> Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve
positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the
separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for
parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to
another does not trump the 2 hour limit.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to
the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The
signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic
order supports what the council is doing, the signs are
inadequate.
IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard
to see how you could lose.
Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is
right on this occasion.
[member=1233]volavola[/member] if you let us know once you've
got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.
[/quote]
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and your offer
of the draft for formal representation, much appreciated. I'll
update once we get the NTO.
One other thing, should the location on the PCN be identical to
the TRO, or is that just academic? For example the PCN says
St.John's Green, but the name for the bay on the TRO is
St.John's Green (central Section)?
#Post#: 15849--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 18, 2024, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote]Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
--- End Quote ---
Er, No !
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various
bays in the St. John's Green parking bays. I didn't say whether
this was correct or not.
[/quote]
My apologies, I must have misread but I think we agree what
they're doing is wrong.
#Post#: 15854--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 18, 2024, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=1311.msg15539#msg15539
date=1707786287]
> [quote]Long story short: Incandescent is wrong
--- End Quote ---
Er, No !
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various
bays in the St. John's Green parking bays. I didn't say whether
this was correct or not.
[/quote]
My apologies, I must have misread but I think we agree what
they're doing is wrong.
[/quote]
Indeed, yes ! A long time ago, when it was the old 1991
legislation, I remember a case in Alresford on this issue but
can't remember the outcome. It was on this street.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/AgpNuYYd5eKFhaeG6
If you look at the sign for the bay on the left, it has a "no
return in 2 hours" condition. OP moved up about two bays and
reeparked and got a PCN.
Lovely town, BTW
#Post#: 18087--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: volavola
Date: March 22, 2024, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Thanks all for the replies.
NTO arrived yesterday and is attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 18088--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: volavola
Date: March 22, 2024, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Other page
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 18415--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: volavola
Date: March 27, 2024, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=1233]volavola[/member] if you let us know once you've
got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=1]cp8759[/member]
I have drafted quickly the below, if you could let me know if
I've been to nice or how to change some of the content that
would be great.
- Arrived at 11:50 and parked at St John’s Green, outside St
Giles Conference Centre.
- Returned to vehicle at 13:45 and moved approx. 250m to other
bays, St John’s Green (central Section) as shown in the YouTube
video.
- Returned to the vehicle at 15:30 to find PCN.
I do not believe this PCN should apply as the car wasn’t parked
for more than 2 hours in either of these distinct bays. As set
out in the TRO under Schedule No.44 (Page 205), the locations at
St John’s Green are defined under different headings and are
therefore separate locations; there is no zonal restriction in
place.
In your previous rejection, you state that the CEO noted the
tyre valve positions were the same at the first and second
observation and therefore the vehicle did not move. I provide a
copy of the car dashcam footage, uploaded to YouTube, which is
time and date stamped to show it did.
#Post#: 18418--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 27, 2024, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, did you submit the video with your challenge?
Whether you did or did not, there is something very wrong with
the authority and CEO standards here.
We have seen that the car moved. Therefore, leaving the law to
one side for the moment, as a matter of fact the car moved. It
is therefore impossible that a CEO acting reasonably could have
observed the car in location A and issued the PCN in location B
and yet claimed* in their notes that the car had not moved.
B******s to valve positions, the b****y car was 250m away from
where it was observed originally. Setting aside for one moment
the video, the CEO is lying and/or grossly incompetent because
the car was not in the same physical location. S*d zonal
restrictions, the car was NOT as a matter of fact in the same
place. That the OP can prove this is an important part of their
evidence but the fact still remains that the CEO lied.
Cp's draft should win and the CEO will be let off the hook.
Personally, I'd go for their jugular.
*- we haven't seen the notes and some blame might attach to the
authority as regards their interpretation.
#Post#: 18486--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moved location, and footage - Informal challenge
refused - Valve Position (North Essex Parking Partnership)
DIR By: volavola
Date: March 28, 2024, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply H C.
Yes, I did submit the video with the challenge. The video was
unlisted, and had 9 views at the time I sent it to them. When I
received a reply from the informal appeal, it still had 9 views
- so I know they didn't view the YouTube link.
I didn't want to outright accuse the CEO of lying, however I
would say it's pretty unlikely that he/she initially marked the
valve positions and is also unaware that the St.John's 2 hour
parking bays aren't seperate; or maybe just trying it on!
If/when the PCN gets revoked, I will still send an email to the
parking partnership and copy in anyone else that could flag the
issue. My partner wanted to pay it due to the hassle, but for me
it's more the principle given their initial response to the
informal challenge - as well as the time and money wasted on
both sides!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page