DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40808--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 15, 2024, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps...
This is a response of the worst kind, I'd carry on.
Procedural impropriety;
Contravention did not occur.
The contravention grounds in the PCN are given as:
Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting
and loading/unloading restrictions are in force.
However, in response the NOR states that:
1. According to the CEO's notes this vehicle was issued with a
PCN for being parked in a loading bay without loading/unloading.
It also states that:
2. According to the [same CEO's] notes the vehicle was issued
with a PCN because the vehicle was parked where a loading ban
was in force.
As these comments are mutually exclusive, it is impossible for
the recipient to know which, if either, applies. Having said
this:
If 1 applies, then this does not relate to the actual grounds in
the PCN and therefore is a clear procedural impropriety.
But if 2 applies this similarly does not refer to the grounds of
contravention which requires that both waiting and loading
restrictions are in place and not simply a location where solely
a 'loading ban was in force'.
Having given these incoherent references to the grounds of
contravention and contents of the CEO's notes, the NOR then
fails to show that the authority has given my detailed
representations consideration, instead these are dismissed as
follows:
Whilst I appreciate your circumstances, they do not warrant
cancellation of the PCN.
In addition to these procedural improprieties, I would also
refer the adjudicator to my original representations regarding
the CEO's photographic evidence which confirms the absence of
compliant lines, including kerb markings, which is reinforced by
the CEO's photo of an 'At any time' loading sign whose use is
redundant because were the markings clear then no such sign is
required for 'double blips' and if the CEO believed that only
single blips were in situ then this sign is unauthorised and
unenforceable by virtue of not specifying the restricted hours.
It is also in a different road.
#Post#: 42500--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 26, 2024, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update: Appeal started to the tribunal on 15 October which
dissed the Notice of Rejection for referring to a 'loading bay'
and that the vehicle was first seen at 20:08 but PCn says 20:15
and what the Rejection doesn't say which was anything within the
representations.
Second ground was that the TMO (which I hadn't seen) didn't
prohibit blue badge parking.
Do not contest form filed on 25 october; PCN cancelled.
#Post#: 42515--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 26, 2024, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the more hopeless cases for them and they've seen
sense.
#Post#: 43114--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: October 30, 2024, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
> Update: Appeal started to the tribunal on 15 October which
dissed the Notice of Rejection for referring to a 'loading bay'
and that the vehicle was first seen at 20:08 but PCn says 20:15
and what the Rejection doesn't say which was anything within the
representations.
> Second ground was that the TMO (which I hadn't seen) didn't
prohibit blue badge parking.
>
> Do not contest form filed on 25 october; PCN cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
thanks for your help, apologies for slow responses ive just
returned back from wales
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page