DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 41633--------------------------------------------------
Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 21, 2024, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
(n.b. I was not the driver or keeper, so can't take any "credit"
for the quality of the parking, nor explain their thinking...!)
This was for a PCN initially served in June 2023. The NTO did
not arrive, so after receiving the CC the keeper waited for the
OfR and got the process set back to NTO stage.
Here is the NTO and reps details:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/G5PK5ZS/NTO1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/7QzTjp5/NTO2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ZHgWtXr/NTO3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ydxV1yY/NTO4.jpg
Here is a copy of the PCN that was served on the car. The
keeper doesn't have the original any more and did not take a
copy of the reverse.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mHBwH9B/PCN.jpg
Here are the CEO pictures taken from the online portal:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/3SJTFTd/CEOPics1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hRW5JhT/CEOPics2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XLRjLLf/CEOPics3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/whmQVh2/CEOPics4.jpg
Since the incident, the markings have been repainted, and this
is how they appear now:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/s9XvmNr/Markings-Now.jpg
- The driver stated to the keeper that they could not see any
markings on the bay when they parked. The first CEO pic
supports that they were heavily worn at the side at which the
driver presumably entered the space. They claim that the
vertical line in pic 2 faded out shortly after it goes under the
car, and (as can be seen from pic 1) does not meet the
horizontal line. The faint white splodges outside the
horizontal line are the remnants of "DISABLED"
- The driver did display a BB and clock as required
- It is not clear why the CEO took a picture of the disabled bay
sign as a) the BB was properly displayed and b) the ticket is
not for anything to do with disabled bays
- The bays have since been repainted, as per the final pic,
which does suggest that Harrow knew they were worn
Thank you for any suggestions
Initial ideas - FOI request to Harrow for details on why the
bays were recently repainted? Would an admission that they were
worn help?
#Post#: 41637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 21, 2024, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NTO posted 10 Oct, therefore presumed served 14th. Last day of
28-day reps period is therefore 10 Nov.
OP, you posted 'I was not the driver or keeper' which means
everything that's required to be done procedurally must be done
by someone else.
The period between initial PCN and current NTO is 16 months.
This is excessive IMO and means that the keeper needs to
discover what was sent and when. Potentially, this could be
resolved procedurally.
Date first NTO issued - will be on the charge certificate;
Date TEC ordered the CC and NTO cancelled(the revocation order)
- is on the order which the keeper received from TEC.
#Post#: 41643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 21, 2024, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, you posted 'I was not the driver or keeper' which means
everything that's required to be done procedurally must be done
by someone else.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not the first time that the keeper has asked me to help
them so we are both clear on procedure and will submit things
correctly.
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Date first NTO issued - will be on the charge certificate;
>
--- End Quote ---
They were waiting for ages after the CC to receive the OfR. I
have the CC here:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/4TjDCLv/CC1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0mrgmf1/CC2.jpg
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Date TEC ordered the CC and NTO cancelled(the revocation
order) - is on the order which the keeper received from TEC.
>
--- End Quote ---
The OfR? I don't have a copy of this but can get one if it's
important.
#Post#: 41678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 21, 2024, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think this is the document you asked for?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/YbsSWBh/Order-Revocation.jpg
#Post#: 41687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 21, 2024, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Order for Recovery is the notice which includes the witness
statement form which your friend submitted in time. 21 days are
permitted and therefore working back from the date of
submission- which is given in the order as 26 Sept.-this gives a
date of service of the Order for Recovery as no earlier than 5
Sept. 2024.
What happened between 26 Sept. 2023 and 12 months later, 5 Sept.
2024, a prolonged exchange of correspondence or radio silence?
Only the keeper knows.
And pl provide the full house of dates i.e. the date of issue of
the OfR.
#Post#: 41690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 21, 2024, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> What happened between 26 Sept. 2023 and 12 months later, 5
Sept. 2024, a prolonged exchange of correspondence or radio
silence? Only the keeper knows.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
We have been in regular contact throughout, so I am fully up to
date on the details.
During the 12 months, he was waiting for an OfR and phoning TEC
regularly to see if it had progressed. It really was just a
hell of a wait, I can assure you there's nothing I'm not telling
you.
I can probably get a copy of the OfR if you really need it?
Just to check that you saw I posted the revocation order above?
#Post#: 41813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 22, 2024, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As requested, the OfR
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jwSQGhN/OfR1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/9v97T58/OfR2.jpg
#Post#: 41846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 22, 2024, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would make representations on the grounds of Procedural
Impropriety in addition to any related to the contravention
itself.
Procedural Impropriety
In this case the PCN was issued on 14 June, the NTO on 3 Aug,
and the Charge Certificate on 11 Sept. All in the year 2023.
The Order for Recovery was issued in September 2024, 12 months
after the CC.
The council are under a public law duty to act fairly and
reasonably and in addition the Secretary of State's statutory
guidance states:
Enforcement authorities should make sure that their processes
for recovering outstanding penalties and handling challenges,
representations and appeals are efficient, effective and
impartial.
There is nothing fair or efficient about delaying the mandatory
procedure by 12 months. The authority are now challenging my
memory and that of the driver to recollect events that happened
in June 2023, 16 months ago. This is unfair and prejudices my
ability to submit informed representations.
I submit that these actions constitute a procedural impropriety
and therefore the PCN must be cancelled.
Should the authority reject these representations then it is
obliged to give detailed reasons i.e. a 'we do not agree' would
be insufficient and itself constitute a procedural impropriety.
In this regard, I refer the authority to the SoS's guidance
which states:
The authority should give the owner clear and full reasons for
its decision on a representation, in addition to the minimum
required information.
Failure to explain such a decision may be seen as
maladministration.
#Post#: 41849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 22, 2024, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, I shall do.
What do you think in regards to the heavily worn markings, also
the suggestion of a FOI to see when and why the markings were
repainted? If the FOI states "repainted in July 2023 as
markings were heavily worn" (or somesuch) this would seem to
support a claim that the markings were not sufficient at the
time?
Or is the procedural impropriety a sure fire winner on its own?
#Post#: 42135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow - Outside Markings
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 24, 2024, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We're going to submit your procedural impropriety text on its
own for now, as the formal council appeal. It seems like
remembering the worn markings could undermine the idea that it's
been so long it's not fair to expect someone to remember the
contravention.
I have also submitted a FOI about when and why the markings were
repainted. If this gives any ammo then we could add it to the
NPAS appeal.
If they do mess us around at formal, do you think there is any
likelihood in asking the adjudicator for costs? The poor guy
was ringing TEC for a year!
Thank you for your help.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page