DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: November 1, 2023, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very much in hindsight but I wonder if the emphasis was relying
upon the app saying it was free and that a driver is entitled to
rely on information given, whether on signs, authorised official
or in this case the App that the council sanctions, would have
brought a different result.
Doubt we will know.
Sorry OP, we try but cannot win them all.
#Post#: 8960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 1, 2023, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr
Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ?
I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable
to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major
omission, surely ?
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't really agree with that. It very much opens the door for
the fact that if highly relevant / contentious evidence is
provided by means of a link and it's not considered, that could
be a procedural impropriety.
What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked
about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he
doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he
wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on
what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.
#Post#: 8969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 1, 2023, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=418.msg8913#msg8913
date=1698863437]
> Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr
Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ?
I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable
to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major
omission, surely ?
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't really agree with that. It very much opens the door for
the fact that if highly relevant / contentious evidence is
provided by means of a link and it's not considered, that could
be a procedural impropriety.
What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked
about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he
doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he
wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on
what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.
[/quote]
Well, I still think the decision, and its logic, stinks !
But anyway, one cannot win them all.
#Post#: 8980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: jacoscar
Date: November 2, 2023, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=418.msg8913#msg8913
date=1698863437]
> Everything I read there seems, essentially, intended to put Mr
Murray-Smith "in his place". Is this an unbiased adjudication ?
I don't think so. Absolutely nothing was said about being unable
to pay to park before the pay-to-park hours commenced; a major
omission, surely ?
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't really agree with that. It very much opens the door for
the fact that if highly relevant / contentious evidence is
provided by means of a link and it's not considered, that could
be a procedural impropriety.
What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked
about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he
doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he
wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on
what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.
[/quote]
What’s wrong with that? I cannot use cash if I don’t carry it
around
#Post#: 8982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: November 2, 2023, 2:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jacoscar link ---
>
> [quote author=cp8759 link=topic=418.msg8960#msg8960
date=1698880093]......
> What the decision doesn't show is that the adjudicator asked
about the cash option and unfortunately jacoscar said that he
doesn't carry cash so even if he'd been aware of that option, he
wouldn't have used it anyway. Obviously I cannot coach people on
what to say (or not say) when giving evidence.
>
--- End Quote ---
What’s wrong with that? I cannot use cash if I don’t carry it
around
[/quote]
It demolished the "wilful" argument, even if the adjudicator was
minded to accept.
It has long been established that not having cash or even the
right change is not an excuse for delaying payment, adjudicators
taking the view that if you cannot pay for parking when you park
you should leave the parking place.
#Post#: 8984--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: jacoscar
Date: November 2, 2023, 2:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I would think that argument is demolished the moment I
step out of the car without paying, despite the number of
payment options available and despite the fact they could all be
‘not working’
#Post#: 8986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: November 2, 2023, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jacoscar link ---
>
> Well, I would think that argument is demolished the moment I
step out of the car without paying, despite the number of
payment options available and despite the fact they could all be
‘not working’
>
--- End Quote ---
There is a difference between relying on the information given
on the app (repeatedly given) and saying that you would not have
paid even if you had gone to the machine.
One is saying that you were misled by the information provided
by the authority, the second is saying that if the app isn't
working you aren't going to pay anyway.
May seem a minor difference but minor differences can be
important.
TBH I think you should have won anyway, to me when you tried to
pay and were repeatedly told it was free, that should have been
enough.
But cannot account for the vagaries of adjudicators or what they
will seize on.
#Post#: 8988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: jacoscar
Date: November 2, 2023, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This makes me think: what if (hypothetically) all machines
accepting coins were not working (or saying "parking is free"),
the pay-by-phone wasn't working, but the app was. Would you be
expected to try all available options until you find one that
works? Would it be reasonable to expect an elderly person to
have to download an app?
What if none of the three options worked? Could you be excused
to park there without paying or would you have to move the car
anyway?
#Post#: 8989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: November 2, 2023, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are lots of examples around.
Used to be simple, park, put some coins in the parking meter by
the bay.
Then it became pay at machine and sometimes the machine wasn't
that evident.
Plus having to display a P&D ticket that could flutter or fall
Then Pay by Phone...call a number on a poor line and try to
follow the metal mickey menu while inputting a card number.
Then parking apps.
Add in parking vouchers that some places used...which you had to
purchase from a local shop.
Different parking apps that work different ways.
And places like Barnet where it is only card or app payment.
And places where payment machines are often vandalised or don't
work or don't exist despite signs saying pay at machine with a
direction arrow.
In general, councils will always want their pound of flesh if
someone hasn't paid, they seem to believe that drivers must
exhaust every option.
Adjudicators are usually more open to accepting that genuine
efforts had been made but frustrated.
#Post#: 8994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking app claims "parking is currently free" and
doesn't let me pay; I got a fine and they refuse to cancel it
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: November 2, 2023, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The decision makes no mention whatsoever of the app saying
parking was free at a time when when it wasn't, which I think is
a very important point that the adjudicator ought to have ruled
on. Fundamentally, the council can't trick people into not
paying by saying it's free, and then issue a PCN.
If the view count on the video is still zero then neither the
adjudicator or the council has viewed crucial evidence that
shows they did this, which I believe meets the (rather high) bar
for asking for a review of the adjudicator's decision.
A carefully crafted request for a review on the grounds that the
adjudicator erred in law by dismissing the video as "irrelevant
or unnecessary evidence" without viewing it, when in fact it
proves the argument made for promissory estoppel (that's
legalese for going back on a promise) might work, especially if
all you ask the Chief Adjudicator to do is to very narrowly
consider and rule on the single unadressed issue of the video
demonstrating promisory estoppel. Arguing that the interests of
justice cannot have been served if someone presents evidence
they claim proves their innocence and both council and
adjudicator dismiss that evidence it without even looking at
seems a strong grounds for review to me, and I think the Chief
Adjudicator would have a hard time justifying a response of 'I'm
going to dismiss it without looking at it too'.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page