possible misleading Notice to Owner

bribri · 5th August 2006, 09:27

Does anyone know how detailed the location information has to be?

I have a ticket which has the street name but does not specfy where in the street the offence (sorry contavention) took place. Islington, London is the borough.

In the past I have had a ticket which says e.g. O/S no 31 x street. all other features of the ticket appear ok e.g 2 dates, use of the word contravention.
The contravention is for a No. 24 "not parking correctly in the bay". The wheels went into a single yellow line which has no time plates or Tbar.

Ta

dw190 · 5th August 2006, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by bribri

No. 24 "not parking correctly in the bay". The wheels went into a single yellow line which has no time plates or Tbar.

Ta

Cheeky Gits.

They could just as easy have done you for parking on the yellow line. You could then have challenged it.

Are you sure all the bay is perfect?

bribri · 5th August 2006, 18:58

I accept that the bay is OK. I am questioning how detailed the location of contravention information on the ticket has to be.

Interestingly, the reply from the initial appeal was that there is a penalty to prevent drivers parking out of bay and therefore causing a knock on effect to other drivers.

Given my comments in the first post about the yellow line and the yellow line not being big enough to park in then surely I haven't really infringed on anyones ability to park.

Who thinks I could win it?

dw190 · 5th August 2006, 19:14

Quote:

Who thinks I could win it?

Its finding something, just the smallest thing that does not conform to the legislation in their paperwork.

The only trouble is having to chance the charge being increased to enable you to see a NTO or a NoR.

Where I am even their Charge Certificates are wrongly worded so we could have our council on the PCN, NTO, NoR & Charge Certificate.

bribri · 26th September 2006, 23:25

dw190's comments are quite revealing. I have now received the "Notice of Rejection of Representations".
The council has included 7 photos, a Traffic Attendant's sketch and confirmation of the full location of contravention.

My questions are:
1) since the TA had the full location, shouldn't it have gone on the parking ticket in the first place.
2) The Notice states that "a significant proportion " of the vehicle was outside the bay. From the photos, I would say that the vehicle is over the line from a point in line with the base of the front windscreen i.e the whole of the front wheel and a tad more. SO is there a test for significant proportion?

Any thoughts?

joebloggs · 29th September 2006, 23:50

one of the things you may wish to do in this case is to measure and photograpgh al the signs and road markings.
I know for absolute fact that Camden loose 50% of thier revenue because of appeals a significant number of which are based on non complinat road markings and signs.
For example if the yellow lines are not of the correct dimension, then in law they do not exist.
I recently did an accident investigation course, where a a stop sign and stop markings on a junction were posted, on measuring and viewing them they both failed to comply with the regs, the driver who had been charged with failing to comply with the signs was found not guilty as the signs and markings did not comply therefore did not exist.
I am currently challenging on behalf of a work collegue a ticket issued by Islington for failing to comply with a no right turn offence as caught and recorded by cctv.
My arguemtn will be that the camera operator cannot see the no right turn sign as he is viewing it from behind therefore cannot state at that time the sing was visible to the driver and that the road marking is not of the specified dimenssion therefore does not exist.
Dont know how this will turn out but worth a try and will keep them occupied for a while in any case.

19th October 2006, 18:34

does the parking ticket have a date of issue and a date of service ? if not it is invalid see the attached paragraph:

CASE 1 - London Borough of Camden

Scenario – Our motorist parked his car all day, on a section of road with no yellow lines or parking bay markings. He received a Penalty Charge Notice (Code 1), parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).
Dear LB of Camden ,
The PCN has been issued to me in error. Please find enclosed photographic evidence, that the car was not parked on a restricted street, there is no yellow line, nor are there any parking bay markings.
I would be grateful if you would now cancel the PCN, in writing within 14 days.
London Borough of Camden's reply received 19 days later:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter. We are now currently investigating the location where, according to the parking attendant, the notice was served. As soon as this information becomes available, we will write to you with our findings.
14 days later another letter arrives from LB of Camden:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your patience, whilst I was awaiting the site check report for the PCN.
According to the information recorded the vehicle was seen on a single yellow line. However, the site investigations office has supplied me with contradictory evidence that has not wholly convinced that the notices are valid.
Given this, I am pleased to tell you that I have now cancelled the notice and apologise on behalf of this authority, for any inconvenience you may have been caused.

CASE 2 - London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Scenario – Our motorists, being a Residents Permit holder, parked his car on a Residents Parking Bay . He received a Penalty Charge Notice (code 21) informing him that he had parked on a suspended bay.
Dear RBK & C
I was rather surprised to receive a Penalty Charge Notice for parking in a “suspended” bay.
There was no suspension sign near the bay, therefore I parked there. Would you please cancel the enclosed PCN.
The reply from RBK&C:
Dear Sir,
The PCN was issued at 15.19 on the 8 th January, because the attendant had observed that the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN.
You now have two options:
Option 1 - PAYMENT AT DISCOUNTED RATE £50.00 payment details were given eg, cheque or c/c etc.
Option 2 - MAKE A FORMAL REPRESENTATION - If you do not pay within 14 days of the date of this letter the full charge £100.00 will be due and a NOTICE TO OWNER will be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I would like to reassure you that your challenge against the issue of the PCN has been fully considered and only Formal Representations can be considered further. Any new evidence can be presented at this stage.
A Notice to Owner arrived 23 days later. Our motorist appealed on the grounds that the TRAFFIC ORDER WAS INVALID.
Four Months later our motorist received the following NOTICE OF REJECTION against the Notice To owner:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your representation. I apologise for the delay in responding to you.
One warning sign was placed on the residents permit holders post on the 31 st December, advising that the bays in relation the whole residents bay would be suspended from 6 th January to 10 th February. A council officer checked on the 5 th January that the sign was still in place. Your vehicle was parked within the suspended area and therefore, the parking Attendant correctly issued a Penalty Charge Notice.
On Occasions, it is essential that certain parking bays be suspended in order to allow larger vehicles, such as removal vans etc. to park without causing obstruction to traffic or for works to be carried out on, or under the carriageway.
Responsibility remains with the driver of the vehicle to ensure that suspended bays are kept clear.
We advise our Resident Permit holders when first obtaining a Resident Permit and on every subsequent renewal of their permit that suspensions may come into effect on a residents bay.
Our Decision – You have not given us enough grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge. For this reason, I have rejected your representation.
You can now either pay the Penalty Charge or appeal against our decision. You should send your cheque to the RBK & C etc.
Our Motorists then wrote the following appeal on the official Notice Of Appeal form:
Dear RBK & C
With Reference to your Notice Of Rejection, in paragraph 2 you state the warning sign was placed on the residents permit holders post. The residents permit holders sign is actually on the railings. There was no suspension sign on a post because there is no post where you state there is. The suspension sign, even if it did exist, was supposedly checked three days before the alleged offence, it is too long a period to be valid. I request that the rejection is overturned, as there is insufficient evidence to support your claim.
Our motorist then received a letter 7 days later, from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS):
Dear Sir
Thank you for your appeal application. Your case will come into the list for decision on the 29 th July and will be considered by an Adjudicator as soon as possible after that date.
We have sent a copy of your appeal to the council. The Adjudicator will determine your case on the basis of the information, which both you and the council send in. You should receive from the council a copy of their evidence at least three days before the date set for the hearing.
Our motorist then received the following letter from RBK & C on the 15 th July:
Dear Sir,
The Royal Borough have decided not to contest your appeal. The decision does not affect any other Penalty Charge Notices issued to your vehicle.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

CASE 3 – London Borough of Westminster

Scenario – Our motorist was parked in a meter bay, with a parking meter. He returned to his car to find a Penalty Charge Notice stuck to his windscreen, with no sign of the Parking Attendant and more surprisingly, the meter was reading 0.00 (not yet in penalty time).
The code was code 4, parked in a meter bay when penalty time is indicated.
Dear London Borough of Westminster ,
I was appalled to receive the enclosed Penalty Charge Notice. When I returned to the meter it was displaying 0.00. The PCN shows the degree of penalty at 0.04?? Incredible isn't it? How is it, that the meter is showing 0.00 on my return and I have a PCN already on my windscreen, showing the penalty time of 4 minutes and there is no sign of the Parking Attendant?
I would firstly like you to cancel the PCN and secondly let me know what disciplinary action, you are prepared to take against this attendant.
23 Days later Westminster sent the following reply:
Dear Sir,
The PCN was issued at 15.38 because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay when penalty time was indicated. The parking meter was showing penalty time 00.04.
There is a high demand for metered parking space in the City of Westminster . Parking Attendants are, therefore, instructed, to issue PCNs based on the information displayed on the meter. If a meter display shows penalty time (time prefixed by “P”), a PCN may be started. There is no “grace” period.
While this may sometimes seem harsh, the City Council needs to take this course of action to make the existing parking spaces available to as many motorists as possible, to ease traffic congestion and to discourage illegal parking.
As you believe the meter, at which you were parked, was displaying 000, which means out of order, I have checked the relevant maintenance records for a period of five days either side of the date of the offence.
There is no record or indication of any faults having occurred on the meter during this period. Nor is there a record of any complaints having been received about the meter during the same period.
Therefore I am satisfied that the PCN was issued in accordance with regulations, and that the contravention did occur.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options
Option 1 PAYMENT AT DISCOUNTED RATE – Please now make a payment of £50.00 etc..
Option 2 MAKE A FORMAL REPRESENTATION – If you do not pay within 14 days of the date of this letter, the full charge of £100.00 will be due and a Notice To Owner will be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I would re-assure you that your challenge against the issue of the PCN has been fully considered and only Formal Representations as described above can be considered further.
Since then, five months have passed and we are still awaiting the Notice To Owner.

Case 4 - London Borough of Westminster

Scenario: Our motorist was accused of meter feeding, code 7 i.e. parked with payment made to extend the stay beyond initial time. The parking ticket he received demands that either the motorist pays the reduced fee of £50.00 or a full charge of £100.
Our motorists noticed that the machine from which he purchased his pay and display tickets, was displaying contradictory information to this. It had not been updated with the new charges and stated that the reduced fee is £40.00 and the full fee is £80.00
Dear London Borough of Westminster ,
I believe the PCN has been issued to me in error. I have enclosed a picture of the meter from which I purchased the tickets. As you can see it is displaying conflicting information with that of the PCN.
I would like to make some suggestions, to enable the City of Westminster to be more efficient and prevent this sort of thing from happening again:

<LI class=style11>Re-train the majority of your wardens <LI class=style11>Update the information on parking meters
Stop offering incentives to wardens to issue more tickets

Please cancel the PCN.
29 days later, Westminster sent the following reply:
Dear sir,
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
When the Parking Attendant (PA) first saw the vehicle at this bay, a note was made of the P/D ticket which was displayed and of the vehicle's TYRE-VALVE POSITIONS.
When the PA subsequently returned to the bay, the vehicle was still parked there and the tyre-valve positions had not changed. However there was another P/D ticket displayed.
When the vehicle was first logged at 13:20, it was displaying P/D ticket no. 7113805 with an expiry time of 13:29. At 13:40, it was then displaying P/D ticket no.7113810, with an expiry time of 15:32. From this, the issuing Attendant was able to conclude that another ticket had been purchased to extend the stay.
The “condition of use” for the P/D bay are clearly stated on the instruction plates attached to the ticket machine.
It is the driver's responsibility to always check the conditions of use for any bay, in which they intend to park, to ensure that they have parked in accordance with the restrictions in force.
Yours other suggestion have been duly noted as the City Council is constantly striving to make the City of Westminster as friendly to motorist as is practically possible.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options: Payment at discounted rate of £50.00 etc etc…
Four weeks later our motorist then received a Notice to Owner. He basically re-iterated what he had said earlier, he ticked the boxes 5, 6 and 7 on the Notice to Owner, i.e. “The contravention did not occur”, “The penalty exceed the relevant amount” and “The traffic order was invalid”.
Another four weeks later Westminster sent the following Notice of Rejection (the letter is exactly the same as their previous one):
Dear Sir,
NOTICE OF REJECTION
Thank you for your Representation you made on receiving a Notice to owner about the PCN.
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
When the Parking Attendant (PA) first saw the vehicle at this bay, a note was made of the P/D ticket which was displayed and of the vehicle's TYRE-VALVE POSITIONS.
When the PA subsequently returned to the bay, the vehicle was still parked there and the tyre-valve positions had not changed. However there was another P/D ticket displayed.
When the vehicle was first logged at 13:20, it was displaying P/D ticket no. 7113805 with an expiry time of 13:29. At 13:40, it was then displaying P/D ticket no.7113810, with an expiry time of 15:32. From this, the issuing Attendant was able to conclude that another ticket had been purchased to extend the stay.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised about the issue of the PCN, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
Eleven days after the above letter was received, a Notice of Appeal application arrived, from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS).
Our motorist completed the form, appealing on the same grounds, i.e “ The contravention did not occur”, “The penalty exceed the relevant amount” and “The traffic order was invalid”.
He also requested a personal hearing and added the following comments to strengthen his appeal:
If the City of Westminster is to enforce decriminalised parking, then surely it must have all the relevant signage, information and procedures in place and up to date? Otherwise the whole system becomes a miss-match and a shambles . By Westminster's own admission in their letters “ The condition of use, for the P/D bay are clearly stated on the instruction plates attached to the ticket machine”, the information displayed on the ticket machine is paramount to using the P/D bay. So why is it, that Westminster fail to acknowledge the machine is displaying incorrect information? To use the Councils own words “If the Council had not followed the correct procedure for passing the traffic order, the traffic order is invalid”. The Councils regulations are legally defective.
PTAS then wrote to our motorist informing him that his personal hearing would take place in six weeks time.
The day before the hearing with the adjudicators our motorist received the following letter from the City of Westminster:
Dear Sir,
The City of Westminster has decided not to contest your appeal against the PCN.
(Here we go again)
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
Whilst I note your comments, I must advise you that the PCN was not issued because you had made an overpayment for the P/D ticket expiring at 15:32. The PCN was issued because your vehicle was displaying an additional ticket which extended your vehicle's stay beyond the initial time. Whilst you have made an overpayment of 40 pence, I am unable to authorise a refund of this amount as it is your responsibility as the motorist to pay the correct and relevant tariff. I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.
I note that the photograph you have enclosed shows that the P/D machine indicates that the PCN charge is £80.00. This information displayed on the machine is incorrect and the parking operations section have informed the contractor, Automatic Parking and Traffic control Systems (APT), to rectify the matter. The machine should indicate that the PCN charge is £100. in light of this technical error, I am sure you will be pleased to know that the PCN has been cancelled on this occasion only and you are no longer liable for the charge.
Total time from the initial issuing of the ticket to cancellation FIVE MONTHS!

CASE 5 - London Borough of Camden

Scenario: Our motorist parked on a road which had no road markings and certainly no yellow lines. He never received a ticket (PCN), but rather strangely, a Notice To Owner turned up two months after the "alleged offence" demanding that he pay £100.00 within 28 days. The offence was code 6 "parked without clearly displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket or permit"!! He has already received a Code 1 on another occasion for the exact same parking space (see case 1)

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed the Notice to Owner.

May I say at this point, that this is the first indication I have ever received, with regards to this PCN.

Your information alleges that a PCN was given on the 4th June, it was not, I was never given a PCN, nor was there one affixed to my vehicle.

I therefore require you to send me a copy of the PCN and in the meantime, I have ticked points B (the contravention did not occur) and D (the traffic order was not valid) on the Notice to Owner.

8 Weeks later he received the following reply:
Dear Sir
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
Thank you for your representations. This Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket or voucher.
You have recently written to us with representations in this matter. In your representations you have stated that you never received this penalty charge notice at its first issue.
I have investigated the case and referred to the Parking Attendants notes made at the time the Notice was issued. You have stated that no PCN was issued. I have noted some anomalies in the observations made by the attendant and therefore I cannot be certain that the PCN was issued to the vehicle correctly. On this occasion I have decided to accept your representations in this matter and withdraw the PCN.
No further action is required and I hope this brings the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Well, actually no. Their letter makes no mention of there not being a yellow line and the same motorist has received several tickets, parked in the same spot, with a variety of penalty charge codes issued to him. What is really annoying is that yet again, the motorist has to spend time and effort appealing against a PCN, which was clearly issued illegally, and no action is taken against the Parking Attendants.
Our motorist put these points to the London Borough of Camden in the following letter:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter and cancellation of the PCN.
I actually require a little bit more than the mere cancellation of the PCN. I would appreciate it if the Parking Attendant in question, was either disciplined and/or re-trained. I was actually parked where there were no road markings or yellow lines. I have already received a completely different penalty charge from another one of your Attendants, in exactly the same parking place! One alleges that I was "parked without clearly displaying a Pay & Display ticket", whilst the other alleges that I was parked in "a restricted street during prescribed hours"!! Which is it to be? Both have been cancelled by your borough in due course. I find it really inconvenient to have to go through this whole process, to have these charges cancelled. The fact that two different wardens, on different dates have both ignored the fact that the vehicle is parked legally, as there were no yellow lines or any other road markings, leads me to believe that some of your wardens are issuing tickets to anyone and everyone, regardless of whether an offence is or isn't being committed. It is a scandal and you must take the appropriate action against these unscrupulous Attendants.
I am also seeking compensation for the inconvenience you have caused me. I will await your offer.
Our motorist is still waiting for a reply!

Case 6 – London Borough of Westminster

Scenario – Our motorist was parked at a parking meter with the time showing + 24 minutes, when he returned to his car. He noticed a Parking Attendant writing out what appeared to be a ticket for him! When he asked the Parking Attendant what he was doing, he just ignored him. Our motorist then took a picture of the meter and one of the Attendant, writing out the ticket, just for good measure. Normally our motorist would drive off at this point, as the ticket would be invalid, as it could not be affixed to the vehicle nor handed to him, but he waited for the ticket to be served, as he would relish the chance of proving that yet again Westminster Attendants issue tickets illegally.
The Attendant affixed the ticket to the windscreen. The attendant had written ticket was incomplete, there was no penalty code stated (he had written a zero?). The attendant had and the times “At” and “To” were incomplete. So, all in all, a bit of a mess from our friendly attendant!
Our motorist sent the following letter:
Dear Westminster,
Would you please let me know what the enclosed PCN has actually been issued for?
I noticed the times of the contravention has been left blank. Am I supposed to complete these myself?
Do you think this is part of the alleged incentive that your attendants are encouraged to issue tickets for prizes?
I would appreciate a reply within 14 days.
Five weeks later, we still had not received a reply, therefore we wrote again, requesting a response of some sort.
One week later we received the following reply:
Dear sir,
Thank you for your letter about the PCN.
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay when penalty time was indicated. The parking meter was showing penalty time 00.23.
NCP the city council's contractor responsible for on-street enforcement has improved its recruitment and retention package for parking attendants. The company now pays a bonus for experienced Parking Attendants who achieve good time keeping, full attendance, good quality PCN and a smart appearance. Enforcement is closely monitored to ensure that parking attendants enforce against contraventions whenever they occur and that consequently, motorists are encouraged to comply with regulations.
Consideration has been given to the points you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options:
Option 1 – Payment at discounted rate. Please now make a payment of £50.00, this will increase to £100.00 after 14 days of the date of this letter etc etc…
Option 2 – Make a Formal Representation. If you do not pay within 14 days the full charge of £100.00 will be due and a Notice To Owner will be sent to the registered keeper etc etc…
Our motorist therefore waited for the Notice To Owner, which arrived one month later
Our motorist sent back the Notice To Owner. He ticked the following boxes
Box 5 . The contravention did not occur.
Box 7 . The traffic order was invalid
Six days later a rather odd letter arrived from Westminster
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter about the PCN. The charge has been put on hold while we investigate your comments, however do not ignore any letters or notices regarding this or any other parking ticket. We will contact you once our investigations are complete.
Five weeks later, our motorist received the following Notice of Rejection:
Dear sir,
Thank you for your representation you made. The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay 002248 in Manchester St when penalty time was indicated of 23 minutes.
Upon checking the Parking Attendant's logbook, it was noticed that the vehicle was observed parked as above described. The PA also recorded the details of the tax disc and that the PCN was placed on the vehicle.
Please note that there is a high demand for metered parking space in the City of Westminster . If a meter display shows penalty time (time prefixed by “P”), a PCN may be started. There is no grace period.
While this may seem harsh, we need to take this course of action, to ease traffic congestion and to discourage illegal parking.
My investigation is now complete and although I have given full consideration to the circumstances, these do not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.
Your representation has been rejected and you must either pay the PCN of £100.00 or appeal to the Parking Adjudicator. Complete the enclosed appeal form and send it to PTAS.
Please note that if the adjudicator refuses your appeal, you will be required to pay the £100.00
If you do nothing a Charge certificate will be sent increasing the charge to £150.00. Non-payment at this stage will result in the debt being registered at County Court and the Council may apply for a warrant in order to recover the debt.
Pretty serious stuff…. The punishment hardly fits the crime. Yet no “crime” was committed in this case. So, our motorist requested a personal hearing with the Adjudicator, stating on the appeal forms that, “the contravention did not occur” and “the relevant order was invalid”. He also added the following:
Dear Parking Adjudicator,
I have spent a lot of time “appealing” against this PCN, when in fact the PCN is completely invalid. The PCN isn't even fully completed. The Parking Attendant believed the meter was in penalty time, when in fact it was in credit of +24 minutes. He was very surprised to see me when I approached him, whilst he was writing the ticket.
It has now been some 3 months and I am still embroiled in this process. If common sense, common decency and the letter of the law are allowed, then this PCN should be cancelled.
May I apply for compensation at this stage?
The Parking Adjudicator acknowledged the appeal and set a hearing for two months later.
One week before the hearing out motorist received the following letter from the City of Westminster:
Dear Sir,
The City of Westminster has decided not to contest your appeal against the PCN. The PCN has been cancelled and you are no longer liable for payment of the charge. May I apologise for any inconvenience caused. (You may!)
Our motorist has since written to the Parking Adjudicator seeking compensation. We will let you know in due course the outcome of this claim.
Total time taken from the issuing of the ticket to cancellation, 5 months!!!

19th October 2006, 18:34

does the parking ticket have a date of issue and a date of service ? if not it is invalid see the attached paragraph:

CASE 1 - London Borough of Camden

Scenario – Our motorist parked his car all day, on a section of road with no yellow lines or parking bay markings. He received a Penalty Charge Notice (Code 1), parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).
Dear LB of Camden ,
The PCN has been issued to me in error. Please find enclosed photographic evidence, that the car was not parked on a restricted street, there is no yellow line, nor are there any parking bay markings.
I would be grateful if you would now cancel the PCN, in writing within 14 days.
London Borough of Camden's reply received 19 days later:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter. We are now currently investigating the location where, according to the parking attendant, the notice was served. As soon as this information becomes available, we will write to you with our findings.
14 days later another letter arrives from LB of Camden:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your patience, whilst I was awaiting the site check report for the PCN.
According to the information recorded the vehicle was seen on a single yellow line. However, the site investigations office has supplied me with contradictory evidence that has not wholly convinced that the notices are valid.
Given this, I am pleased to tell you that I have now cancelled the notice and apologise on behalf of this authority, for any inconvenience you may have been caused.

CASE 2 - London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Scenario – Our motorists, being a Residents Permit holder, parked his car on a Residents Parking Bay . He received a Penalty Charge Notice (code 21) informing him that he had parked on a suspended bay.
Dear RBK & C
I was rather surprised to receive a Penalty Charge Notice for parking in a “suspended” bay.
There was no suspension sign near the bay, therefore I parked there. Would you please cancel the enclosed PCN.
The reply from RBK&C:
Dear Sir,
The PCN was issued at 15.19 on the 8 th January, because the attendant had observed that the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN.
You now have two options:
Option 1 - PAYMENT AT DISCOUNTED RATE £50.00 payment details were given eg, cheque or c/c etc.
Option 2 - MAKE A FORMAL REPRESENTATION - If you do not pay within 14 days of the date of this letter the full charge £100.00 will be due and a NOTICE TO OWNER will be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I would like to reassure you that your challenge against the issue of the PCN has been fully considered and only Formal Representations can be considered further. Any new evidence can be presented at this stage.
A Notice to Owner arrived 23 days later. Our motorist appealed on the grounds that the TRAFFIC ORDER WAS INVALID.
Four Months later our motorist received the following NOTICE OF REJECTION against the Notice To owner:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your representation. I apologise for the delay in responding to you.
One warning sign was placed on the residents permit holders post on the 31 st December, advising that the bays in relation the whole residents bay would be suspended from 6 th January to 10 th February. A council officer checked on the 5 th January that the sign was still in place. Your vehicle was parked within the suspended area and therefore, the parking Attendant correctly issued a Penalty Charge Notice.
On Occasions, it is essential that certain parking bays be suspended in order to allow larger vehicles, such as removal vans etc. to park without causing obstruction to traffic or for works to be carried out on, or under the carriageway.
Responsibility remains with the driver of the vehicle to ensure that suspended bays are kept clear.
We advise our Resident Permit holders when first obtaining a Resident Permit and on every subsequent renewal of their permit that suspensions may come into effect on a residents bay.
Our Decision – You have not given us enough grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge. For this reason, I have rejected your representation.
You can now either pay the Penalty Charge or appeal against our decision. You should send your cheque to the RBK & C etc.
Our Motorists then wrote the following appeal on the official Notice Of Appeal form:
Dear RBK & C
With Reference to your Notice Of Rejection, in paragraph 2 you state the warning sign was placed on the residents permit holders post. The residents permit holders sign is actually on the railings. There was no suspension sign on a post because there is no post where you state there is. The suspension sign, even if it did exist, was supposedly checked three days before the alleged offence, it is too long a period to be valid. I request that the rejection is overturned, as there is insufficient evidence to support your claim.
Our motorist then received a letter 7 days later, from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS):
Dear Sir
Thank you for your appeal application. Your case will come into the list for decision on the 29 th July and will be considered by an Adjudicator as soon as possible after that date.
We have sent a copy of your appeal to the council. The Adjudicator will determine your case on the basis of the information, which both you and the council send in. You should receive from the council a copy of their evidence at least three days before the date set for the hearing.
Our motorist then received the following letter from RBK & C on the 15 th July:
Dear Sir,
The Royal Borough have decided not to contest your appeal. The decision does not affect any other Penalty Charge Notices issued to your vehicle.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

CASE 3 – London Borough of Westminster

Scenario – Our motorist was parked in a meter bay, with a parking meter. He returned to his car to find a Penalty Charge Notice stuck to his windscreen, with no sign of the Parking Attendant and more surprisingly, the meter was reading 0.00 (not yet in penalty time).
The code was code 4, parked in a meter bay when penalty time is indicated.
Dear London Borough of Westminster ,
I was appalled to receive the enclosed Penalty Charge Notice. When I returned to the meter it was displaying 0.00. The PCN shows the degree of penalty at 0.04?? Incredible isn't it? How is it, that the meter is showing 0.00 on my return and I have a PCN already on my windscreen, showing the penalty time of 4 minutes and there is no sign of the Parking Attendant?
I would firstly like you to cancel the PCN and secondly let me know what disciplinary action, you are prepared to take against this attendant.
23 Days later Westminster sent the following reply:
Dear Sir,
The PCN was issued at 15.38 because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay when penalty time was indicated. The parking meter was showing penalty time 00.04.
There is a high demand for metered parking space in the City of Westminster . Parking Attendants are, therefore, instructed, to issue PCNs based on the information displayed on the meter. If a meter display shows penalty time (time prefixed by “P”), a PCN may be started. There is no “grace” period.
While this may sometimes seem harsh, the City Council needs to take this course of action to make the existing parking spaces available to as many motorists as possible, to ease traffic congestion and to discourage illegal parking.
As you believe the meter, at which you were parked, was displaying 000, which means out of order, I have checked the relevant maintenance records for a period of five days either side of the date of the offence.
There is no record or indication of any faults having occurred on the meter during this period. Nor is there a record of any complaints having been received about the meter during the same period.
Therefore I am satisfied that the PCN was issued in accordance with regulations, and that the contravention did occur.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options
Option 1 PAYMENT AT DISCOUNTED RATE – Please now make a payment of £50.00 etc..
Option 2 MAKE A FORMAL REPRESENTATION – If you do not pay within 14 days of the date of this letter, the full charge of £100.00 will be due and a Notice To Owner will be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I would re-assure you that your challenge against the issue of the PCN has been fully considered and only Formal Representations as described above can be considered further.
Since then, five months have passed and we are still awaiting the Notice To Owner.

Case 4 - London Borough of Westminster

Scenario: Our motorist was accused of meter feeding, code 7 i.e. parked with payment made to extend the stay beyond initial time. The parking ticket he received demands that either the motorist pays the reduced fee of £50.00 or a full charge of £100.
Our motorists noticed that the machine from which he purchased his pay and display tickets, was displaying contradictory information to this. It had not been updated with the new charges and stated that the reduced fee is £40.00 and the full fee is £80.00
Dear London Borough of Westminster ,
I believe the PCN has been issued to me in error. I have enclosed a picture of the meter from which I purchased the tickets. As you can see it is displaying conflicting information with that of the PCN.
I would like to make some suggestions, to enable the City of Westminster to be more efficient and prevent this sort of thing from happening again:

<LI class=style11>Re-train the majority of your wardens <LI class=style11>Update the information on parking meters
Stop offering incentives to wardens to issue more tickets

Please cancel the PCN.
29 days later, Westminster sent the following reply:
Dear sir,
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
When the Parking Attendant (PA) first saw the vehicle at this bay, a note was made of the P/D ticket which was displayed and of the vehicle's TYRE-VALVE POSITIONS.
When the PA subsequently returned to the bay, the vehicle was still parked there and the tyre-valve positions had not changed. However there was another P/D ticket displayed.
When the vehicle was first logged at 13:20, it was displaying P/D ticket no. 7113805 with an expiry time of 13:29. At 13:40, it was then displaying P/D ticket no.7113810, with an expiry time of 15:32. From this, the issuing Attendant was able to conclude that another ticket had been purchased to extend the stay.
The “condition of use” for the P/D bay are clearly stated on the instruction plates attached to the ticket machine.
It is the driver's responsibility to always check the conditions of use for any bay, in which they intend to park, to ensure that they have parked in accordance with the restrictions in force.
Yours other suggestion have been duly noted as the City Council is constantly striving to make the City of Westminster as friendly to motorist as is practically possible.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options: Payment at discounted rate of £50.00 etc etc…
Four weeks later our motorist then received a Notice to Owner. He basically re-iterated what he had said earlier, he ticked the boxes 5, 6 and 7 on the Notice to Owner, i.e. “The contravention did not occur”, “The penalty exceed the relevant amount” and “The traffic order was invalid”.
Another four weeks later Westminster sent the following Notice of Rejection (the letter is exactly the same as their previous one):
Dear Sir,
NOTICE OF REJECTION
Thank you for your Representation you made on receiving a Notice to owner about the PCN.
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
When the Parking Attendant (PA) first saw the vehicle at this bay, a note was made of the P/D ticket which was displayed and of the vehicle's TYRE-VALVE POSITIONS.
When the PA subsequently returned to the bay, the vehicle was still parked there and the tyre-valve positions had not changed. However there was another P/D ticket displayed.
When the vehicle was first logged at 13:20, it was displaying P/D ticket no. 7113805 with an expiry time of 13:29. At 13:40, it was then displaying P/D ticket no.7113810, with an expiry time of 15:32. From this, the issuing Attendant was able to conclude that another ticket had been purchased to extend the stay.
Consideration has been given to the points that you have raised about the issue of the PCN, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
Eleven days after the above letter was received, a Notice of Appeal application arrived, from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS).
Our motorist completed the form, appealing on the same grounds, i.e “ The contravention did not occur”, “The penalty exceed the relevant amount” and “The traffic order was invalid”.
He also requested a personal hearing and added the following comments to strengthen his appeal:
If the City of Westminster is to enforce decriminalised parking, then surely it must have all the relevant signage, information and procedures in place and up to date? Otherwise the whole system becomes a miss-match and a shambles . By Westminster's own admission in their letters “ The condition of use, for the P/D bay are clearly stated on the instruction plates attached to the ticket machine”, the information displayed on the ticket machine is paramount to using the P/D bay. So why is it, that Westminster fail to acknowledge the machine is displaying incorrect information? To use the Councils own words “If the Council had not followed the correct procedure for passing the traffic order, the traffic order is invalid”. The Councils regulations are legally defective.
PTAS then wrote to our motorist informing him that his personal hearing would take place in six weeks time.
The day before the hearing with the adjudicators our motorist received the following letter from the City of Westminster:
Dear Sir,
The City of Westminster has decided not to contest your appeal against the PCN.
(Here we go again)
The PCN was issued at 13:42 because the vehicle was parked (in street name) {sic} in a pay and display (P/D) bay where an additional ticket had been purchased to extend the stay beyond the initial time.
The conditions of use plates attached to every P/D machine state: 1. A ticket must be purchased only at time of parking and 2. You are liable for a penalty charge and your vehicle may be clamped or removed if you purchase a subsequent ticket (meter feeding).
Whilst I note your comments, I must advise you that the PCN was not issued because you had made an overpayment for the P/D ticket expiring at 15:32. The PCN was issued because your vehicle was displaying an additional ticket which extended your vehicle's stay beyond the initial time. Whilst you have made an overpayment of 40 pence, I am unable to authorise a refund of this amount as it is your responsibility as the motorist to pay the correct and relevant tariff. I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.
I note that the photograph you have enclosed shows that the P/D machine indicates that the PCN charge is £80.00. This information displayed on the machine is incorrect and the parking operations section have informed the contractor, Automatic Parking and Traffic control Systems (APT), to rectify the matter. The machine should indicate that the PCN charge is £100. in light of this technical error, I am sure you will be pleased to know that the PCN has been cancelled on this occasion only and you are no longer liable for the charge.
Total time from the initial issuing of the ticket to cancellation FIVE MONTHS!

CASE 5 - London Borough of Camden

Scenario: Our motorist parked on a road which had no road markings and certainly no yellow lines. He never received a ticket (PCN), but rather strangely, a Notice To Owner turned up two months after the "alleged offence" demanding that he pay £100.00 within 28 days. The offence was code 6 "parked without clearly displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket or permit"!! He has already received a Code 1 on another occasion for the exact same parking space (see case 1)

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed the Notice to Owner.

May I say at this point, that this is the first indication I have ever received, with regards to this PCN.

Your information alleges that a PCN was given on the 4th June, it was not, I was never given a PCN, nor was there one affixed to my vehicle.

I therefore require you to send me a copy of the PCN and in the meantime, I have ticked points B (the contravention did not occur) and D (the traffic order was not valid) on the Notice to Owner.

8 Weeks later he received the following reply:
Dear Sir
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
Thank you for your representations. This Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket or voucher.
You have recently written to us with representations in this matter. In your representations you have stated that you never received this penalty charge notice at its first issue.
I have investigated the case and referred to the Parking Attendants notes made at the time the Notice was issued. You have stated that no PCN was issued. I have noted some anomalies in the observations made by the attendant and therefore I cannot be certain that the PCN was issued to the vehicle correctly. On this occasion I have decided to accept your representations in this matter and withdraw the PCN.
No further action is required and I hope this brings the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Well, actually no. Their letter makes no mention of there not being a yellow line and the same motorist has received several tickets, parked in the same spot, with a variety of penalty charge codes issued to him. What is really annoying is that yet again, the motorist has to spend time and effort appealing against a PCN, which was clearly issued illegally, and no action is taken against the Parking Attendants.
Our motorist put these points to the London Borough of Camden in the following letter:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter and cancellation of the PCN.
I actually require a little bit more than the mere cancellation of the PCN. I would appreciate it if the Parking Attendant in question, was either disciplined and/or re-trained. I was actually parked where there were no road markings or yellow lines. I have already received a completely different penalty charge from another one of your Attendants, in exactly the same parking place! One alleges that I was "parked without clearly displaying a Pay & Display ticket", whilst the other alleges that I was parked in "a restricted street during prescribed hours"!! Which is it to be? Both have been cancelled by your borough in due course. I find it really inconvenient to have to go through this whole process, to have these charges cancelled. The fact that two different wardens, on different dates have both ignored the fact that the vehicle is parked legally, as there were no yellow lines or any other road markings, leads me to believe that some of your wardens are issuing tickets to anyone and everyone, regardless of whether an offence is or isn't being committed. It is a scandal and you must take the appropriate action against these unscrupulous Attendants.
I am also seeking compensation for the inconvenience you have caused me. I will await your offer.
Our motorist is still waiting for a reply!

Case 6 – London Borough of Westminster

Scenario – Our motorist was parked at a parking meter with the time showing + 24 minutes, when he returned to his car. He noticed a Parking Attendant writing out what appeared to be a ticket for him! When he asked the Parking Attendant what he was doing, he just ignored him. Our motorist then took a picture of the meter and one of the Attendant, writing out the ticket, just for good measure. Normally our motorist would drive off at this point, as the ticket would be invalid, as it could not be affixed to the vehicle nor handed to him, but he waited for the ticket to be served, as he would relish the chance of proving that yet again Westminster Attendants issue tickets illegally.
The Attendant affixed the ticket to the windscreen. The attendant had written ticket was incomplete, there was no penalty code stated (he had written a zero?). The attendant had and the times “At” and “To” were incomplete. So, all in all, a bit of a mess from our friendly attendant!
Our motorist sent the following letter:
Dear Westminster,
Would you please let me know what the enclosed PCN has actually been issued for?
I noticed the times of the contravention has been left blank. Am I supposed to complete these myself?
Do you think this is part of the alleged incentive that your attendants are encouraged to issue tickets for prizes?
I would appreciate a reply within 14 days.
Five weeks later, we still had not received a reply, therefore we wrote again, requesting a response of some sort.
One week later we received the following reply:
Dear sir,
Thank you for your letter about the PCN.
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay when penalty time was indicated. The parking meter was showing penalty time 00.23.
NCP the city council's contractor responsible for on-street enforcement has improved its recruitment and retention package for parking attendants. The company now pays a bonus for experienced Parking Attendants who achieve good time keeping, full attendance, good quality PCN and a smart appearance. Enforcement is closely monitored to ensure that parking attendants enforce against contraventions whenever they occur and that consequently, motorists are encouraged to comply with regulations.
Consideration has been given to the points you have raised, but I am unable to cancel the PCN for the reasons given.
You now have two options:
Option 1 – Payment at discounted rate. Please now make a payment of £50.00, this will increase to £100.00 after 14 days of the date of this letter etc etc…
Option 2 – Make a Formal Representation. If you do not pay within 14 days the full charge of £100.00 will be due and a Notice To Owner will be sent to the registered keeper etc etc…
Our motorist therefore waited for the Notice To Owner, which arrived one month later
Our motorist sent back the Notice To Owner. He ticked the following boxes
Box 5 . The contravention did not occur.
Box 7 . The traffic order was invalid
Six days later a rather odd letter arrived from Westminster
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter about the PCN. The charge has been put on hold while we investigate your comments, however do not ignore any letters or notices regarding this or any other parking ticket. We will contact you once our investigations are complete.
Five weeks later, our motorist received the following Notice of Rejection:
Dear sir,
Thank you for your representation you made. The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a meter bay 002248 in Manchester St when penalty time was indicated of 23 minutes.
Upon checking the Parking Attendant's logbook, it was noticed that the vehicle was observed parked as above described. The PA also recorded the details of the tax disc and that the PCN was placed on the vehicle.
Please note that there is a high demand for metered parking space in the City of Westminster . If a meter display shows penalty time (time prefixed by “P”), a PCN may be started. There is no grace period.
While this may seem harsh, we need to take this course of action, to ease traffic congestion and to discourage illegal parking.
My investigation is now complete and although I have given full consideration to the circumstances, these do not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.
Your representation has been rejected and you must either pay the PCN of £100.00 or appeal to the Parking Adjudicator. Complete the enclosed appeal form and send it to PTAS.
Please note that if the adjudicator refuses your appeal, you will be required to pay the £100.00
If you do nothing a Charge certificate will be sent increasing the charge to £150.00. Non-payment at this stage will result in the debt being registered at County Court and the Council may apply for a warrant in order to recover the debt.
Pretty serious stuff…. The punishment hardly fits the crime. Yet no “crime” was committed in this case. So, our motorist requested a personal hearing with the Adjudicator, stating on the appeal forms that, “the contravention did not occur” and “the relevant order was invalid”. He also added the following:
Dear Parking Adjudicator,
I have spent a lot of time “appealing” against this PCN, when in fact the PCN is completely invalid. The PCN isn't even fully completed. The Parking Attendant believed the meter was in penalty time, when in fact it was in credit of +24 minutes. He was very surprised to see me when I approached him, whilst he was writing the ticket.
It has now been some 3 months and I am still embroiled in this process. If common sense, common decency and the letter of the law are allowed, then this PCN should be cancelled.
May I apply for compensation at this stage?
The Parking Adjudicator acknowledged the appeal and set a hearing for two months later.
One week before the hearing out motorist received the following letter from the City of Westminster:
Dear Sir,
The City of Westminster has decided not to contest your appeal against the PCN. The PCN has been cancelled and you are no longer liable for payment of the charge. May I apologise for any inconvenience caused. (You may!)
Our motorist has since written to the Parking Adjudicator seeking compensation. We will let you know in due course the outcome of this claim.
Total time taken from the issuing of the ticket to cancellation, 5 months!!!

bribri · 20th October 2006, 13:20

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. Those from Husbandkhan are illuminating and certainly illustrate the need to persevere. I will try and check the penalty charge costs on the meter compared to the contravention notice, although the contravention isn't about the actually ticket but the parking of the car.

I have sent it to Parking Tribunal on the grounds that I wasn't given all the information necessary to appeal to the council at the £50 stage. i.e the parking ticket stated the street but not the house number even though the PA's notes show the house number that the car was parked outside.

I may resort to measuring the yellow lines but a) they look OK and b) that wasn't the contravention.

I will delve into the other posts which detial yellow line measurements but I know in Hampstead in London there are some very narrow double yellow lines perhaps 5cm width. Can they really be valid?

patdavies · 21st October 2006, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by bribri

I may resort to measuring the yellow lines but a) they look OK and b) that wasn't the contravention.

I will delve into the other posts which detial yellow line measurements but I know in Hampstead in London there are some very narrow double yellow lines perhaps 5cm width. Can they really be valid?

Don't forget to examine and photograph the line markings for the bay - these are equally prescribed in the TSRDG

21st October 2006, 12:41

currently as i see it. the law to limp on pcn's as its your word against a perking attendant. even if s/he is wrong you will still have to go down every channel available to you. i think that pcns should be dealt through the court and every pcn should have hearing like previously you had the police to deal with. all local auths are doing is coining in on the mere fact that more than 75% of all tickets go unchallenged. also people should be made aware of what theire rights are etc. not just the directions you recieve with the pcns. also the wording should not be as it is it is both intimidating and scaring. did you know that after a pcn is issued it can take the local authority upto 5 months to involve abailiff and that is if you do not communicate with them if you communicate this process go on and on and on without the fine going up from £60 0r £100 in some cases. i think upto now the congestion charging people are the fastest. usually approx 7 weeks before bailiffs come in.

bribri · 20th December 2006, 21:38

I took a written appeal to PTAS after a PCN for parking ouside bay markings.
I appealed on the grounds that the PCN did not state a precise location of offence i.e. it recorded a street but not house number.
I argued that at the informal appeal stage I was disadvantaged in checking the facts as it was not possible to identify the bay concerned as there are a range of different bays with different restrictions in the street.
The RTA 1991 does not comment on this matter but it is suggested as good practice by the DoT guidelines.

The adjudicator stated. "...I think it is highly desirable that house number /meter etc is noted in the PCN...In other respects the PCN was unimpeachable."

Appeal refused.

I hope this helps others.

Rob S · 21st December 2006, 09:40

Is there any further avenue of appeal against a PATAS decision? It seems very unsatisfactory that you were unable to check to see that the bay measurements complied with those laid down in law because the location given by the PA was vague.

bribri · 21st December 2006, 10:26

I was given the bay location following an appeal at the Notice to Owner i.e. at the £100 stage rather than the 'reduced' £50 point.

Subsequently I had another ticket for a different bay in the same street and appealed on the same point to the council at the £50 stage and they did give me the bay number.

bribri · 10th January 2007, 23:15

I have trawled through this site and the case law but cannot find an answer to these questions.

On a PCN does there have to be a contravention code number if the description is included? -

This whole business with date of contravention and date of issue. Does it have to use the words "date of contravention"?

The ticket I have has a "Date of Notice" and then it just details that the car was seen in a particular road at a particular date and time.

Thank you

bribri · 15th January 2007, 20:12

The ticket is from Brent council. I have just read their website and they do not allow informal appeals. Obviously that is what the law allows, but can it be right as it forces someone to gamble the full amount of the ticket?

patdavies · 15th January 2007, 23:33

It must have two separate dates on the PCN.

One will be date of notice or date of issue

The other date seen or date of contravention.

If there are not two dates on the PCN, then it is void ab initio and unenforceable. The High Court ruling by His Honour Judge Jackson sets absolute precedent, both on the Council and PATAS

bribri · 19th January 2007, 11:28

There are two dates.

There is a contravention description but no code number. I think code numbers are purely administrative for the Local Authorities. Whereas the RTA 1991 says that there must be a description.

The Department of Transport Guidelines recommend a code but I have lost a previous case at PATAS whilst using DoT guidelines as defence and I don't think this would work unless someone knows an example of a positive appeal relating to the absence of contravention codes.

bribri · 7th February 2008, 11:08

My car is often parked in a private car park. The security of the car park is given to these people VCS Parking Control - www.wheelclamping.net (who have been mentioned on other threads and are the Highgate London ones not Sheffield).

In this car park there are mostly white demarcated spaces in the main part. An area against a back wall with no markings and five spaces with red lines attached to one building. I am visiting that building and can park in the red spaces although there are no signs to say that.

The signage relating to the car park states:

Warning: This are is constantly monitored. Unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles will be clamped and/or towed away.
Clamp release fee £125 +£20/day
Car pound release £235 + £35/day
Fixed penalty charge £85

Permits must be displayed at all times.
All charges are subject to VAT
(all parking at your own risk)
Enquiries 0208******** [so there is a number]
Surcharge for credit card payments
V C S PArking Services VCS Parking Control - www.wheelclamping.net

I am not disputing there are signs - and let's assume that if I were to get a ticket then I have seen them.

My questions are:
1) Given that I am allowed to park in the red spaces without a permit but there are no other other demarcations, is it clear enough that I can't park in other spaces or non-marked area.
2) If I have a blue badge, SIA rules are you cannot tow, but what can I do if this happens. Not complain afterwards but immediately
3) can they actually do anything.

Thankyou

Zamzara · 7th February 2008, 11:54

I think it depends on how close together the two areas are and whether the signs are clearly visible from where you are parked. Are the two places part of the same car park, or two separate areas?

Also, are you authorised to park there. If so, they cannot clamp you, as the signs only allow unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles to be clamped. Although the signs say permits must be displayed, this is not given as a basis for clamping if you are otherwise authorised.

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and ensure this site will remain free to use!

Small Claims Kit--	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	Consumer Action Group envelope labels	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki