No T bar at end of yellow line

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by jacktheskipper

I firmly believe British Justice can be some of the most corrupt in the world.

You're entitled to your opinion but while it is not without its faults I couldn't disagree more with you on this.

[jacktheskipper]

plenty of cases show otherwise Bernie, soft justice for the likes of Jeffrey Archer and Jonathon Aitken.

Frame ups like:
INNOCENT - Fighting miscarriages of justice

What about the Birmingham six and more recently Barry George and the Jill Dando case?

anyway getting back on topic ...........

Can anyone see problems with this pcn that I was issued with regarding my other posts?

see below image

I could do with some good advice on what to say at the hearing .... yes I am going to take to the court. I have the NTO.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[pt2537]

one thing i can note here, after recently speaking to Neil Herron on a rather similar issue is that hte PCN should not state "you are therefore required to pay" as this implies that the Driver of the vehicle is liable however it is in fact the Registered keeper who is liable for this penalty and the PCN should also from what i am told state that that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. yor notice does not state when the 28 days starts

this is what i have been told , hopefully someone a little more knowledgable in these areas will pop in and correct or confirm this

regards
paul

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[jacktheskipper]

thanks Paul,

yes I see what you mean about "you are required to pay" ,

I've looked at another site that suggested that just the one time i.e. 10:38 should have been two observation times such as from and to.

certainly I'm going to make a point of noting these down for the hearing, of course I've got to re appeal to the council first though.

[pt2537]

Hi there

a site which may be worth looking at is Home

its the site for Richard Bentley, hes an expert with signing and penalty charge expert, hhis site may contain some useful info

Regards
paul

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I thought the legislation they quote only refers to London.
Should it not say "RTA 1991 as amended" or sommat.

There's a bunch of other stuff the PCN should say that is not shown.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[jacktheskipper]

OK that's the kind of thing I need to know, the Richard Bentley site is good,

see also How to appeal parking tickets, bus lane tickets and yellow box junction tickets

Keep it coming guys.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by jacktheskipper

I could do with some good advice on what to say at the hearing .... yes I am going to take to the court. I have the NTO.

No you're not.

There is not Court jurisdiction in the de-criminalised system. That's part of what makes it so unfair

[pt2537]

and the adjudicators are paid for out of tthe proceeds of the PCNs lets not forget that point.

totally unfair system

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by patdavies

No you're not.

There is not Court jurisdiction in the de-criminalised system. That's part of what makes it so unfair

But it is a judicial process.

My experience is that the appeals process run by PATAS is entirely fair. The adjudicators have and continue to cancel tickets not for reasons appealed against but for others that they themselves spot.

The unfairness that I see is that the way the system works is in its bluntness. There is no differential in penalty between failing to buy a pay and display ticket and overstaying by a couple of minutes and the system is prepared to accept that some innocent motorists may get caught through pedantic application of the rules as the price for the need to handle the volume. That's before you get into the question of whether town centre parking enforcement is helping town centres who are already suffering from the out-of-town shopping centres (eg Bluewater) where free parking is provided.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by pt2537

and the adjudicators are paid for out of tthe proceeds of the PCNs lets not forget that point.

totally unfair system

They do not get commision its just like a tax on Councils to pay for the service, who would you expect to pay for it? If it didn't come from PCNs it would come out of Council tax which are still funds held by the Councils using the system.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

But it is a judicial process.

The unfairness that I see is that the way the system works is in its bluntness. There is no differential in penalty between failing to buy a pay and display ticket and overstaying by a couple of minutes and the system is prepared to accept that some innocent motorists may get caught through pedantic application of the rules as the price for the need to handle the volume.

The new differential Parking penalties were decided after public consultation supposedly but as you point out there are many flaws in it. The most stupid being you can park in a P&D bay on one side of the street without a buying ticket and get a £60 PCN for no ticket. But park on the other side in a permit bay displaying a £5 P&D ticket purchased in error for the other P&D side and get a £100 penalty....madness!!!

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[star27]

another idea which will work, is ,if the signs do not appear to be laid correctly, ask the relevent council to provide you with the legal documentation that says that the council does not have to comply with the road traffic act apertaining to your case. of course they cant, so they will likely fold.

you must obviosly do this before it gets to the NPAS stage.

[jacktheskipper]

what is the NPAS stage?

the signs relating to the controlled zones are OK going into to the zone but I have picture showing that the signs saying zone ends is absent one side. Is this a point I can use?

Road signs presumably also mean the lines painted on the road too.

[jacktheskipper]

Heres that picture of the sign ( lack of it) Your views advice and comments please!

[green_and_mean]

Adjudicators have previously ruled that missing CPZ signs do not automatically make a contravention unenforceable. Parked on DYL in a CPZ with missing signs or in a correctly timeplated P&D bay in a zone would not be cancelled due to a missing CPZ sign. CPZ signs are also only required if going out or into an unrestricted or different time zone for example if you was in 'city south zone' and went into 'city north zone' it would only affect permit holders if the times are the same so new cpz signs to say new zone are not needed.

[jacktheskipper]

OK thanks for that.

[Zamzara]

I see a serious logical flaw in the de minimis argument that the adjudicator put forward:

If variations in the road markings are going to be ignored as de minimis, then minor parking contraventions such as overhanging a line by 2 inches should be equally de minimis and outside the care of the law. It's essentially an argument of mitigating circumstances.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by Zamzara

I see a serious logical flaw in the de minimis argument that the adjudicator put forward:

If variations in the road markings are going to be ignored as de minimis, then minor parking contraventions such as overhanging a line by 2 inches should be equally de minimis and outside the care of the law. It's essentially an argument of mitigating circumstances.

The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, the LA can at their earlier stage.

[Zamzara]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, the LA can at their earlier stage.

I know, I didn't phrase my point very well. What I mean is that by saying that some defect or other in markings is not important enough is a judgment on mitigation, which they supposedly cannot do. It's a double standard.