Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I received a NTO.
This was the first I was aware of an alleged pcn as there was no PCN on the car on the day.
I sent a Representation to the LA stating this.
The Notice of Rejection letter included 4 photographs showing a plastic bag/envelope on the windscreen (but the contents could not be seen).
Three of the 4 photos show the envelope raised by the wind.
Presumably it blew away shortly after the PA departed.
The Notice of Rejection letter includes the sentance "The enclosed photographs taken at the time of the contravention will clearly show that the notice was placed on the vehicle."
This gives rise to 3 points
1. "placed on the vehicle"? I thought PCN had to be affixed to the car. Can someone please guide me to the specific regulation on this.
2. If it should have been affixed, is their letter stating it was 'placed' conclusive for getting this cancelled by the Adjudicator.
3. The photos only show a plastic bag with some printing on it. Is this acceptable independant (of the PA) proof there was a PCN within?
To get the pcn cancelled you will have to convince the adjudicator it was not served. He will take into account the photos, the PAs notes, the fact that a PCN was issued, the PAs beat and movements that day from his pocket book and then consider the balance of probabilities. If your entire defence against the PCN is based on what you have posted I doubt you will win unfortunatly.
as the photos show the pcn not being affixed (it is blowing around) why should the adjudicator not believe the OP.
If the PA's notes say the it was affixed then the photos show the notebook is
not accurate.
Because the pcn has obviously been served if it is on the vehicle, there is no requirement for it not to be blown away after.
whaaat !! the pics show the ticket was not affixed.
by your logic they could be left placed on the roof or the bumper.
With pics that show the ticket was not affixed I would take it to the adjudicator. CEOs/PAs know the tickets are meant to be stuck on and you have evidence it wasn't. As you are not fighting the ticket all you are doing is getting the clock reset to the discount period.
G&Ms post come down heavily on the "pay up" side.
Although G&M does appear to know the regs very well he has not quoted them on this subject.
What was the ticket issued under ? TMA ? RTRA ?
As you in fact did not get the PCN (and sometimes even the stuck on ones get stolen by 'persons unknown') then fight on.
Unless the pcn was being held to the windscreen by the CEO and photographed at the same time which is unlikely how was it defying the laws of gravity if not 'fixed'? It is also doubtful that the evidence is video so how a still photo can show an envelope 'blowing' in the wind is hard to understand? But if you feel a photo can show the lack of an object being 'fixed' to a car but simply resting on it, then appealing is the way to go but considering you never even saw the PCN or how it was fixed I was simply trying to be realistic.
The pcn needs to be affixed to the windscreen or handed to the driver.
placing them under the wiper blade is a no no.
sticky strips.
but as you are still not quoting regs we will wait until the OP tells us what regs the ticket was issued under - hopefully what council as well please Tony.
he needs to get this reset. lets get on the case.
The pcn needs to be served 'by fixing it to the vehicle' no mention of sticky strips, glue or anything else or not using the wipers in either legislation.
I have an appeal with PATAS that has not had a ruling yet that has this very issue as part of the appeal. (I suspect that the appeal will be won on another issue and the decision will be silent on this point!)
There is with some LAs an explicit instruction on the envelope to the PA (as was) to use the sticky strips if required to "fix" to the vehicle and it was not followed by the PA.
I know of no case that has revolved around an interpretation of what "fixed" means.
You will be at the mercy of the adjudicator's willingness to engage on this and their view if this is what the case revolves around unless and until someone goes to JR on the point.
Personal hearing for this and detailed research is an absolute must.
Personal hearing for this and detailed research is an absolute must.
Personal Hearing I will do - having lost any discount by not knowing of the pcn, I have nothing further to loose.
I, too, have another point to my Appeal. My query here was seeking the Regulation reference about 'affixing' as the Notice of Rejection states the PCN was 'placed' on the car.
That to my mind is different to 'affixed' and therefore the LA is admitting it was outside the Regulation.
Or am I being too nit-picking - much as PA/LAs activities often are?
PATAS cocked up my request for changed date and allowed a hearing in my absence, which went against me. I complained about my ignored request (which was undoubetdly received as it was in the LA bundle!) and at a Review the Adjudicator agreed to a re-hearing/Personal Hearing.
The photos provided by the LA (London Borough of Hillingdon) showed a pcn on the windscreen, but some showed it doubled over (in the wind?).
The Adjudicator ruled (on this point) in my favour and allowed the Appeal
His Reasons included "Although I am satisfied ... the PCN was placed on the vehicle I am not satisfied ... that the parking attendant was sufficiently diligent in ensuring that it had been 'fixed' to it given that part of it appears to be flapping in the wind. ... I infer that it fell from the vehicle as a result of it not having been fixed to it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamma
but there is much about not using the wipers in cases (plus other laws).
councils duty to serve the ticket plus NOT to use the wipers means they have to have sticky strips.
I'm in a similar position with a pcn that was wiper attached and I side with the thinking that it's not procedurally proper - they've made it adhesive for precisely these reasons!
Iamma, you mentioned cases with not using wipers, and other laws - can you refer me to anything specific?
PCN. Placed not affixed?
as there was no PCN on the car on the day.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by green_and_mean
Profitez -en!