WOW Michael, Thank you for your time and experience/knowledge.. Just perfect. More than 'the doctor ordered'... I will draft the challenge tonight, I will keep you informed on this post, if it is allowed to stay open. For you to see the results. Kindest regards. Steve. (and son)...

Dear Michael, Thank you, that is so helpful. We have documentary evidence of the tow/repair. My son has a valid reasons for time, as he tried one garage and they were too busy, the other was also busy but did help when they were free. Also a marriage break up scenario. Which he could offer if needs be as mitigation, as he is under duress. That may "hold no water".. I know. It is the following that I realize is the important :- Regarding the 'standard exemption..' Is there any statute that this appears in that we could quote? Or even a 'code of conduct' or good practice enforcers guide.? Would be great if we could refer to anything in their statutes/guidance, especially also in relation to details regarding 'continuous contravention '... I have no idea where to search for that, but what a letter we could put forward backed by your knowledge. He obviously does not dispute the payment of one ticket. One final query please. The notice in the windscreen that he left, would the enforcing officer have been obliged to take photographs of that, in his remit. ? You are a true gentleman. Many Thanks Steve.

Hi all, Looking for some guidance regarding 5 legitimate?? (unsure) PCN s on a broken down vehicle. Scenario. My sons car broke down away from his home. He has a valid residents paid on street parking permit for his home. but could not arrange a tow . He tried one garage.... but no availability, until finally contacting an available garage 5 days later which was then free to tow and repair it . He put a note in the vehicle windscreen to advise of breakdown. He received 5 PCN's over nine days. Could anyone guide on a suitable challenge? Please. Also on legality of number of PCN's issued. Many thanks . email me if allowed. Cheers Steve.

Hi Buzby, Thanks for replying so quick. I am conserned mainly by these. 3) The dates of all PCN's issued for the above period. The PCNs were issued in August and September 2010 following new regulated signage being put in place as requested by local residents. These were issued and not pursued but in their other reply they say they have had no challenges and none waivered, which is incorrect. I appreciate your point of leaving well alone if they havent pursued the culprits.! But this makes the request a false statement of facts. Also concerned about... 2) The date that Cottey Meadow was first regulated in a Traffic order and also a copy of this first traffic order regulation and subsequent ammendments. Cottey Meadow was first put in the Order in 1998 following the adoption of a small area of land including the 6 bays after the Sheltered Housing was completed. We would like a copy of the first traffic order to enable us to prove that the land was used freely since 1998 to 2010. They only marked out the spaces and put signs up this year. Our whole point is that there has never been a problem there before, why are they suddenly causing us misery. Would like to see the first traffic order as I dont believe it exists. The spaces without signs were only marked in 2006 without signs. Prior to that it was blank tarmack. The answer to that I suppose is :- 3) The dates of all PCN's issued for the above period. The PCNs were issued in August and September 2010 following new regulated signage being put in place as requested by local residents. But we know of no resident request. Would they divulge the name of the resident if asked? Also :- 1) The total number of PCN's ( Penalty Charge Notices), issued for the 6 spaces at Cottey Meadow car Park. For the period since the car park was first regulated in a Traffic regulation order to the present date. Since May 2008 when we took on Civil Parking Enforcement 4 PCN's have been issued. We are unable to provide any further details of Excess Charges which were issued in this location prior to this date as the records are not available to access. They are implying that the records are not available as it was the police responsibility but surely they can get that information? And lastly,:- Copies of all minutes of meetings of Teignbridge and meetings between Teignbridge District Council and Kingsteignton Parish Council (as it was then). At which the item of Cottey Meadow car parking was a subject of discussion (including sub-comittees). Town Council meeting minutes are held by the appropriate Town Council and you should contact them for this information. The land belonged to the developer but they gave it over to the council for public use, which was minuted in the planning applications at the time and parish council minutes. But mysteriously the minutes and plans went missing concerning the discussion between teignbridge and local council. There are no public records we can find for that change of use from public to legislated use. That is why I asked for their minutes, which would have been important in exposing some Malfeascance at the time of the development. Also we have put in a petition to the district council to have on street permit parking in Sandpath Road at charges of only £20 per year, instead of the £364 they want for one space that you can only have guaranteed use of between the hours of 7 am to 7pm. And they have used these parking spaces as an excuse to resist the on street permits. See copy letter below.:- [ATTACH=CONFIG]22411[/ATTACH] Thanks a million Cheers Chip.

Hi all, I have had a reply to my freedom of information request in my last post. It was late and also it is a total farce. They have not answered all my questions and they have been very vague on others. I don't know whether to just go into the complaints procedure or write back first pointing out their omissions. Would you please advise on the best course of action. I have posted the reply below. ( not sure if i am allowed ?) sorry moderators. Also I have not even received any acknowledgement to my PCN challenge 2 months ago now. Do they have a statutory duty or is it a case of no news is good news?? FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – REQUEST 901 I am writing in respect of your recent application for the release of information held by this authority and apologise for the delay in responding to you. The response is detailed below and will be published on the Teignbridge District Council web site with your personal data removed. I hope you will find this area the web interesting, as it also provides information of previously supplied information. Here is the link: www.teignbridge.gov.uk/disclosurelog. 1) The total number of PCN's ( Penalty Charge Notices), issued for the 6 spaces at Cottey Meadow car Park. For the period since the car park was first regulated in a Traffic regulation order to the present date. Since May 2008 when we took on Civil Parking Enforcement 4 PCN's have been issued. We are unable to provide any further details of Excess Charges which were issued in this location prior to this date as the records are not available to access. 2) The date that Cottey Meadow was first regulated in a Traffic order and also a copy of this first traffic order regulation and subsequent ammendments. Cottey Meadow was first put in the Order in 1998 following the adoption of a small area of land including the 6 bays after the Sheltered Housing was completed. 3) The dates of all PCN's issued for the above period. The PCNs were issued in August and September 2010 following new regulated signage being put in place as requested by local residents. 4) The number of PCN's successfully challenged over this period. None challenged 5) The number of PCN's waivered over this period. None waived 6) Copies of Public notices posted or published prior to decision made to include Cottey Meadow in such order. The most recent Parking Places Order (2010) is on the Parking Services website, including the schedule of all locations. Any previous notices would be superseded by the most recent notice put in the paper in April 2010 and in all car parks to coincide with this. 7) The date the land for the car Park was adopted by Teignbridge District Council and the subsequent date it was decided to use the land for conversion into car parking, regulated or otherwise. See 2 above 8) Copies of all minutes of meetings of Teignbridge and meetings between Teignbridge District Council and Kingsteignton Parish Council (as it was then). At which the item of Cottey Meadow car parking was a subject of discussion (including sub-comittees). Town Council meeting minutes are held by the appropriate Town Council and you should contact them for this information. If you disagree with our decision or are otherwise unhappy with how we have dealt with your request, you may use the Council’s Complaints Procedure by writing to the Council for a review of the decision. The review will be undertaken by the appropriate Service Lead, who will provide you with a written explanation of the outcome. If you are not satisfied with the outcome provided by the Service Lead you may ask for the matter to be referred to our Chief Executive. If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint once the Council’s complaints procedure has been followed, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner (ICO). Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Council. The Information Commissioner can be contacted for a copy of their complaint form at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, www.ico.gov.uk or by telephone 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45. Yours sincerely KMason Karen Mason Freedom of Information Officer Any help as always greatly appreciated... Cheers Chipbutty

Hi buzby, Thanks for the reply. I sent an email direct, sorry, I never read the the WDTK fully. I received the standard letter today, i.e about 20 days for reply etc. Set out below is my request, I hope you will be able to see their response when I get one, but failing that I will post here anyway. Here is what I requested:- Freedom of Information Officer Teignbridge District Council Forde House Brunel Road Newton Abbot Devon TQ12 4XX United Kingdom RE:- Cottey Meadow Car Park. Kingsteignton. Dear Karen Mason Democratic Services/FOI Officer, Please would you provide the following information requested under the freedom of Information Act in relation to Cottey Meadow Car Park, Kingsteignton, Newton Abbot. 1). The total number of PCN's ( Penalty Charge Notices) , issued for the 6 spaces at Cottey Meadow car Park. For the period since the car park was first regulated in a Traffic regulation order to the present date. 2). The date that Cottey Meadow was first regulated in a Traffic order and also a copy of this first traffic order regulation and subsequent ammendments. 3). The dates of all PCN's issued for the above period. 4). The number of PCN's successfully challenged over this period. 5). The number of PCN's waivered over this period. 6). Copies of Public notices posted or published prior to decision made to include Cottey Meadow in such order. 7). The date the land for the car Park was adopted by Teignbridge District Council and the subsequent date it was decided to use the land for conversion into car parking, regulated or otherwise. 8). Copies of all minutes of meetings of Teignbridge and meetings between Teignbridge District Council and Kingsteignton Parish Council, (as it was then). At which the item of Cottey Meadow car parking was a subject of discussion. (including sub-comittees). The majority of the figures should be readily available from annual statistics or computer records already presented to committees for discussion . Many thanks for any assistance you can give Yours Faithfully, None of the people who got a (legal) PCN and who all challenged have had any reply yet. I can't find any reference to any statutory time limits for them to decide to waiver or even reply? I feel they should have duty to acknowledge as I sent mine recorded delivery. !6 tickets issued from private firm and all ignored and stuck back on their parking sign, which some irreverent person has sprayed over .... We've had lots of police visits and we are now about to officially lodge complaint about harrassment. Will keep you posted . Thanks to you all again for all your support. Cheers

Hi all you helpers, I sent the council my FOI request by email. Not yet received a reply as Officer not back till today. So I sent it again. Do I need to send it through the WDTK site, or once they reply will it aoutomatically be viewable there.? Cheers the chip.

P.S. Sorry for late reply, I am having a break. I am broadcasting from a field in Herefordshire.. Technology, eh. don't you just love it? Even though I'm old, I confess I love this world web power.!!!!

Hi to you both, Bzby....They refsed over the phone and I was told to fill in the form from their website see :-http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15049&p=0 I have downloaded this and been wondering exactly how to word the request. I note from your posting , the "What do they know site" and have just looked and marvelled at the info there. I now know exactly what to do. Many thanks for that great info. Hi dogs,,, I have not yet received any cofirmed receipt, I sent my letter recorded delivery. I will post as soon as anthing arrives. Our local neighbour group have contacted local media and they are very interested so they are contacting all parties. We all had a letter from Guinness trust telling us they are now going to clamp all vehicles without warning or other tickets. No one has paid any private ticket. Cheers the chip

Hi to dogs and buzby and all, Just an update. We have not had an answer from the council about our challenges. I have requested info from council under freedom of info act, about the number of PCN's issued in last ten years for this small car park. They would not volunteer info when asked . We as a group of neighbours have got together and are complaining officially to district and local council. At least we will get on the agenda at next council meetings. Got the local press involved and are also considering direct action. Watch this space.. Thanks again. The chip

Hi again, Just thought I would let you know what one of the other PCN recipients have submitted and ask for your perusal.. "I have parked in Cottey Meadow for the last 15 years and only recently have there suddenly been spaces marked and misleading signs displayed about parking. I believe that I have established a legal "prescriptive easement" by parking unchallenged over such a long period of time. I do not feel that I have "deprived the owner of the burdened land of the benefits" of ownership as nobody currently has bought a permit for the spaces. (Moncrieff v Jamieson) Why you feel it necessary to spend your time and resources to ensure that nobody parks in an empty parking space that nobody has a permit for I cannot understand. In any case even if I could afford to buy a permit I understand that you could not guarantee my space would be free in the evening." It is all quite true , I have yet to look up the case law refferal. Cheers The chip.

Hi, Thanks I have included the BB in the letter, yes I am the BB person, sorry I did not clear that up I was trying not to personalise. The 3 others are non bb holders, Can I stress that all residents have used these spaces for 12 years without any hassle at all. in the most recent Global TRO for off road 2010 it says :-PART III EXEMPTION 27. The driver of a vehicle which displays in the relevant position a Disabled Persons Car Parking Permit shall be exempt from any limitation of time specified in Article 3 and from any payment specified in Articles 4 and 5 of this Order - 28. For the purpose of this Order a vehicle shall be regarded as displaying a disabled persons badge or Disabled Persons Car Parking Permit in the relevant position when – (i) in the case of a vehicle fitted with a front windscreen the badge is exhibited thereon with the observe side facing forwards on the nearside of and immediately behind the windscreen and (ii) in the case of a vehicle not fitted with a front windscreen the badge is exhibited in a conspicuous position on the front or nearside of the vehicle. GIVEN under the Common Seal of Teignbridge District Council this 12th day of March 2010 For off street parking TRO. I have put in the letter this as the penultimate section. Hope it's ok. I would also ask you, in my submission to you, to consider the following facts in mitigation. On the day of the PCN issue I had erroneously not displayed my Blue Badge, this was an oversight on my part. I had just simply forgotten. I was the only car on your property as all other spaces in Cottey Meadow were being used. I would have hoped that with a little foresight your CEO, in taking down such details from my tax disc, would have noticed that the tax disc dispayed clearly it was for a disabled person. And may have adopted a more considered approach as per :- ”Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”; 6.17 However, the enforcement authority may wish to set out certain situations when a CEO should not issue a PCN. For example, an enforcement authority may wish to consider issuing a verbal warning rather than a PCN to a driver who has committed a minor contravention and is still with, or returns to, the vehicle before a PCN has been served. The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training for CEOs on how to exercise such authority. These policies should form the basis for staff training and should be published. It may be, that in his observational time frame as reported on the PCN issued :- Observed from : 10.56 to 10:57 He may feel he had fulfilled his duty in all respects. I do not feel that was so. I include in my mitigation request, a copy of the proof of disability, a copy also of the signage which states that :- “Failure to comply may result in a penalty charge being issued” and a copy of the paragraph taken from the ”Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”; which I also ask you to consider:- •Discretion 6.16 The Secretary of State considers that the exercise of discretion should, in the main, rest with back office staff as part of considering challenges against PCNs and representations against a Notice to Owner – NtOs. This is to protect CEOs from allegations of inconsistency, favouritism or suspicion of bribery. It also gives greater consistency in the enforcement of traffic regulations.

Cool, will do. I see your point. It's a flimsy thing to throw in later as an encore after such a special show. Get all up front. Cheers. One for the moderators.. Fan ... tastic. sent a donation and very grateful to do so...

Hi, I have re-considered and will use the lovely letter and save the BB if needed. This way I will get a measure of their wants in respect of what definitely has been an attack on the local residents who have used those spaces for twelve years without hinderence. It is only because a local councillor has moved recently into the accommodation on the private site that this has started to happen ... say no more. So I will go ahead. Will keep you posted. MASSIVE Respect.

Hi, OK , for my own clarity . Do I try the blue badge approach on it's own first. Or do I attach it at the end of your special. I really would like to use the letter and attach the BB at end, sorry for being confused. I bet you want your dinner...