Marc Gander - The Consumer Survival Handbook


A 220 page introduction to all things consumer related by our own BankFodder.

Includes energy companies, mobile phone providers, retailers, banks, insurance companies,debt collection agencies, reclaim companies, secondhand car sellers, cowboy garages, cowboy builders and all the rest who put their own profits before you.

£6.99



Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)


Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Default PCN went through lease company who paid

    A big hello to all, and before I even get to my problem, a big round of applause to all who help us average Joes.

    This is my problem, I work for a local council that lease their vehicles. The vehicle I drive (solely) was issued with a PCN on double yellow lines that were missing the 'T' bar. I have parked on these lines before as I know that without 'T' bars lines are unenforcable. I have had PCN's in the past and disputed them with success.
    However, this time no ticket was served on the vehicle, most likely due to the use of mobile CCTV vehicles. Infact, there were 2 instances of this happening, first back in January and then again in February.
    The PCN's were sent to the lease company who paid both tickets without my knowledge. It was not untill late April that I was informed of these PCN's by my employer who wanted me to reimburse them, as they had paid the lease company.
    I duely told them I would not pay them and that I would contact the council to get the PCN's revoked.
    Extract form the letter I sent;

    For an alleged parking offence to be enforceable, the road markings for restricted parking
    must comlpy with the regulations set out in the Highways Act for road signs. The yellow
    lines where this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence do NOT comply with
    these regulations. The Highways Act states that these road markings MUST be continous
    and complete. The lines in question display neither of these requirements. As shown in
    the still from the video 'evidence', these yellow lines lack the "T" bar at their end before
    the area in question becomes a coach parking bay. Also, as these lines emerge on to
    Mercury Gardens, they are broken.
    In addition, the use of video capture for alleged parking offences means there is no
    ticket placed on a vehicle for the driver to look at. As the vehicle in question is on hire,
    this leads to the situation where a ticket is wrongly paid by the vehicle owner. This is by
    no means an admission of guilt on the drivers part, merely that the driver is not aware of
    a ticket having been issued. Under these circumstances, a full refund is now expected.
    Should the need arise, as the driver of the vehicle in question, I am more than willing to
    pursue this matter through the courts to gain a full refund.
    Yours

    Not really knowing if I was accurate quoteing the Highways Act, but this is more less how I disputed the previous tickets (which were also paid by the lease company who got a refund)

    I was handed a letter form the council by my employer today, here are a few extracts;

    "Your vehicle was seen parked in Mercury Gardens service road during a period when the relevant order prohibits waiting. I am satisfied that a contravention occured and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly."

    This is the bit that really gets me;

    "If you wish to take this case further, then I can re-open the case. However, this would mean that the case will be at the original amount of 120. Due to a payment being made at 60 there will be 60 outstanding if the case was to be re-opened. If you wish to re-open the case contact us on ......."

    Can they do this. This seams very wrong to me.

    Am I stuffed by the fact that the lease company paid the ticket in the first place, even though this council has reimbursed the lease company in the past?

    And if they are satisfied that the lines in question are enforcable, why have they now bothered to add the T bars to these lines. (I realise no one can actually answer that last one, just venting my frustration)

    Anybody be able to offer any help? I have been looking through here for anything that may help me out, but time is a precious commodity in my home at the moment (young baby screaming the house down on a regular basis). Do you think it is worth pursuing this. I have my employer breathing down my neck for repayment. BTW, I have told them that they best not try to take this out of my wages without my consent. Or can they?
    I have found some very nice qoutes to use, they will also help I think with a PCN I have refered to the traffic penalty tribunal for a comlpetely different ticket with another council, also missing T bars. Why do I do this to myself I have until the 29th July to send in any more info for the adjudicator to consider.

    Sorry to prattle on for so long.
    If you think it is worth proceeding with this, I will of course let you know how it goes.
    Many thanks in advance,
    Mike


    Similar Threads:
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  2. #2

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeyr View Post
    A big hello to all, and before I even get to my problem, a big round of applause to all who help us average Joes.

    This is my problem, I work for a local council that lease their vehicles. The vehicle I drive (solely) was issued with a PCN on double yellow lines that were missing the 'T' bar. I have parked on these lines before as I know that without 'T' bars lines are unenforcable. I have had PCN's in the past and disputed them with success.
    However, this time no ticket was served on the vehicle, most likely due to the use of mobile CCTV vehicles. Infact, there were 2 instances of this happening, first back in January and then again in February.
    The PCN's were sent to the lease company who paid both tickets without my knowledge. It was not untill late April that I was informed of these PCN's by my employer who wanted me to reimburse them, as they had paid the lease company.
    I duely told them I would not pay them and that I would contact the council to get the PCN's revoked.
    Extract form the letter I sent;

    For an alleged parking offence to be enforceable, the road markings for restricted parking
    must comlpy with the regulations set out in the Highways Act for road signs. The yellow
    lines where this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence do NOT comply with
    these regulations. The Highways Act states that these road markings MUST be continous
    and complete. The lines in question display neither of these requirements. As shown in
    the still from the video 'evidence', these yellow lines lack the "T" bar at their end before
    the area in question becomes a coach parking bay. Also, as these lines emerge on to
    Mercury Gardens, they are broken.
    In addition, the use of video capture for alleged parking offences means there is no
    ticket placed on a vehicle for the driver to look at. As the vehicle in question is on hire,
    this leads to the situation where a ticket is wrongly paid by the vehicle owner. This is by
    no means an admission of guilt on the drivers part, merely that the driver is not aware of
    a ticket having been issued. Under these circumstances, a full refund is now expected.
    Should the need arise, as the driver of the vehicle in question, I am more than willing to
    pursue this matter through the courts to gain a full refund.
    Yours

    Not really knowing if I was accurate quoteing the Highways Act, but this is more less how I disputed the previous tickets (which were also paid by the lease company who got a refund)

    I was handed a letter form the council by my employer today, here are a few extracts;

    "Your vehicle was seen parked in Mercury Gardens service road during a period when the relevant order prohibits waiting. I am satisfied that a contravention occured and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly."

    This is the bit that really gets me;

    "If you wish to take this case further, then I can re-open the case. However, this would mean that the case will be at the original amount of 120. Due to a payment being made at 60 there will be 60 outstanding if the case was to be re-opened. If you wish to re-open the case contact us on ......."

    Can they do this. This seams very wrong to me.

    Am I stuffed by the fact that the lease company paid the ticket in the first place, even though this council has reimbursed the lease company in the past?

    And if they are satisfied that the lines in question are enforcable, why have they now bothered to add the T bars to these lines. (I realise no one can actually answer that last one, just venting my frustration)

    Anybody be able to other any help? I have been looking through here for anything that may help me out, but time is a precious commodity in my home at the moment (young baby screaming the house down on a regular basis). Do you think it is worth pursuing this. I have my employer breathing down my neck for repayment. BTW, I have told them that they best not try to take this out of my wages without my consent. Or can they?
    I have found some very nice qoutes to use, they will also help I think with a PCN I have refered to the traffic penalty tribunal for a comlpetely different ticket with another council, also missing T bars. Why do I do this to myself I have until the 29th July to send in any more info for the adjudicator to consider.

    Sorry to prattle on for so long.
    If you think it is worth proceeding with this, I will of course let you know how it goes.
    Many thanks in advance,
    Mike

    Something that may add weight to your argument.

    Under the Freedom of Informationicon Act ask how many tickets have been issued on this dyl and how many have subsequently been cancelled due to non prescribed lines.

    Then ask why, if they know they are non compliant are they still issuing tickets on them.


    When you get your answer, use it as legal weight to get reimbersment for your company.

    Not sure about your company paying bit but im sure someone will be along who does know who is ultimately liable and weather they can legally deduct from your wages.


  3. #3

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Hi Nero12,
    thanks for the reply.
    I am thinking that I may ask for all the details from the council about the ticket that was reimbursed before, if only I can find the dates and such. I no longer have the details on my PC as I deleted them once my firm got a refund. I might be able to run some data recovory software on my PC and see if it comes back. Do you think (or anyone else) that my firm should keep such information as a matter of course. It may be the only way I can get the details, date, PCN no. etc. or will I be able to just qoute the VRN to the council.
    I am thinking along the lines that if they have cancelled one PCN on the exact same lines, then why are they trying to enforce another 2. (there may be 2nd on it's way, don't know yet)
    As I said, they have now corrected these lines by adding the T bars in several places, so they now comply with the Schedule 6 road markings. Will I be able to request a copy of the works order under the Freedom of Informationicon act?
    Is this in itself proof enough that the lines were previously unenforcable and non compliant? These used to be one long dyl that started from the exit of a multi storie carpark (no T bar at their start!) and went on for about 35-40m, turned left onto a main road, into a bus stop, out the other side of bus stop, left at a round-a-bout, on for 15-20m, merged together to form one big thick yellow line and went into another bus stop!!!! Never seen anything like it!!!!. A while back, a coach parking bay was added near the mscp exit, but the dyl was untouched, except for painting it black within the new bay, which now seems to be wearing off. I may have to park somewhere near one day (legally) and take some pictures.
    Obviously, the biggest worry I have is that the tickets have already been paid. As I also said earlier, they were 'issued' by a mobile CCTV vehicle, which gathers the 'evidence' and then (I assume) goes back to base and downloads all the 'evidence', so no PCN is actually placed on the vehicle, it's all done by post. I was not aware of a PCN for my vehicle untill months later. BTW, this is what happened last time for the PCN that was reimbursed.
    I had heard a while ago that this was not legal practice, although the person said that that was only in London, but this has happened in a London borough, the London Borough of Havering (Romford, in Essex).
    I do hope that some of you kind people will be able to offer further advice.
    120 (potentially) is alot to pay out for me as I'm the only wage earner at the moment, wife is at home looking after our baby.
    Many thanks,
    Mike.


  4. #4

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeyr View Post
    Hi Nero12,
    thanks for the reply.
    I am thinking that I may ask for all the details from the council about the ticket that was reimbursed before, if only I can find the dates and such. I no longer have the details on my PC as I deleted them once my firm got a refund. I might be able to run some data recovory software on my PC and see if it comes back. Do you think (or anyone else) that my firm should keep such information as a matter of course. It may be the only way I can get the details, date, PCN no. etc. or will I be able to just qoute the VRN to the council.
    I am thinking along the lines that if they have cancelled one PCN on the exact same lines, then why are they trying to enforce another 2. (there may be 2nd on it's way, don't know yet)
    As I said, they have now corrected these lines by adding the T bars in several places, so they now comply with the Schedule 6 road markings. Will I be able to request a copy of the works order under the Freedom of Informationicon act?
    Is this in itself proof enough that the lines were previously unenforcable and non compliant? These used to be one long dyl that started from the exit of a multi storie carpark (no T bar at their start!) and went on for about 35-40m, turned left onto a main road, into a bus stop, out the other side of bus stop, left at a round-a-bout, on for 15-20m, merged together to form one big thick yellow line and went into another bus stop!!!! Never seen anything like it!!!!. A while back, a coach parking bay was added near the mscp exit, but the dyl was untouched, except for painting it black within the new bay, which now seems to be wearing off. I may have to park somewhere near one day (legally) and take some pictures.
    Obviously, the biggest worry I have is that the tickets have already been paid. As I also said earlier, they were 'issued' by a mobile CCTV vehicle, which gathers the 'evidence' and then (I assume) goes back to base and downloads all the 'evidence', so no PCN is actually placed on the vehicle, it's all done by post. I was not aware of a PCN for my vehicle untill months later. BTW, this is what happened last time for the PCN that was reimbursed.
    I had heard a while ago that this was not legal practice, although the person said that that was only in London, but this has happened in a London borough, the London Borough of Havering (Romford, in Essex).
    I do hope that some of you kind people will be able to offer further advice.
    120 (potentially) is alot to pay out for me as I'm the only wage earner at the moment, wife is at home looking after our baby.
    Many thanks,
    Mike.
    Hello mate, you say the lines have now been corrected.

    Write and ask when these repairs were done to the lines, they should keep detailed maintenance records of this work this will also add weight to your arguement.
    You say the tickets were issued months later, again proceedural error check this operational guidance http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/...orcepolicy.PDF
    8.64 gives 14 days. to serve tho not sure if this is written in stone, however if they are issuing pcn's months after the event then you are prejudiced inasmuch as you wont remember the details.


    Again as for your company paying the ticket well it is the registered owner that is liable after all. However if they have paid this without your knowledge then they have bypassed the appeals process to which you were entitled, placing the blame fairly on them.

    AFAIK you can also ask for copies of your pcn's they should keep details of them, however if you do a sector by sector sweep of your hard drive you may recover them


  5. #5

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Hi Nuro12,
    may have misled you a bit, as far as I know the tickets were issued promptly after my vehicle was caught on CCTV to the (as you correctly say) rightfull owner of the vehicle. In this case the lease company Arval, who paid the ticket (again as you say) not allowing me the chance to appeal.
    Copies of the PCN then go to my firms head office, who as far as I know repay Arval. It then takes months for these PCN copies to filter down to branch level. In this day and age, I find it astonishing that something like this takes so long to get to the person that drives the vehicle on a daily basis. All Arval would need to do is e-mail their client (my firm) that one of their vehicles has got a PCN. They then e-mail the branch, who phone me to confirm or deny the validity of the ticket. Even if it takes a week, that would still give me plenty of time to dispute the PCN. Or any of our other drivers for that matter. Many of our guys are now refusing to do work in certain areas of Havering exactly for this reason, as you can imagine, not to the amusement of the managment, but they refuse to back us up over any PCN's. And we are carrying out work to council properties on behalf of the council.
    Arval could even stipulate that if no peply is received within a certain amount of time, they will pay the PCN on the clients behalf and want repayment. This was never a problem until my firm dumped their fleet and started leasing vehicles.
    I will phone the council on Monday and ask if they are actually aware of the regulations for road markings and are willing to accept a written request for information about that previously repayed PCN, and a copy of the works order for updating the lines in question under the Freedom of Informationicon act. Should be interesting to hear what they have to say, half the time they have'nt got a clue what you are asking about!!

    Not that I am not gratefull for Nuro12s help, but can anyone else help with advice. The more views I get on this, the better. Like will I have to go to court, and which court? small claimsicon? or some other one?

    I am running a recovery program at the moment, takes a while and there will be loads of files to go through Will need to ask work aswell. Do the lease company have an obligation to keep the PCN's on file? I may need to approach them also.

    Thanks again Nuro12,
    Mike.


  6. #6

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Since you are the driver not the owner/keeper you have nothing to do with the PCN as far as the Council is concerned. If the keeper/owner is happy to pay the PCNs and then chase up the money then that has nothing to do with the Council in their role as enforcement authority. Your only complaint is with your employer and the terms or your contract should be consulted to see if they are within their rights to chase you as the driver for any fines you incurred. Since you deliberatly chanced your luck parking on DYL on more than one occasion you must in my opinion share partial responsibility for the situation you are in.


  7. #7

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Surely the OP is "only chancing his luck" if the DYL's were legally enforceable. Just like playing golf, it's not cheating just because you happen to know the rules and how to interpret them to your own advantage without incurring a penalty. It's called knowing how to play the game properly!

    Since it would appear that they were not, at that time legally enforceable due to deficient application, (a fact that the council appear to have been aware of having now reapplied the marking correctly), I would say that the OP has every right to deny any responsibility.

    What the OP may do is write to the firm that has paid the fine, provide the evidence which proves that the penalty charge was inappropriately applied, and tell them to challenge the LA to get the money back.

    MBNA - Agreed to refund 970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.
    Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  8. #8

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
    Surely the OP is "only chancing his luck" if the DYL's were legally enforceable. Just like playing golf, it's not cheating just because you happen to know the rules and how to interpret them to your own advantage without incurring a penalty. It's called knowing how to play the game properly!

    Since it would appear that they were not, at that time legally enforceable due to deficient application, (a fact that the council appear to have been aware of having now reapplied the marking correctly), I would say that the OP has every right to deny any responsibility.

    What the OP may do is write to the firm that has paid the fine, provide the evidence which proves that the penalty charge was inappropriately applied, and tell them to challenge the LA to get the money back.
    The fine has already been paid as lease companies will generally pay fines and pass on the cost to the customer as they are legally entitled, so if 'playing a game' you need to make sure you know ALL the rules!!
    Minor deffects do not make a line unenforceable and this has been shown in numerous adjudication cases. Legally enforceable or not DYL are installed for a reason either safety or access reasons so parking on them just to prove a point or get 'free' parking is not only inconsiderate its often dangerous. Anyone can make the occasional mistake but getting multiple PCNs for the same contravention in such a short space of time shows the OP has no consideration for other road users and is responsible for his present predicament.


  9. #9

    Default Re: PCN went through lease company who paid

    Green and mean,
    I understand what you are saying, but I think maybe you are making assumptions here by saying that I have no consideration for other road users without knowing the slightest thing about where the vehicle was parked, or the road it was parked on.
    I do not deliberatly cause a nuisance to other road users, whether in my work vehicle or in my own car. If I beleive that parking in a certain space will do so, I will park elsewhere.
    There are no access issues on this road. It is the exit of a service road. The multi story has been closed for years. Articulated lorries often park in the same place, and still leave ample room for another artic to pass and turn out onto the main road. And there is a central divide, without which, the exit road would equate to about 5 lanes.
    Did I say anything about minor defects?
    Are missing T bars at either end of a dyl, and a dyl merging into one thick line about 10 inches thick minor defects?
    I do agree that as a road user there are rules to adhere to. Just the same as LC's must adhere to certain rules. If they don't, am I breaking those rules?
    I drive a fairly large vehicle for work, and while I may be able to squeze into something like a pay and display parking space, other people returning to their cars may not be able to get into them.
    When this area in question was patrolled by wardens that actually placed a PCN on the vehicle, they knew that these lines were pointless, and would simply tell you to move on. While in certain areas lines are needed for safety or access reasons, I will not park on them, regardless of condition, nor on complient lines, but do you honestly believe that all such lines are installed for these reasons. There have been many lines installed outside of local businesses, or a parade of shops. They know people are going to park there. Safey issue, or money making exercise?
    If indeed the lease company has a legal entitlement to pay the ticket and pass on the cost to the client, that is all I need to hear, and I sincerly thank you for making that point. But please don't make assumptions about my considerations or lack of them for other road users. You have read 3 posts here by me, I hardly think that puts you in a position to be casting aspersions. On other forums, it has taken people at least 5 posts to come to that conclusion
    Yes, I am wholly responsible for my present predicament, and I'm not denying that. I just strongly believe that LC's have a duty to abide by the rules and regulations that they are given.
    If it is the general consensus that this is a lost cause then I will pay up and not be such a silly boy in the future. But if it would seem to some that I have a good chance of getting these tickets reimbursed, because I do think they are in complete violation of the regs, then I will push ahead.
    Thanks all,
    Mike.



Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
We use cookies to personalise content and ads and to provide social media features. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners. See details