If its a 24/7 permit bay then it surely doesn't matter if its a monday or sunday? I cannot see any argument even regarding the suspension if you thought it was suspended why park, if you thought it wasn't then its a permit bay 24/7 so once again why park?

NG/NQ one is county council one is city council

https://insidecroydon.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/butcher-parking-picture-e1397896694981.jpg http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/departments/transportandstreets/pdf/595107/1353095/1353102/pn236.pdf

They can 'issue' as many as they like providing the person issuing believes that a contravention has taken place, it's the enforcement of multiple PCNs that is not permitted. Appeal on the grounds that 'the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' reason being you have already paid one for the same contravention.

You are confusing parking enforcement with moving traffic enforcement, no such approval is required unless the PCN is for a parking contravention.

I suspect there is a footway parking sign missing so the sign wouldindicate footway parking was allowed except for the same time as the yellow line

'As the money-grabbing reputation of junctions such as Bagley’s Lane grows, it is clear that drivers are now reluctant to enter the yellow box (hence the reduced number of fines last year) until an incontrovertibly clear exit lies ahead.' Job done! Compliance up, penalties down, just goes to show cctv does work after all....well done H&F council!

People regularly get fined for dropping gum, littering, fly tipping, not picking up dog poo etc the difference is those that get caught on the whole do not go around bleating on about it being a 'tax'.

Thats a rather perverse argument, if no one is about at 4.30am then they would not make any money and instead work at a loss. The fact is as is shown by the OP people in London do use the roads 24hrs a day and if the restriction is 24hrs its there for a reason.

Councils do charge people for damage to the footway if they know who did the damage and they do charge for a skip licence of its on the highway. The PCN was issued because the car was illegally parked not to subsidise people with skips. There would seem little point in having 24hr parking restrictions if they only applied at some arbitery time that suits you.

CEOs do not enforce 'traffic' contraventions they enforce 'parking' contraventions and unsurprisingly most vehicles are 'parked' at 4.30am so they would have plenty to do as many people wrongly assume they can ignore restrictions during the night/early morning. Why would they hang around they have issued a PCN so why wait around they probably just drove off to find another vehicle parked in breach of the parking regulations?

I doubt if it was the Council either.

Whats would be the alternative? There would seem little point in having a discount period of 14 days if everyone could just claim they hadn't seen the PCN and get longer. I have no doubt you are telling the truth but not everyone is so honest and people try to exploit any loophole. However since you obviously wanted to pay and paid 3 they would probably be open to negotiate the discount if you write to them explaining the situation. If they don't you may as well appeal as you would have nothing to lose.

That is why you get a notice to owner! The owner is liable not the driver so they may never see a PCN that is why the NTO is sent to inform the owner they have received a PCN.

So now you are saying there was a timeplate but you didn't bother looking for it at the time?

Ir wouldn't be 'heard' they are already liable for the penalty if they don't pay then the County court would issue a warrant for recovery of the debt. If you mean how can they contest it they would go to adjudication at a tribunal not a Court.

At least somebody gets it! The car has to have insurance to cover use on a public road that does not mean it is insured whilst on private land.

Your PCN gives the deadline as 'date of service' which is when you got it the law states it should be the date on the notice ie the 10th http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted (8)A penalty charge notice under this section must— (a)state— (i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle; (ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable; (iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; (iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion; (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi)the amount of the increased charge; (vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and (viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and (b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Maybe you should read my post again? The requirement for insurance has not changed you still only need insurance to drive on a public road, however that insurance must be held even if it is not on a public road. Unless of course you can show me where the law says you have to be insured to drive on a private road? (1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act— (a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and (b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act. 144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements (1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence. (2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if— (a)it is covered by a such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and (b)either of the following conditions is satisfied. (3)The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security. (4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because— (a)the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and (b)the vehicle is owned by that person. (5)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle.

You do not need insurance on your own land, you need insurance to drive on the road. The new offence is 'keeping' a vehicle that is not insured to use on the road. You could for example not get insured just to park on your drive which would obviously be cheaper any insurance you have has to cover use on a public road. The level of cover has not changed its still just 3rd party on a public road/place its just that now you must have it even if the car is kept in a locked garage and not SORN.

When it boils down to it the child is liable and has probably got no assets so let them sue the child. Its not a motoring matter the car wasn't being driven and wasn't on a public road as far as I can see.

What if the car is SORN and has an accident on a private drive? The need for continuous insurance has nothing to do with the requirement to produce insurance on private property.

The turn right exemption only applies if you are in the box whilst making the turn not 100m from the junction.

I was speaking in general terms, the authority are meant to send you a reply however if its correctly addressed they are not responsible if its not delivered.

Exactly, but who is going to decide that if the system is not as it is? Mitigation is rarely used in law as a defence its just used in sentencing and as the penalty is fixed they cannot vary it. Allowing mitigation would be ridiculous as everyone thinks their 'excuse' is a valid reason to cancel. The law allows for some unforeseen circumstances in the exemptions, but mitigation has no place at PATAS.