Jump to content

changy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by changy

  1. I didn't, I was parked just up from the signs. There are no parking restrictions there at all according to the TROs I just got. That isn't a cellar door at all, the cellar door is at the front of the pub. Ironically, the delivery was taking place at the time of the photo. They claim it is a cellar door and a fire exit! The door has a 5 lever mortice lock and a Yale lock....on a fire door I don't think so. The signs went up when the pub realised people were parking there and I was curious about the legality. I want to take it up with the local authority but just wanted to check on the signs before I contacted them.
  2. Hi to all Are the clamping signs shown in the picture correct? I thought they were supposed to show a telephone number of the company so you can contact them etc. I'm sorry if this topic has been covered, please can someone advise or post a link to another thread. It doesn't look much like a fire exit to me - a Yale lock fitted on a fire exit door ? Now where did I leave my key? Thanks Changy
  3. If you look at this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/157944-parking-ticket-but-few-2.html?highlight=GL1 I have listed the GL1 TRO on post #36 of that thread ..it's listed after the Albert Street TRO which is not applicable for this PCN. Thanks
  4. I have started a new thread because the saga of the TRO for GL1 leisure Centre continues. The council change their mind like the weather so nothing they say is of any use. According to the TRO and main car park Sign for this Off Street Parking area, the controlled hours/charging hours are 09:00 - 15:00. Personally there is a world of difference between controlled hours and charging hours but the council slip and slide and decide to use both whenever it suits them. I have talked many times with the CEOs in the area and they always said that after 15:00 there was nothing they could do because the double yellow lines were not enforceable. I think this thought about the lines came about because I pointed out to the council that they did not conform to the size required, were broken in places and were not barred off at the end. The most important thing is that they aren't mentioned anywhere in the TRO. Please can someone tell me if double yellows, hashed boxes etc need to me mentioned in a TRO for off street parking? I contest that no lines/restrictions mentioned in the TRO means they are completely unenforceable but perhaps they don't need to mentioned for off street parking - I find that hard to believe but I am willing to accept it if someone can advise me. They don't issue PCNs for one side of the area because they admit the lines are unenforceable due to the obvious lack of a correct T Bar at the one end yet they issue them for the other side when the lines are broken, they don't conform AND they are not mentioned in the TRO? I appealed online within 14 days of the PCN on the grounds of the TRO not listing the lines and they rejected it. They sent me a plan with the "off street parking" area shown with a highlighter pen and said "that was the area covered so the lines could be enforced" despite no listing them??? I was issued a PCN with code 86 which is the correct code but it was outside of the controlled hours which are clearly displayed on the sign and was parked on lines away from the parking area that do not exist in law in my humble opinion. Should I pursue this or simply pay up before they double the charge.
  5. Hi G&M That's the irony in this case..the leisure centre staff are totally hacked off with the situation and that includes the management. They have nothing to do with the car parking situation. I have looked at the TRO and it's rather errr....ancient and does not make any reference to yellow lines restricted parking etc etc. The NCP bods will not issue a PCN to people parked on one side of the area because in their words "they know the yellow lines are unenforceable because a barring of the line end does not exist". I initially pointed that out to the council but upon further checking realised that there was no mention of restricted parking, waiting, yellows etc in the TRO. So no mention of restrictions in the TRO surely means they are totally unenforceable. I hate to imagine how much revenue this generated for them, it won't be small change! Now if it is in the "off street parking" area I can understand your point about not being able to park in hashed or yellow lined areas but they have to put that in the TRO and in the Ts & Cs on the car park notices/ticket machines so they both define the same restrictions. I have looked into this in depth and this is what I believe has occurred. I mentioned this in my other post about this area so apologise for repeating myself. I believe they set-up the car park area and allocated the bays according to the TRO. They then realised that rather than pay for the car park, people were parking on the area outside. There were no yellow lines so people assumed it was safe to park. As with most authorities they decided to stop this but rather than paint more bays and charge accordingly (not financially viable will be their excuse) they simply got some DIY lines painted in the area. These were not included in the TRO but as is the norm with the council "Yellow lines is yellow lines mate so we're gonna ticket you!" You can actually see where they've just added the lines on from the main ones on the highway. They're a bit wonky and thin, broken in places, no bars on the end etc. All of that doesn't matter too much because they're not mentioned in the TRO. So my argument is a simple one. No lines in the TRO means they don't exist in law so they cannot enforce them. They may well have a Pay and Display policy and want you to park within the bays but if you can park for free in an area with no lines, why would you pay? Also, as you enter the area there is no sign that says you must buy a ticket or no sign that says this is a Pay and Display car park. They have clearly defined hours of parking control so can they come along out of these hours and issue a PCN? I'm not sure on this one but if for example you parked your car in one of their bays and had to err on one side (just a bit outside the bay) because of tight parking by the adjacent car could they just pitch up and slap a PCN on your vehicle for "parking outside of the bay?" That's the bit I am unsure of as it seems strange that they can do this especially when the alleged "restricted lines/hashed areas" don't exist on the TRO and therefore don't exist in law? I'd appreciate the views of others. Thanks Changy
  6. That's interesting but what's the point of having restricted parking times if they just come along and slap a PCN irrespective of time or place of parking. Also, they don't issue PCNs to another part of the same area...they seem to be making things up as they go along?
  7. Strong words I know but something needs to be done. I use GL1 leisure Centre in Gloucester on a regular basis; in fact I am there almost every day of the week. I usually park in the supermarket opposite where my wife has a browse, does some shopping has a coffee etc. On occasions I choose to park outside GL1 with these occasions being evenings after 18:00, Saturdays 06:00 – 08:45 or Sundays. I also know that the TRO for the area is total garbage but rather than look for trouble by parking there, I just wait for quieter times. I was issued a PCN see post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/157944-parking-ticket-but-few.html but after good advice from this forum I checked the TRO and discovered it was invalid. I questioned the council who claimed the yellow lines were clear for all to see and therefore they would continue to issue PCNs for the area. This was despite me providing them with the evidence that the lines were not enforceable. I was going to take them to task but then I learned they had apparently stopped issuing PCNs for that area. It was strange really because they accepted my appeal yet dismissed a friend’s appeal despite using the same reason after parking in the exact same spot! I then received another PCN for parking one evening in the same area. I read the PCN and this time is used code 86 “Parking beyond the bay markings”. It is NCP (acting for the council) who issue these PCNs and they even ticketed one of their own staff despite him displaying a permit. He asked them about the situation and the validity of the PCNs and he was told by the supervisor that they would now change the location from Albert Street (see my post above) to GL1 Leisure Centre as they could enforce PCNs issued this way. They have admitted defeat on the Albert Street PCNs and the ones for Cambridge Street because I correctly pointed out to them that their double yellow lines were not enforceable and the TRO was errr...rubbish, etc. I started to talk with other people who use GL1 and it appears they had not stopped, just got a bit more sneaky about it with this new Code 86 PCN. I am outraged by this and feel it is now time to take action. The relevant TRO only mentions “Pay and Display” and parking within the “parking bay” the relevant TRO can be seen in the above link. They know they cannot enforce their DIY double yellow lines so they are now resorting to these methods to obtain money. 1.There are no “parking bays” in the area where my car was parked, just phoney double yellow lines 2.There are no signs saying you must buy a ticket. If you drive on another 50-70 metres and turn left you may see a sign next to the ticket machine but you wouldn’t need to pass it when you left the area and you certainly wouldn’t see it in the normal course of your journey. 3.The controlled hours on the TRO are 09:00 – 15:00 Monday to Saturday but they issued my PCN at 18:25 I also know they have issued them on Saturdays before 09:00 and any time they happen to be passing...or when the coffers are low! I have spoken to the council and so has my friend. They told us there was a new TRO dated 2007 (linked one is dated 2005) so they could enforce the PCNs and would issue them. I checked with the Highways Authority and they have confirmed there is NO new TRO and the one posted is the current and only TRO in force as I type. I was also told there is no new application for a revised/new TRO. ? This is why I say misfeasance, they clearly know all about the inadequacies of the TROs yet they still continue to issue PCNs. I guess you could upgrade it to Malfeasance if they continue. It annoys me that when you speak to them they say there is a new TRO in place when clearly there isn’t. They know the times, the need for clearly marked bays, signs, oh and a little thing called a legal TRO but they keep issuing PCNs like they are going out of fashion. I know there is a lot of debate whether it is misfeasance or malfeasance but either way it is simply plain wrong! I know I can appeal this latest PCN but how can I best tackle the council? They must have collected £0000s over time and they simply don’t look like stopping. All suggestions welcomed. Cheers Changy
  8. I am sorry for not being back on the forum, I have had some surgery so I have been recovering of late. Well I waited for my letter to arrive and then I duly appealed. I spoke with quite a few people who had also been issued with a PCN for parking in the same area. One guy has received FOUR PCNs for that area. He talked to the CEO but he may as well have talked to the man in the moon for all the good it did him. He realised that talking to them was a total waste of time so he just ignored them. This morning a letter arrived from the council. It lists the details and then there is one very pleasant line.. "I am pleased to inform you that I have accepted your explanation with regards to the Penalty Charge Notice detailed above" Thanks go to everyone on here who helped me. I have now started a bit of a crusade and I want to find out just how many people have been issued with PCNs for that particular area. I know of at least 10 from people I know at GL1 and to be honest I wasn't exactly broadcasting it. I am sure there will be hundreds if not thousands of incorrectly issued PCNs. Any ideas of how to get the best coverage for this? Thanks Changy:lol:
  9. Just a heads up for fellow members who have Lifeline Insurance from CPW. I have been with this company for many years and through business and personal use have spent thousands of pounds with them. I have my company phones with them and my own personal phone together with one for my wife. I had a call to say one of my mobiles was up for renewal so I thought what the heck I'll do just that. However, I made the mistake of being advised by the sales operative and that is where I went wrong. The upgrade was fine and the phones duly changed. However, during the upgrade process I asked the operative about cancelling my Lifeline Policy..."Yes Sir, we do all that for you!"......WRONG...big mistake on my part. I'm a bit lazy checking all of business and personal bank statements and tend to check them occasionally. I know that's my fault but I'm only human and probably not alone. I noticed a payment going out to CPW so I queried it only to discover it was the insurance for the mobile phone I had upgraded and no longer owned. I contacted them and long story short, they refused to accept my explanation. I wrote to them at a higher level and complained but they still refused to refund me. They said that the insurance was a separate department and that it was my responsibility to cancel the policy. I mentioned the operative but they denied it all. Basically I think it is wrong that they knowingly upgrade your phone from Mobile version A23 to Mobile A24, sell you insurance on the new phone (if you take it) , tell you (in my case) they'll cancel the policy but don't. The upshot. Today I cancelled the final contract with CPW and all of my communications have been placed in the hands of another company. They are the losers because a simple refund as a gesture of goodwill would have kept me spending many more thousands with them!! If you upgrade your phone, ensure you either cancel or amend any insurance policy if you have one. I have now negotiated a policy through my business and will not be using any of the products from the mobile suppliers.
  10. It's like I said earlier, you're under no obligation to tell them where you actually parked. It's like anything that involves a legal/technical argument, the more you show your hand the easier it is for the opposition to change their side of things to gain an advantage. Hear all, see all...say nowt! With the PCN I got, I didn't pay anything and I didn't say anything. I was also very wisely advised by a fellow forumite that I have the high ground so sit back and see what approaches.
  11. Here is the TRO for GL1...note it only mentions Parking Bay, tickets, etc. Had to leave out the date on the last page and the plan Only 10 images allowed which is fair.
  12. I will now post the TROs for the the two relevant areas - GL1 Leisure Centre and Albert Street. All comments on the validity, legality, errors etc all welcomed This is the Albert Street TRO...didn't reproduce the map because it warns of copyright issues and reproduction etc. Better safe than sorry. If someone can assure me that posting the images is okay then I will also post them.
  13. Hi G&M I want to do the research because this is a real pain for most users of GL1. I am there almost every day of the week and know both a lot of other visitors and a lot of the staff. They are all fed up with the amount of tickets issued - it seems like a real hotspot for the local CEOs!!! Last night I found at least 5 people who have had a PCN for parking in the GL1 area but the PCN listed Albert Street. That's just 1 night and those people also said.."So and so got one and the assistant manager also got one last week!" There must be literally hundreds if not thousands of PCNs incorrectly issued. Time will tell and hopefully it will be found in my favour!! At least then a few other people can get their money back.
  14. Hi Ting, I love to start the day with a good chuckle :grin: :grin: I was thinking about the same sort of thing..I think they may well have been painting the yellows during pub opening hours - you could be semi-conscious and get there in three stumbles!! - as the lines diverge and get rather wobbly. If all else fails, I am sure the lines are nowhere near the requisite dimensions.
  15. I know you're not and I fully agree about the TRO for the parking bays. I suppose they have to put one in place or they cannot enforce the charges. My take on it is this.... I think they put in the parking bays and issued the TRO accordingly. They then put in the yellow lines later to prevent people parking there. You can see the lines are DIY and definitely an after thought. As is the norm, they couldn't be bothered to amend the TRO and because the area could be loosely labelled Albert Street the CEOs are just issuing PCNs accordingly. The fact the controlled area for Albert Street is 100 metres away is irrelevant to them - they simply issue the tickets and people pay them...until I got one. Hopefully I will get this cancelled and then I will check the number of tickets issued etc.
  16. I'm with Crem on this one..."it didn't occur" I have just spent 10 hours researching this "can of worms" for a similar PCN I got last Friday. Quite simply the PCN is issued because you have contravened the TRO for that Street and that Street only. They have issued a PCN that says you parked in PXXXXX street where there are "Restrictions" when in fact you were parked on PYYYYY Street. The fact there is a TRO listing the restrictions for PYYYYY Street is IMHO irrelevant as they didn't issue a PCN for that Street. They cannot have it both ways. You were either parked in PXXXXX Street in which case the PCN is correctly issued, or you were not parked there in which case it isn't and they have to cancel the PCN as invalid. I cannot believe there is any obligation for you to tell them where you were parked as surely that could be incriminating yourself....but it is after the fact and they cannot issue a PCN anyway...but you get my meaning.
  17. Point taken G&M but I checked with the relevant Highways Department and this is the ONLY TRO for GL1 Leisure Centre. The bays are in a totally different area and always have been. I reckon they painted the double yellow lines as an after thought (Pictures make them look DIY) but they never amended the TRO. The important point is the PCN says I was parked in Albert Street when I clearly was not. I checked the TRO for Albert Street and that area is some 100 metres away. Even if the OS Map or Street Map could be interpreted that I was in Albert Street, the accompanying plan of the TRO does not show the area where my car was parked as "restricted". The TRO for GL1 Leisure Centre has all of the areas clearly defined and my car was parked in that area. The TRO mentioned paying for a ticket, max length of stay etc and more importantly states that the controlled hours are 09:00 - 15:00 Mondays to Saturdays. My PCN was issued at 18:15!
  18. You could be pretty close to the truth Ting and thanks for your input. I have done a bit more digging and have made an ally in the Highways Department. Here is what I have found. The area around GL1 changed significantly when they demolished the old centre and then built the new one. There is a Street Called Cambridge Street which is an official part of the Highway and is Subject to its own TRO. However, this so called street is a forecourt of a Public House with seats and benches for dining outside in the summer (meh...what summer) or for smokers. The area covered by this TRO does not cover the area where I was parked. If it did, then the PCN is incorrect as I should have been issued the PCN as having parked in Cambridge Street. The PCN was issued and you can all clearly see it lists me as being parked in Albert Street. This is not correct because I was parked in the area covered by the GL1 Leisure Centre TRO. This latter TRO DOES NOT mention anything about "Prohibition of Waiting" it just mentions about parking bays and paying for a ticket etc. The controlled hours for this TRO are 09:00 - 15:00 Mondays to Saturdays. I was issued the PCN at 18:15 so this is outside of the controlled hours. A PCN for Off street parking is issued by Gloucester City Council whilst for Street Parking or violation of a "Prohibition of Waiting" rule then it is Gloucestershire County Council who is responsible. The PCN says that "in either case the enforcement authority is Gloucestershire County Council with Gloucester City Council acting as its agent". They seem to want it both ways but is this allowed?
  19. Yes, I think they do. The car park..what there is left of it I'm sure has NCP on the sign. I'm there tonight so I'll check it out.
  20. Okay, it now gets even crazier!!! I have a copy of the TRO for Albert Street, Gloucester. My car was NOT parked in the area defined as, and covered by the TRO for Albert Street, Gloucester. They entered Albert Street on the PCN so I would assume that I must violate the TRO for Albert Street? If my assumption is correct then the PCN has been issued incorrectly and is therefore invalid...please feel free to tell me I am wrong...hopefully I'm not? I also have a copy of a TRO for GL1 Leisure Centre but this only describes "Parking Bays" and Pay and Display parking. The area defined on the map as the area pertaining to the TRO is incorrect...the map is wrong. Even it is was correct then there is no mention of Double Yellow Lines etc, it only refers to the Parking bays, Pay and Display, length of stay etc. There is no mention of the kerb and the area covered by the restrictions. I'm not sure how I should attach the plans and TROs because they are in PDF form
  21. This just gets more ludicrous by the minute!! I just spoke with a very helpful guy in the Highways Department and when I mentioned Albert Street and 1980 he almost choked because he has one for 2005 but it covers Albert Street only and NOT the area outside GL1 Leisure Centre. He then added that he believes the area outside GL1 may NOT be Public Highway and therefore the Local Authority should not be issuing tickets on that section of road. He is checking to see if a TRO exists for that area but after searching that area i.e. the streets, businesses etc. in that area there does not appear to be a valid TRO for the area concerned. Of course he may end up finding it but I'll keep you informed. Thanks again Changy :grin:
  22. Thanks to all.. The local authority are giving me the right run around on this one. Both of the locations listed no longer exist in terms of holding the TRO. One of them has been demolished and the other hasn't held the plans for about 15 years according to the very helpful lady I spoke with. I am trying to speak to the person responsible at the Highways Department but they are definitely stalling, acting (or actually are) stupid!! I'm hanging on the phone as I type and getting nowhere.
  23. Could the more experienced members let me know if the TRO is valid in terms of the relevant laws. i.e. is it up to date and in line with the latest laws? Cheers Changy
  24. So I can just question the council (phone at first) and ask for the TRO for Albert Street, Gloucester?
×
×
  • Create New...