Nope not me. Chill though. I can't actually even see the PM records. Perhaps you would like to reassure them and say what my initial approach was? -

Ooops! LOL

Cough! What a surprise!

i'm on it geezer!!! Obviously quite serious so can't discuss further. PM coming.

The answer to a general theme in your post is that you should include all angles. on the dates issue the definitive part of legislation is Schedule 1 - see the link posted by Jasmin2008 earlier. Notice that my big issue with the Camden rejection is that he quotes back the legislation in some detail with the last thing being a reference to Schedule 1 - then fails to show that at all. Odd - don't you think? This why Spunky described it as fraudulent and I agree. I can't say too mch more because i'm making a formal complaint. i've had a verbal kinda explanation from Camden and to be honest I don't know whether to laugh, cry or leave the Country for good, LOL! -

Indeed. Draw your own conclusions as to how she was subsequently misled on 22/12! I just happen to know she paid it on 24/12 - notable day that for a single mum, student nurse! Complaint instigated to Camden! i have PMd her to advise of such action as I am acting only as an interested party - but WILL pursue.

just realised that the rejection letter i referred to and G&M's response is not in this thread! The missing link is here! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/174358-appeal-against-pcn-turned.html?highlight=corcorans1 seems 'Spunky' had seen it but now the rest of you can. Also on review I notice that she has a few days left if she has not paid. i hope she is seeing this! -

Asheyb and gooner. If your PCNs were 'Camden'(Ithinkso?) then see this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/166695-traffic-penalty-notice-cctv-2.html -

Whatever the vid evidence they submit should sort it i suppose. Any presence before abouy 18.27 and you're stuffed. if they only submit the 18.29 + then should be ok IMO. I think Spunky mentioned - 'whatever they choose to bring'. More like whatever they have already submitted (you should already have it?) cos very few actually turn up! so what does postal bundle say they are submitting?

ROFL!

Evening Peeps! I have a gnawing need to assist but it is quite likely that this will be my only post? This info is essential to the OP and to another that has queried the outcome. If it doesn’t appear, don’t blame me! I’ll be taking a screenshot to show I’ve offered it. I sincerely hope there is no obstruction to people receiving such crucial info. Aaaannnyyyway, getting off signs for a mo and back to the docs. Yes the PCN is non-compliant. The major failure is to advise the correct period in which representations may be made. As they only advise a shorter period than that required by law then it is clearly prejudicial. Corcorans1 actually surprised me. Having seemed a bit slow to understand early on, she went on to make quite a well written appeal. It is a pity that she has not received the message that the Camden response is entirely flawed, wrong, illegal, cheeky? and probably borders on malfeasance. The (what was it it now?) correspondence officer? quotes the law back at her in a blatantly misleading way. Towards the end he makes reference to Schedule1 but rather conveniently fails to quote the content whereas he does for all other parts? No guesses why! Schedule1 is the part that proves he is WRONG. Such a blatantly misleading, false and prejudicial Notice of Rejection was enough in itself for the PCN to be cancelled and, should Camden have risked Adjudication they would have been torn to shreds IMO. For ‘Carefulbloke’. Yes basically it is flawed as described and IMO winnable if well described. If you get lucky enough to get a similarly flawed rejection – laugh all the way to the bank. On the ‘Do not pass to driver, etc’ issue. G&M derides it. It is a common sense issue whereby it potentially prejudices certain recipients. That being the case then the document itself is prejudicial irrespective of individual circumstances because those individual circumstances cannot be known by the Council. It may well not have been ruled upon at Adjudication but quite how G&M is aware of every single Adjudication is beyond me? For me, it remains something worth pursuing. G&M is clearly knowledgable. I fail then to understand that, whilst he derides one element of the appeal made, he fails to mention that the major legal challenge was correct and the response fatally flawed? Surely that information would have benefitted the OP. How odd – or not? Big-up Hi (and probably goodbye, LOL) to Crem, Pin1Onu, Nero12, Jasmin2008, Michael Browne, lamma, Steve M, Adamna, Al27, Tony P, Tom Tubby, Nero12, jasmin2008, Pat Davies and anyone I’ve rather rudely forgotten! P.S. thanks to Spunkymonkey who confirmed the issue.