TheBogsDollocks
-
Posts
510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by TheBogsDollocks
-
Boarding and alighting is usually alllowed on a code 02 restriction. I suggest you explain that you are a taxi driver, you parked briefly to locate your customers and once they were located, they boarded immediately and you drove away and therefore your vehicle was parked only for so long as necessary to enable passengers to board as is allowed under the regulating traffic order and so the alleged contravention did not occur.
-
PCNS & Statut Barred Law?
TheBogsDollocks replied to Caz16's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
I need also point out that IF you have completed a witness statement that was accepted by the county court, this will reset the clock as far as serving a charge certificate is concerned. Bazza makes a good point in that you have not given us sufficient information to assist you with the precision we would prefer. You may have your own reason for this but don't judge Bazza or others unfairly. Everyone here is here to help if we can. We ask for the facts only to avoid giving wrong advice. -
PCNS & Statut Barred Law?
TheBogsDollocks replied to Caz16's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
Going back to the original question. Yes PCN debt can be subject to the Limitation Act 1980 (statute barred) but only if the council fail to seek permission from the county court to serve an Order for Recovery within 6 years of the charge certificate payment deadline. If the council obtains permission from the county court to serve an Order for Recovery within the 6 year period above, then the PCN debt is no longer subject to the Limitation Act 1980. However, to engage bailiffs the council must seek permission from the county court to execute a Warrant of Control and warrants are only valid for 12 months (time extensions and re-issues are rare) and so bailiffs have a limited time to track the debtor and take control of their goods. Be aware that even though you don't answer the door, if you have a car they can take control of it. Usual method is to clamp it and keep it clamped until the debtor pays up or until they decide to sell it. -
PCNS & Statut Barred Law?
TheBogsDollocks replied to Caz16's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
The OP asked The view taken is that penalty charge debt only becomes subject to the 6 year rule once the charge certificate remains unpaid. However, the decision then expands into a council's duty to act fairly and reasonably and delaying taking any part of the processing action (be it serving an NTO or CCert or registering it as a debt) beyond 6 months let alone leaving it up to 6 years is unfair and unreasonable. -
PCNS & Statut Barred Law?
TheBogsDollocks replied to Caz16's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
This tribunal decision answers your question. Service of Documents Within Reasonable Time.pdf -
Usually where a breakdown is claimed the council will require evidence such as a garage invoice or if you fixed it yourself, receipts for new parts. invoice or receipt dates will need to be the date of the contravention or thereabouts.
-
Yes if they serve a new NTO you can make representations and go to adjudication if they reject your representations.
-
Just to clarify.....if a witness statement is made in time (received by the court within 21 days of the Order for Recovery being served) then a council is given no opportunity to object to your witness statement and the default position is that the court accepts the statement and revokes the Order for Recovery and Charge Certficate. It is only if the statement is received by the court out of time (more than 21 days after the Order for Recovery was served) that a council is given opportunity to object.
-
It may possibly fall foul of s.149 or s.161 HA 1980 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/contents
-
It is section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that enables a council to regulate by order off street parking places. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/35 If an order is made then any enforcement must be pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004 by virtue of Schedule 7 Paragraph 3(2)(d). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7 This would mean that Penalty Charge Notices are served and a 3 stage appeal process can be accessed. Some councils that provide "off street" parking for residents have historically done so outside of the RTRA 1984 and applied contract law. This sounds like what is happening here. However, there was a letter issued by the Under Secredtary of State for the DfT advising that councils should not enforce any parking land using contract law and doing so was considered dodgy. See letter. Robert Goodwill MP letter to parking managers.pdf
-
Which Council?
-
West Yorkshire is made up of the City of Leeds, City of Wakefield, Kirklees, Calderdale and the City of Bradford. Parking in the City of Leeds has been decriminalised since 2005. Parking in Kirklees has been decriminalised since 2006. Parking in Calderdale has been decriminalised since 2006. Parking in the City of Bradford has been decriminalised since 2009. According to legislation.gov.uk the City of Wakefield has yet to be granted decriminalised parking powers but perhaps the designation order (if there is one) will be uploaded shortly. The newspaper article does not say where these criminal law parking fines were issued but if they were issued in a decriminalised area then it makes no difference whether a PCSO or Traffic Warden issued them. Either way it would have been ultra vires since only parking attendants/civil enforcement officers (CEO’s) can enforce parking regulations in decriminalised areas. In decriminalised areas the Police had/have no powers to appoint either parking attendants or CEO’s since only a local authority (a council) can do this. The Police say the fines were issued between 2006 and March 2015. Unless they were all issued in the City of Wakefield or all issued for obstruction then criminal fines were issued for decriminalised offences. In my opinion this is not only legally wrong but morally too. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
-
Seems the West Yorkshire Police still don't get it. The Police have no powers to enforce parking restrictions within any designated civil enforcement area except for pedestrian crossing contraventions and only a local authority can appoint Civil Enforcement Officers. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/3041/images/uksi_20113041_en_018 In other words only councils can enforce parking restrictions. Seems the Police lawyers overlooked this. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/7/made The Police don't have a legal leg to stand on but obfuscation goes a long way as does bull****!
-
code 40 should state Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner is the underlined bit missing from the PCN? Where a valid badge is displayed but the parking disc is absent it could also be argued that code 40 does not adequately inform the motorists of what it is they did wrong. An absent parking disc does not necessarily invalidate a badge or mean that you've not displayed the badge in the prescribed manner. Its absence just means you've failed to comply with what is fully required to be entitled to the exemption granted to badge holders. There is a "prescribed manner" for badges and it does not include the parking disc which has it's own prescribed display. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/682/regulation/12/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/683/regulation/4/made
-
Complete bull that it's down to an anomaly. Since 31st March 2008, in most towns and city's the Police have only been able to issue parking fines for pedestrian crossing contraventions. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/7/made Shocking that those who enforce the law only became aware of the law change in 2015!! Someone should FOI all the other Police forces and see how many other parking fines have been unlawfully issued. West Yorkshire is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Code 30 indicates that you parked in a location that is subject to a time limit such as a limited waiting bay. It is unlikely to have anything to do with the resident permit unless the parking bay is shared use and the permit is not valid for that parking place. Normally a parking permit is issued to a vehicle not a person. If you live and park within the same permit zone as your father and the permit relates to the vehicle registration number then the vehicle will be lawfully parked while it displays the permit in permit only bays (this would exclude bays that are limited waiting only). However, if your father takes back the registration plates you will need to apply for a new permit relevant to the new plates.
-
http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Strauss%20v%20Royal%20Borough%20of%20Kensington.doc
-
The letter you used was composed by me and it has resulted in many successes, mainly on the pepipoo forum. In your case the council chose to play poker and rejected you with a generic rejection template letter. Notice that their rejection letter does not actually comment on the specifics of your appeal letter. They can afford to play poker but most appellants cannot afford to gamble losing the discount. Not exactly a level playing field is it!
-
code 27 PCN + car towed
TheBogsDollocks replied to mike4321's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
You can use the text attached if you want something to throw at them. Keep the formatting for emphasis. Expect a rejection as this is routine. It is only when threatened with adjudication that councils make more effort. -
The OP is not responsible for payment. The vehicle belongs to his niece. OP advise your niece to recover her vehicle as soon as possible otherwise it will be disposed of and further charges will accrue.
-
PATAS case 211011761A is an example of a breakdown being accepted. As for "attendance" that is a bigger hurdle but PATAS has ruled previously that a person does not have to remain physically with the vehicle at all times. Case 2110097829 being one ruling. If the breakdown can be proved and if the vehicle was being attended to in some form such as arranging for it's removal/repair then a reasonable adjudicator may allow the appeal. Since there is nothing to lose I would appeal and attend a personal hearing to give it the human touch.
-
As we all know adjudicators arrive at their own interpretations. The decisions I recall reading interpreted it as rendering/giving assistance to a vehicle rather than a person which enabled them to say it was acceptable to assist in the breakdown of your own vehicle.
-
I recall some adjudicators using the exemption below where they've sympathised. (3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked- © for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles and – (i) such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked;
-
Is the disabled bay adjacent to a dropped footway that serves your drive/property? I ask because you posted earlier that he now leaves you enough room to get out.
-
Try adding the text below to your appeal. Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for Human Rights (“the Convention”) instructs that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. I accept that the Council had the right to remove my vehicle. However, once removed, the conditions provided for by law did not entitle the Council to continue to deprive possession of my vehicle until I paid the parking penalty charge and charge made in respect of the removal of my vehicle. My vehicle was removed pursuant to section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the “RTRA 1984”). Under this Act the right for to retain a removed vehicle until payment is made is explicitly regulated under section 102(4). 102(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)above any sum is recoverable in respect of a vehicle by the chief officer of a police force or a local authority in whose custody the vehicle is, the chief officer or local authority shall be entitled to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid. My vehicle was removed from within a civil enforcement area and therefore the sum recoverable was not “by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)” but by virtue of subsection 102(2A). 102(2A) If the place from which the vehicle is removed is in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the enforcement authority is entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of the vehicle as they may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms that the charge for removal was made under section 102 of the RTRA 1984. 1(1)This Schedule provides for the setting of the levels of— (a)penalty charges, including any discounts or surcharges, (b)charges made by authorities under section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles found in areas that are civil enforcement areas for parking contraventions, As the right to retain a removed vehicle until payment is made does not extend to civil enforcement authorities, the conditions provided for by law did not entitle the Council to retain my vehicle and deprive me of its possession until I paid the charges. I therefore contend that the Council without justification, acted in a way that is incompatible with the Convention.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS