Parking appeal question

[cream70]

Does it cost the local authority/contractors any more money if your appeal is successful after the NTO has arrived as opposed to if your appeal

is successful at the more informal stage.

Many thanks.

[dw190]

Does it cost the local authority/contractors any more money if your appeal is successful after the NTO has arrived as opposed to if your appeal

is successful at the more informal stage.

Many thanks.

 

Their only cost is the postage and time involved. That's why most informal appeals are rejected.

[skymaster729]

Dont they have to pay the DVLA to get the owners address details? I would assume that this is an extra couple of quid.

 

Appeal all the way to the adjudicator, that way even if they win the full ticket price wont cover all their costs in fighting the appeal right through to winning.

[nero12]

Dont they have to pay the DVLA to get the owners address details? I would assume that this is an extra couple of quid.

 

Appeal all the way to the adjudicator, that way even if they win the full ticket price wont cover all their costs in fighting the appeal right through to winning.

AFAIK if you go all the way to adjudicators and you know your in the wrong you could in theory have the LA'S costs awarded against you,

in theory.

 

Read it somewhere to put the frighteners up you.

 

anyone hear of this.

[green_and_mean]

Appeal all the way to the adjudicator, that way even if they win the full ticket price wont cover all their costs in fighting the appeal right through to winning.

 

Good plan, have you got any other good ideas on how to waste my Council tax??

[skymaster729]

AFAIK if you go all the way to adjudicators and you know your in the wrong you could in theory have the LA'S costs awarded against you,

in theory.

 

Read it somewhere to put the frighteners up you.

 

anyone hear of this.

 

If I lose my appeal can the Enforcement Authority claim costs against me?

The Adjudicator’s powers to award costs against you are limited by the same regulations as apply in

question 10

.

The Enforcement Authority would have to apply to the Adjudicator and he or she would have to decide whether you acted frivolously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably in appealing against the Penalty Charge Notice.

 

 

 

TMAYourQuestions

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

AFAIK if you go all the way to adjudicators and you know your in the wrong you could in theory have the LA'S costs awarded against you,

in theory.

 

Read it somewhere to put the frighteners up you.

 

anyone hear of this.

 

Costs can be awarded under Regulation 12 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993:

 

1. The Adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to paragraph (2) make such an order:

(a) against a party ... if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonably; or

(b) against the local authority, where it considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.

 

It is not a question of "knowing that you are in the wrong".

 

It is a question of how one acts in the conduct of the defence. Consider the following:

 

I take a chance and park on a DYL with no kerb markings to go and collect my dry-cleaning. While I am paying for it a PCN is served.

 

I make informal reps based on a claim of loading my dry-cleaning.

 

The LA respond by stating that they have a policy of not cancelling PCNs for PLG vehicles unless there is clear evidence of continuous loading.

 

I receive an NTO and make an appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur and that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount. The appeal still revolves around the fact that I am claiming a loading exemption. I am entitled to do this as each case is decided on its own merits.

 

The LA respond by stating that "On considering your appeal we find that you have not made out sufficient grounds for cancelling the PCN and your appeal is rejected."

 

I appeal to the adjudicator but this time I add that the LA have failed to treat me, the motorist, fairly because they have failed to demonstrate proper exercise of discretion, have a flawed policy regarding loading and have failed to give a proper explanation of their reasons for disallowing my appeal thereby preventing me from making an informed decision on whether or not to pursue my argument. Treating the motorist fairly is a fundamental feature of DPE and is an issue on which adjudicators have commented on numerous occasions, a failure here compromises the enforcement process and no penalty can apply with a compromised enforcement process.

 

So there we have an example of a situation where I knew that I had committed a contravention but availed myself of my statutory right of appeal - which I am entitled to in all cases - in the knowledge that the LA may be incompetent and gift me a get-out.

 

The crucial point is that you can win on either or both of issues relating to the alleged contravention and the enforcement process but you have to be able to create a credible story. Your strongest appeal to the adjudicator need not be the one you started with. Know how the system works and do your homework.

 

To get stiffed with costs you are going to have to get carried away by your emotions and go on record with saying something like:

"I'm going to make as much trouble for you as I can"

"I know I was in the wrong but I'm going to make you work for your money"

"You are all a bunch of ****ing c***s"

In other words, being stupid.

[skymaster729]

Good plan, have you got any other good ideas on how to waste my Council tax??

 

Mate, if you want good ideas on how to waste council tax payers money dont ask me. Ask your local council officials. They are full of 100s of really inspiring initiatives that will waste £1,000,000s of it.

 

If they choose to stick a ticket on my car then they will have to pay the admin and costs associated with that I am afraid. It's their choice.... If they choose to waste their time money and effort on ticketing me then thats their problem.

 

I will send you their address if you like, you can complain directly.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Good plan, have you got any other good ideas on how to waste my Council tax??

 

How is following a statutory entitlement of appeal that any competent LA should have budgeted for a waste of council tax.

 

Councils are quite capable of wasting council tax payers money on their own. If they exercised discretion properly and acted fairly in their treatment of motorists this whole area would be an awful lot better.

[green_and_mean]

How is following a statutory entitlement of appeal that any competent LA should have budgeted for a waste of council tax.

 

Councils are quite capable of wasting council tax payers money on their own. If they exercised discretion properly and acted fairly in their treatment of motorists this whole area would be an awful lot better.

 

Councils will budget for a small percentage of drivers appealling due to the fact that most know they are in the wrong. If everyone took the advice and appealled all the way to adjudication just to waste Council money eventually the costs of PCNs would be reviewed and raised to cover this. So at the end of the day those that make an honest mistake and pay their PCN will be paying more. I never get PCNs so feel free to carry on with you cunning plan just don't blame me when you are paying twice as much.

[Rob S]

Am I right in thinking that the reason you don't get PCN's is because you no longer own or drive motor vehicles?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Councils will budget for a small percentage of drivers appealling due to the fact that most know they are in the wrong. If everyone took the advice and appealled all the way to adjudication just to waste Council money eventually the costs of PCNs would be reviewed and raised to cover this. So at the end of the day those that make an honest mistake and pay their PCN will be paying more. I never get PCNs so feel free to carry on with you cunning plan just don't blame me when you are paying twice as much.

 

If people are appealing with that as their objective and the evidence supports it then I would have no issue with them being found vexatious.

 

I only advocate appealing with the objective of having the PCN cancelled, no other reason. I also advocate the fact that the reasons why it is cancelled are irrelevant, just the fact that it is.

 

The authorities, in setting the level of the PCN cost know full well that it has to be accepted by the motoring public particularly if CCTV enforcement and some of the other new arrangements are operated draconianly. What I fear is that we are fairly close to the tipping point where it is not. In these circumstances what could happen ist that most people, rather than paying will appeal and the system cannot cope. That will push it up the policical agenda.

[skymaster729]

Councils will budget for a small percentage of drivers appealling due to the fact that most know they are in the wrong. If everyone took the advice and appealled all the way to adjudication just to waste Council money eventually the costs of PCNs would be reviewed and raised to cover this. So at the end of the day those that make an honest mistake and pay their PCN will be paying more. I never get PCNs so feel free to carry on with you cunning plan just don't blame me when you are paying twice as much.

 

The councils run parking enforcement as a revenue raising racket and nothing more. Their system relies on compliance and acceptance to make a profit. It's an unjust and highly unethical way to generate money. I am all in favour of any methods to undermine and scupper their system.

 

If they enforced it in a decent, legal and honest way then I would have a different stance on it. At present there is NO benefit to society brought about by what they do. Parking enforcement in my town is just another social menace that sits along side other forms of anti social behaviour.

 

For your information I have never ever actually paid a PCN, always had them cancelled. So if the cost doubled that would mean (quick calculation going on in my head...... ) Twice as much as £0.00 is.....Mmmmm, let me think..... £0.00.

[lamma]

Councils have a duty to ensure they have enough back office resource to deal with this. the Adjudicators have addressed this several times. If they didn't screw up tickets, bay markings, TROs, signage, process, (all of which are clearly and explicitly defined and which councils have legal responsibility to follow). allow dodgy issuance, set targets etc then their appeals levels will be low.

Do it right and its just not a problem for councils.

In some towns the majority of tickets are tosh - the low percentage of appeals is due to people caving in (or not knowing the regs).

the usual claim that in 99 percent don't appeal then the system is obviously 99 percent correct is absolute rubbish and screamingly obviously fallacious. that can only be true of no one caved in and if everyone who got a ticket fully understood all the regs.

This '99 percent good' claim, often trotted out by council spokesmen (Mr Lester etc), is desperate spin and clearly wrong to anyone who knows the regs, how the system works and how Councils behave.

 

people have a right to appeal - why on earth anyone should give up that right especially in the face of the behaviour of many councils is beyond reason.

Edited June 18, 2008 by lamma

[robin9342]

The councils run parking enforcement as a revenue raising racket and nothing more. Their system relies on compliance and acceptance to make a profit. It's an unjust and highly unethical way to generate money. I am all in favour of any methods to undermine and scupper their system.

This has been precisely my view of DPE for years. As an example: What benefit to society is it, when a council tickets a motorist in an empty car park who has stayed 5 minutes more than he should?

 

Another question is what exactly do the councils do with the millions in profit they generate from DPE? They certainly do not invest it in new car parks or anything else that benefits the motorist. They do invest in ever more draconian techniques to fleece us for the smallest of transgressions. Whatever happened to the notion that councils exist to serve us?

[skymaster729]

Councils have the choice to enforce parking, if they want to do so then they must take the rough with the smooth.

 

Lets think just for a moment about various menaces in our local towns...

 

Graffitti

Litter

Vandalism

Car crime

Petty theft

Antisocial behaviour

Then we have that awful problem of people leaving their cars in a parking space for longer than they should....

 

When have you ever sat in a pub and heard a conversation where people complain about people parking their cars?

 

Yet while councils make minimal and pathetic efforts to clean up the real issues that affect our lives they enforce parking with gusto. 100s of wardens in some cases!

 

Imagine if every single warden was replaced by a P.C or P.C.S.O.... who can fight real crime.... Now that would be something!

 

The draconian enforcement of parking is indefensable, utterly discraceful and needs to be tackled at every level.

[skymaster729]

This has been precisely my view of DPE for years. As an example: What benefit to society is it, when a council tickets a motorist in an empty car park who has stayed 5 minutes more than he should?

 

Another question is what exactly do the councils do with the millions in profit they generate from DPE? They certainly do not invest it in new car parks or anything else that benefits the motorist. They do invest in ever more draconian techniques to fleece us for the smallest of transgressions. Whatever happened to the notion that councils exist to serve us?

 

Indeed so. My local council are in the process of re building the city centre, in 2010 they plan to have it finished. A lovely new shopping centre, travel hub and restaurants, bars etc etc. They have planned for a minute amount of car parking spaces.

 

Seemingly through some fantasy that everyone visiting the centre will come in using public transport! Needless to say the parking is gonna be a nightmare. They think they can 'influence' peoples behaviour by providing very little parking. The fact of the matter is that they will be grossly under providing for the needs of visitors.

 

I can imagine their 'parking services' division will have a field day once it opens!