Parking Ticket Help

[Hidden-man]

Hi all

 

I received a parking ticket on Saturday and could do with some help if possible.

 

I was in a pay & display car park and arrived back to the car late. Ticket ran out at 12:36 and was issued a pcn at 12:44. I told the warden we were back but he just said it was in his machine and so nothing he could do. Anyway I was with the wife and 3 kids so as we were getting verybody in the car and loaded up he continued to write and then stuck it on the windscreen and took a picture. I have a photo of the ticket but don't know how or if I can post it here.

[patdavies]

You overstayed, why would you think it is not payable?

 

The PCN may be faulty, but we would need to see a scan of it.

 

Unless, of course, this is a private ticket as opposed to Council - although I doubt it from your description of how it was issued.

[Hidden-man]

I'm not disputing I overstayed, however I would like to point out it wasn't intentional and if I have to pay I will. If there is a way to get of it I will because I can think of better things to spend £30-60 on.

 

I have it saved as .jpg file and if anyone can tell me how to post it on here I will do so.

[Guest wino]

Unlucky, I think you are just going to have to pay this one. There is no dispute you were over your time. Next time try setting the alarm on your mobile phone to give you plenty of time to get back to the carpark.

[patdavies]

The PCN may have errors and it may even be worth gambling the full amount to see if the NtO has errors.

 

Before you post your .jpg, you need to remove the identifying details like PCN number and VRM.

 

I can't help you on how to post, but it seems that most people use Imageshack and post the link.

[zedox]

To post the on here do the following...

 

Go to this website ImageShack® - Hosting

Click browse, select the location of the ".jpg" and click OK.

Click "host it!"

Wait for the image to "upload" to imageshack. The page will change when it's done.

When the page has changed, scroll to the bottom and copy and paste the web address that appears in the box labelled "Direct link to image" into your next post.

 

good luck!

[Hidden-man]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8383/05112007055co1.jpg

[zedox]

Can you get a copy of the back of the notice aswel?

[Hidden-man]

ImageShack - Hosting :: 06112007060uj2.jpg

 

ImageShack - Hosting :: 06112007057ta5.jpg

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Is it just me or do others have difficulty loading the image of the face of the PCN?

 

As far as the reverse is concerned I had a quick look and saw two material drafting errors:

 

Liability appears to be imposed on "you" rather than employing the 3rd person imperfect such as "if the penalty charge is not paid".

It also states that the NTO will be served on the keeper. Wrong, the NTO will be served on the person appearing to the Local Authority to be the owner.

 

In the circumstances described, for a PCN to be enforced via an NTO there must be a lawful reason to issue a PCN, a lawfully served PCN and a lawfully drafted PCN. The first two tests in this case appear to have been passed but the third does not.

 

There are perfectly adequate qrounds for challenging this PCN. Take a look at the PATAS key cases. These are London buts just as persuasive on the adjudicators. The Barnet case is a High Court decision and is binding (to the extent that the issues on interpretation are R.D. not O.D.).

[BaldyBaldwin]

as you had paid for a parking ticket and only overstayed by 8 minutes could you not claim that the penalty is disproportionate the the offence ?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

as you had paid for a parking ticket and only overstayed by 8 minutes could you not claim that the penalty is disproportionate the the offence ?

 

Only if you want the claim to be dismissed. There is no requirement for proportionality. It is one of the things that the adjudicators effectively described as having been specifically omitted from the legislation as necessary given the volume of cases.

[patdavies]

Is it just me or do others have difficulty loading the image of the face of the PCN? No, the main body of the front was in a previous post - this one is just the payment slip front

 

As far as the reverse is concerned I had a quick look and saw two material drafting errors:

 

Liability appears to be imposed on "you" rather than employing the 3rd person imperfect such as "if the penalty charge is not paid".

It also states that the NTO will be served on the keeper. Wrong, the NTO will be served on the person appearing to the Local Authority to be the owner.

 

In the circumstances described, for a PCN to be enforced via an NTO there must be a lawful reason to issue a PCN, a lawfully served PCN and a lawfully drafted PCN. The first two tests in this case appear to have been passed but the third does not.

 

 

Also, the bit about automatically increasing by 50% is unlawful. It is not automatic; cannot happen unless a charge certificate issued and cannot happen at all within their stated timeframe if the NtO produces the response of an appeal from the owner

[Hidden-man]

I'd like to thank everyone for their help so far but this is the bit where you will probably think I'm being a cheeky git.

 

I've looked round and read some of the the info and think I understand the reasons I can appeal but not sure how to word a letter with these reasons and wondered if there are any template letters I could use.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I think you will get no joy if you write to them now. There is no right to appeal until you get an NTO.

[Hidden-man]

I was thinking of writing thw follo9wing letter to them and seeing if I can get it cancelled before it going any further. Has anybody got any thoughts?

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

I write in reference to PCN: XXXXXXX issued to registration XXXXXXX

 

I ask you to strike this PCN out on the following grounds.

 

• The PCN had not been issued by the time I returned to the vehicle, the warden XXXXXX printed the ticket as I entered the car, after I had clearly told him I had returned to the vehicle and was leaving the car park.

• I question the validity of the PCN as the PCN in question states “You have 28 days to pay this Penalty Charge or alternatively you may pay a discounted amount of £30 if payment is received within 14 days of the date of issue.” contained in the information headed “Important” on the back of the PCN. I find this confusing as it implies payment of the penalty is required from the driver of the vehicle whereas in fact liability rests with the owner of the vehicle. This conflicts with Section 66 (2) Road Traffic Act 1991 and does not adhere to the standards demonstrated clearly by the DoT model ticket.

 

I await your response.

 

Regards

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I would just add the point in red:

 

I was thinking of writing thw follo9wing letter to them and seeing if I can get it cancelled before it going any further. Has anybody got any thoughts?

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

I write in reference to PCN: XXXXXXX issued to registration XXXXXXX

 

I ask you to strike this PCN out on the following grounds.

 

• The PCN had not been issued by the time I returned to the vehicle, the warden XXXXXX printed the ticket as I entered the car, after I had clearly told him I had returned to the vehicle and was leaving the car park.

• I question the validity of the PCN as the PCN in question states “You have 28 days to pay this Penalty Charge or alternatively you may pay a discounted amount of £30 if payment is received within 14 days of the date of issue.” contained in the information headed “Important” on the back of the PCN. I find this confusing as it implies payment of the penalty is required from the driver of the vehicle whereas in fact liability rests with the owner of the vehicle. This conflicts with Section 66 (2) Road Traffic Act 1991 and does not adhere to the standards demonstrated clearly by the DoT model ticket. The judicial review decision in the "Barnet" case is clear on the need for compliance.

 

I await your response.

 

Regards

[Hidden-man]

"The judicial review decision in the "Barnet" case is clear on the need for compliance."

 

Is this the Moses v Barnet case and if so would I be better phrasing it as such to prevent them from coming back with a don't know which barnet your refering to so pay us anyway line.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

"The judicial review decision in the "Barnet" case is clear on the need for compliance."

 

Is this the Moses v Barnet case and if so would I be better phrasing it as such to prevent them from coming back with a don't know which barnet your refering to so pay us anyway line.

 

Yes it is. They'll know. It's a perfectly acceptable way for an informal citation.

[Hidden-man]

Thanks for all your help. I have posted the letter and obtained a receipt so will let you know the outcome as soon as I hear anything.

[green_and_mean]

The PCN does not state 'you' must pay it says 'a charge is payable' the 'you' bit is on the payment information not part of the PCN.

The contravention had occured since you had overstayed the car was still present so the PA was well within his rights under the RTA 1991 to issue a PCN for overstaying payment period.

[Hidden-man]

The PCN does not state 'you' must pay it says 'a charge is payable' the 'you' bit is on the payment information not part of the PCN.

The contravention had occured since you had overstayed the car was still present so the PA was well within his rights under the RTA 1991 to issue a PCN for overstaying payment period.

 

Unfortunately I had already sent the letter before receiving your response so will just have to wait and see what happens but will let you all know the outcome as soon as I hear anything.