Time of Photos v Time of PCN

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I have today received from the LA their bundle of evidence for a PATAS hearing. Irritatingly they have provided no rebuttal to my point by point argument that both the PCN and NTO are non-compliant.

 

But what they have provided is the PAs photos including one that seems to show the PCN on my windscreen. The thing is they show the time that they were taken as 16:07 and 16:08 - but the PCN states first seen at 16:10 and issued at 16:10.

 

Is this a "slip" or a fatal problem for the LA?

[patdavies]

I have today received from the LA their bundle of evidence for a PATAS hearing. Irritatingly they have provided no rebuttal to my point by point argument that both the PCN and NTO are non-compliant.

 

But what they have provided is the PAs photos including one that seems to show the PCN on my windscreen. The thing is they show the time that they were taken as 16:07 and 16:08 - but the PCN states first seen at 16:10 and issued at 16:10.

 

Is this a "slip" or a fatal problem for the LA?

 

The Slip Rule applies to Magistrates' Court proceedings.

 

I would say that it is not fatal in itself because

1) There is no requirement for photographs, and

2) It is a small disparity between the clock settings of the two machines (camera and ticket machine), and it is obvious that if the picture shows the PCN on the windscreen, then it must have been there prior to the taking of the photograph.

 

However, it does point to an element fo carelessness on the part of the Council and allows you to infer doubt as to the competence of the rest of their actions

[B.A.Ts]

I have today received from the LA their bundle of evidence for a PATAS hearing. Irritatingly they have provided no rebuttal to my point by point argument that both the PCN and NTO are non-compliant.

 

But what they have provided is the PAs photos including one that seems to show the PCN on my windscreen. The thing is they show the time that they were taken as 16:07 and 16:08 - but the PCN states first seen at 16:10 and issued at 16:10.

 

Is this a "slip" or a fatal problem for the LA?

Had the same problem

have a read here it makes interesting reading

 

Seaman Arts | Traditional, digital artworks, photography

[green_and_mean]

I have today received from the LA their bundle of evidence for a PATAS hearing. Irritatingly they have provided no rebuttal to my point by point argument that both the PCN and NTO are non-compliant.

 

But what they have provided is the PAs photos including one that seems to show the PCN on my windscreen. The thing is they show the time that they were taken as 16:07 and 16:08 - but the PCN states first seen at 16:10 and issued at 16:10.

 

Is this a "slip" or a fatal problem for the LA?

 

A well used ploy by 'dodgy' PAs is to photograph the envelope on the screen before issuing PCN incase you come back.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

A well used ploy by 'dodgy' PAs is to photograph the envelope on the screen before issuing PCN incase you come back.

 

This is what I wondered. But does it make it invalid?

[green_and_mean]

If the point of appeal is over whether it was served maybe but otherwise it just cast doubt on the reliability of their evidence.

[patdavies]

We can't leep agreeing like this G&M - it's bad for both our reputations :o:D

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It's all good stuff.

Part of my appeal is that the PCN was not properly served. So far this has been on the basis that the envelope has a message to the PA to remove the paper from the sticky strips "if required to affix to vehicle".

My reading of the RTA is that the PCN has to be fixed to the vehicle if it is not handed to the person in control. As it wasn't handed to me it should have been fixed and as the sticky strips weren't used it wasn't.

So if council say photo of PCN on windscreen is of PCN having been fixed to vehicle I say but it cannot be as the photo was taken before the PCN was issued.

Therefore the Council have no evidence that the PCN was correctly served (apart from the fact that I got it because I made an informal challenge).

The reality is that I agree that what this does is to add to a slap-dash approach to compliance.

[green_and_mean]

Therefore the Council have no evidence that the PCN was correctly served (apart from the fact that I got it because I made an informal challenge).

 

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, you either got it or you didn't. I think the sticky strips argument is a dead duck, they are not a legal requirement. You would not expect them to be used if it was handed to you, would you? The pcn needs to be fixed in some way to the vehicle, the fact you got it proves it was served in my opinion.

[Michael Browne]

So far this has been on the basis that the envelope has a message to the PA to remove the paper from the sticky strips "if required to affix to vehicle".

This could be interpreted as 'use the sticky strips if it can't be attached to the vehicle in any other way' eg under the wipers. Not necessarily as 'you have to use the sticky strips to affix it to the vehicle'

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This could be interpreted as 'use the sticky strips if it can't be attached to the vehicle in any other way' eg under the wipers. Not necessarily as 'you have to use the sticky strips to affix it to the vehicle'

 

Thanks, I'm aware that it's not a "slam-dunk" argument.

[lookinforinfo]

I have to say that I think you have a stronger argument over the times than with the sticky strips. Casting doubt on when the ticket was issued-was the

camera not showing the right time. When was the last time it was checked?

And what about the meter? If the camera was wrong and checked recently,

could the meter be wrong as quickly too?