possible misleading Notice to Owner

[bribri]

I entered a car park by taking a ticket from the machine but before doing so there was no board listing the cost of parking.

 

I'm sure that runs contrary to contract law but all I recall is Thornton and Shoe Lane Parking re: terms and conditions.

 

I would like to reclaim the cost of parking, £5, and importantly have this rectified as I could have discovered that the cost was £40.

 

Can anyone point me in the direction of relevant case law?

 

Thank you

[Goldlady]

I am sure that one of the parking experts will answer that. The Thornton case is still good law as far as I know.

 

I had similar experience - went to the Sage car park in Gateshead and the sign said that the first 20 minutes was free. As I was only going to be ten minutes I drove in. When I came to leave, the machine said I owed 80p. I didn't have any cash on me at all (I am a member of CAG after all;) ) and the queue behind me had a whip round as more than one of them had experienced similar problem. Apparently the small print (where it is I don't know) says that the free 20 minutes is added onto the first hour's charge so you get an hour and 20 minutes for 80p.

[Guest interesting]

I am sure that one of the parking experts will answer that. The Thornton case is still good law as far as I know.

 

I had similar experience - went to the Sage car park in Gateshead and the sign said that the first 20 minutes was free. As I was only going to be ten minutes I drove in. When I came to leave, the machine said I owed 80p. I didn't have any cash on me at all (I am a member of CAG after all;) ) and the queue behind me had a whip round as more than one of them had experienced similar problem. Apparently the small print (where it is I don't know) says that the free 20 minutes is added onto the first hour's charge so you get an hour and 20 minutes for 80p.

 

Sorry... this is V PROB off topic .. but I am genuinely interested.

 

WHY have you amassed so many bank charges ... I see your list of claims you have recovered (apparantly) ... but why did you incur them in the first place ???

 

To me, if you sign a contract saying you will be charged £20 for writing a cheque when there is not enough money to pay it .. then that stands .. but I am sure the test case will show if its legal or not ...

 

BUT ... You have loads of charges/reclaims .... can you not read or understand what you are signing ??? understand the conditions ?????

 

Sorry, as I have said .. very much off topic .. but your debts you claim to owe/reclaim is as much as I paid for my first house back many many years ago and I cant understand why someone is stupid enough to run up such charges......

 

BTW.. someone that can read and understand the t&cs of a bank account agreement hopes the bank will win ... the reality is, if they lose .. the VAST majority of people who can read the conditions and know not to write a cheque if the money is not there will be penalised when all the banks start to charge US for our accounts as a result of a minority who bounce cheques/go over their limits without authorisation then winge afetr about the charges they accepted when opeing the account !!!!!!

[Goldlady]

Hello interesting I am glad you are interested in my successes. No I am not some thick bimbo who can't understand T&Cs - I am a member of Mensa with a law degree, training to be a barrister! And the vast majority of my bank charges were caused by direct debits (not cheques written unlawfully) which came in a day early and put me pennies overdrawn. Natwest for example ran one of my accounts up to £1000 over after bouncing a payment to the RSPCA for £5 for being about 20p short. I let them play their charges game and did not use the account at all - quite amazing to watch the charges and interest build up. I have never written a cheque without having the money to cover it.

 

So not stupid at all really - and have had a very interesting life thank you.

[Alianmid]

Much applause to you Goldlady - Got him right between the eyes!

 

[MilkTrayMan]

...I am a member of Mensa with a law degree, training to be a barrister!

A-ha...But as a Geordie, can U speak/understand English??...

 

 

 

 

...So not stupid at all really...

I always thought Goldlady = A woman??...

 

 

...:grin:

[bribri]

thanks for the diverting interlude but it doesn't help answer my original question.

 

So stop talking at the back - yes you - you know who you are.

 

Thank you

[MilkTrayMan]

...

[bribri]

I have now received my PCN issued by Haringey Council from a mobile camera operator.

 

It has date of issue and date of notice. Cost of penalty, applies to person who appears to be the owner, must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice etc. So I don't believe there is any error with the notice. Although. The contravention is "Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zigzags." There is no offence code - is that correct?

 

I am also trying to confirm based on RK08's earlier posting whether the crossing existing as the pelican or puffin lights had been removed. i.e surely zigzags on their own (as per RK08's posting) do not a crossing make?

 

Thank you

[bribri]

Some additional thoughts and if I'm right, very important ones.

 

A PCN must contain "the address to which payment is to be sent"

The Barnet case says the tear off strip is not part of the PCN

On my PCN the detials of how to pay are on the tear off strip

thus the PCN is invalid. Am I right?

On the back of the PCN it has how to challenge and photos of the alleged contravention.

[RK08]

Just picked up your reply and am looking into it will post back later

[patdavies]

To repeat much of what RK08 has stated above, but using more up-to-date law.

 

This is from the TSRGD 2002

 

Road marking shown in diagram 1001.3: zig-zag lines - no stopping

27. - (1) In this regulation and regulation 28 -

 

"controlled area" means a length of carriageway -

(a) which is adjacent to a signal-controlled crossing facility and has a zig-zag line marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre); and
 
(b) in or near which no other signs or markings have been placed except ones comprised in the combination of signs and markings indicating the presence of the facility or shown in diagram 610, 611, 612, 613, 616, 810, 1029 or 1062;

 

This is the diagram from the regs.

 

I would opine that without a crossing of the prescribed type, there can be no offence

[RK08]

Patdavies good bit of info and to back this i have asked around with a very very big law type company who have confirmed that if all the elements of the crossing are not present then the crossing is not complete. 'It would not be in the public interest to prosecute'

The whole idea of the zig zag lines are to afford pedestrians and motorists a good view of the crossing and approaching vehicles. A common sense approach should really have been applied by the warden.

I would be inclined to fight this one.

[pin1onu]

A common sense approach should really have been applied by the warden.

Since when do parking attendants have common sense? They are only interested in meeting their quotas. The bandits.

[RK08]

Quite right, quotas and money. Interesting to see the council in questions website and what they have been nominated for:rolleyes:

[green_and_mean]

A common sense approach should really have been applied by the warden.

 

 

If the 'crossing' was in a controlled zone/street ie yellow lines either side then common sense may have been used since crossing or no crossing the intention was for no parking at that location.

[RK08]

The point is that this is a controlled area as per the Zebra, Pelican and puffin pedestrian cossing regs 1997, not yellow lines. It ceased to be part of the regs when they took away the pedestrian lights.

[patdavies]

The point is that this is a controlled area as per the Zebra, Pelican and puffin pedestrian cossing regs 1997, not yellow lines. It ceased to be part of the regs when they took away the pedestrian lights.

 

Exactly. Without the crossing present, the zig-zag lines have no meaning whatsoever and it cannot be assumed that they mean the same as yellow line(s)

[green_and_mean]

I wasn't saying the PCN was valid just commenting on why the PA may have issued the PCN. Without knowing the full details its very hard to judge a PCN, had the crossing been removed completely or was it just being upgraded.

[bribri]

I spoke to the camera operator at the time and a PA who also passed by. Their response was "you are on zigzags". They couldn't understand that the zigzags have no force without the rest of the crossing. As I said in my first post, I feel it is like a marked disabled bay without a sign plate. The intention may be there but it has no validity.

Perhaps the lights were being upgraded but at the time of the alleged contravention they had been removed and so no crossing existed. Or perhaps they were being permanently removed, it is not my position to second guess the council's intentions all I can do is abide by the signs and road markings and so I did.

 

I think yellow lines are a red herring because the PCN is for stopping on a crossing (see earlier post for full details).

 

Just to push things along, are there any thoughts about the validity of the PCN itself re: the address to send payment to being on the tearoff strip (again see earlier post for full details).

[bribri]

Have a look at these images.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/bribribourbonbourbon/scan0003.jpg

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/bribribourbonbourbon/scan0002.jpg

 

 

My questions are: I know where to pay but where does it say where to send the representations to?

 

Also, what date is 28 days from date of notice when it allows delivery - presumably I have a little leeway?

 

Thank you

[buzby]

From memory parking on zig-zags, even if you remain in the vehicle is an 'absolute' offence - mitigation is seldom successful, and if the police were involved, there could be points applied too. Rather than take it 'to the wire' I'd sort this out whilst theres no opportunity for the fine to increase or switch to prosecution. Once the system takes over, us punters rarely win.

[bribri]

The reason for my appeal about parking on zig zags is discussed here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/131544-zig-zag-lines-but.html

although in summary it is that the crossing was closed, pedestrian lights had been removed so what force do the zig zag lines have?

 

I have started this thread becasue it seems to me that the NtO could be invalid as well.

[please return my money]

you have a choice, you can write to LB Haringey at the PO Box address given for payments making an appeal before the 14 day period is up

 

Alternatively you can wait to receive a document called a notice to owner and appeal on that.

 

However parking on zig zags is not only dangerous to the vehicle passengers and pedestrians, its also an immediate offence but you may get off on a technicality as ive seen others doing it.

[please return my money]

sorry just re read the documents you put as attachments it looked more like a parking ticket than a notice to owner.

 

Send in your representation to Haringey at the PO Box address listed and be quick.

 

If they refuse your appeal, let us know when you receive their refusal together with details of the next stage of appeal xxxx