Parked without clearly displaying

[NewUser250508]

Hello,

 

This is my first post ( and first PCN). Went to Newcastle for bank holiday and parked my car opposite to Sage, Gateshead Council regualted car park. I got the parking ticket (timed 15:25) for the whole day and put it on the dashboard of the car (the otherside of the ticket was on display carelessly by me ).

 

Got the PCN (observed from 17:06-17:13) with following :

Code: 83 Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock

 

I have been fined £50 pounds for that (50% if paid in 14 days), still enough to make me feel more stupid !

 

worth appealing ? i have got my parking ticket with me if of any use now !

 

Thanks in advance

Edited May 26, 2008 by NewUser250508
careless again ! its observed from 17:06 to 17:13

[lamma]

check the TRO.

[NewUser250508]

Thanks for the quick response !

 

Can you please point me to the link for TRO (and what is it ?!)

 

Ta

[nero12]

check the TRO.

under the rta 1991 as ammended the council have a duty to excercise discretion. They must have a written policy in place for doing so.

When a pcn is issued for failiure to display and the relevant pay and dispaly ticket is subsequently produced then the LA should exercise discretion. While the LA are not obliged to do so, in the event that they reject your representation you have the right to obtain an explanation and to see a copy of the written discretionary document, if they do not have one in place as per secretary of states recomendations then the LA will have a hard time with the adjudicators. You can also file a complaint to the local gouvernment ombudsmen.

 

Writ back to the LA and state that pay and display tickets which do not have a way to stick the ticket to the windscreen this problem will arrise. (if it wasnt sticky back)Also it is not unique problem.

 

Send a COPY of the ticket and ask that they exercise discretion in this instance as per the rta 1991 as ammended.

[green_and_mean]

If there is any reference to the ticket on the reverse such as a serial number its worth making an informal appeal? Most Councils will cancel a facedown ticket if it has been seen and is produced with the appeal.

[green_and_mean]

under the rta 1991 as ammended the council have a duty to excercise discretion.

 

 

The TMA 2004 repeals the sections of the RTA 1991 that cover civil enforcement.

 

The contravention is failing to display not failing to purchase a ticket, producing a ticket at a later date is not proof you had purchased one or that the face down ticket was valid.

[nero12]

The TMA 2004 repeals the sections of the RTA 1991 that cover civil enforcement.

 

The contravention is failing to display not failing to purchase a ticket, producing a ticket at a later date is not proof you had purchased one or that the face down ticket was valid.

green can you show me the part where they have repealed discretionary measures, epecially when dealing with pay and dispaly tickets, disabled badges, valid parking permits and disabled parking.

[nero12]

green can you show me the part where they have repealed discretionary measures, epecially when dealing with pay and dispaly tickets, disabled badges, valid parking permits and disabled parking.

 

 

quote

 

The Secretary of State's Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London states that a Council should consider cancelling a PCN where there is 'satisfactory evidence' that the penalty charge should be waived on compassionate grounds as well as others. Quite often councils simply use standard rejection letters and take no account of circumstances where they should exercise discretion. It is often the case that an adjudicator will 'adjourn' a case in order to allow the council to exercise its discretion and cancel the PCN.

The case of Walmsley v PATAS in the Court of Appeal covers the subject of councils exercising discretion.

 

" Any public body exercising discretionary power of this kind, affecting a large number of people, risks being castigated for inconsistency if it does not have a policy to guide the officials ... But consistency is not the same thing as rigidity, and public authorities are also at risk if they fetter their discretion by being unduly formulaic. The courts have recognised that it is proper to adopt a policy provided it is applied flexibly in exceptional cases."

 

Therefore, if a council fails to apply discretion or is arbitrary in the way it applies it then it can lead to claims of maladministration and a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.The implied threat of a complaint is often enough for a council to reconsider.

 

 

unquote

[green_and_mean]

quote

 

The Secretary of State's Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London states that a Council should consider cancelling a PCN where there is 'satisfactory evidence' that the penalty charge should be waived on compassionate grounds.

 

 

What are the compassionate grounds in this case? Just because you made a stupid mistake is not compassionate grounds or a reason for discretion to be used.

[nero12]

What are the compassionate grounds in this case? Just because you made a stupid mistake is not compassionate grounds or a reason for discretion to be used.

green I have personaly had two of these tickets cancelled, I used the same theory of discretion as the tickts provided were not of ths sticky back type. Quite often thes type will blow over in high winds which you have no control over, or they will drop to the floor when you close the door. It is not a unique problem as many LA'S will probably know.

 

You still havnt answered my question where the tma 2004 has repealed discretion?

 

This subject is quite emotive to many people, however in this instance the attendant may have photos of an upturned ticket which the OP can produce as being valid. I cant see how you can debate this fact mate

[lamma]

the wording of the TRO is key - combined with the signs and tickets etc. many examples of these cases in the NPAS annual reports.

They also speak to council discretion.

[NewUser250508]

Hi,

 

Ok, i sent a very polite letter to the council (snippet below) along with the copy of the parking ticket that i had purchased and put it upside down !

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I had bought the ticket at 15:25 valid for the rest of day and displayed on the dashboard upside down by mistake. (Attached a copy of the ticket with this letter- No: 771804)

I request you to show compassion and exercise your discretionary powers in cancelling the PCN considering this is my first contravention and it was a mistake and nothing intentional.

I will endeavour to be more careful next time.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have received a letter stating that there are no grounds for cancellation of the charge. The list of grounds, set out in law, upon which the PCN may be challenged is enclosed with the letter.

 

It goes on to say "The conditions of use of car park state that the £50 will be issued for a failure to clearly display a valid ticked". Also a photograph is enclosed of the vehicle.

 

From the photograph, the ticket is indeed upside down and the number at the back is partially visible (looking at carefully one can see the first four digits of thee five digit number).

 

Any suggestions ? is it worth sending another letter asking for a copy of discretionary policy and also stating that the ticket wasn't a sticky one ?

 

Please advise

 

Thanks

[lamma]

typical we want your cash response.

 

check the TRO - they often trip up there.

 

also you did "clearly display a valid ticket' did you not ?

can you post the photo up ?

[Hobbie]

Gateshead Council have a good reputation for using discreation and cancelling PCN's for tickets issued under certain circumstances, such as the ticket displayed incorrectly.

 

Mr Roger Kelly (The councils CEO) personally said he would cancel any ticket issued by his staff if the circumstances in which it was issued was unfare, and according to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle his council has cancelled more than any other council.

 

If I remember correctly, he went public saying this "his" council would not use PCN revenue to profiteer, and all funds raised will be placed back into car parking.

[nero12]

typical we want your cash response.

 

check the TRO - they often trip up there.

 

also you did "clearly display a valid ticket' did you not ?

can you post the photo up ?

 

under the rta 1991/tam 2004 and from the secretary of state local athorities have a duty to act fairly. This means that they must have a policy document set out for members of staff to refer to

 

You have a right as an appealant to ask for this policy document, if they do not have one then you can ask for an explanation as to why. The adjudicators will take a very dim view of this and will probably side with you. I have personally had three of these(and counting) types of tickets cancelled so I know it works.

 

here is an adjudication to refer to, check the bottom part where it states that the ticket was out of view but has clearly been paid for.

 

 

 

 

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BN 05042E

Adjudicator’s Decision

Mr XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

and

Bath & North East Somerset Council

Penalty Charge Notice BN01722742

Penalty Charge £60.00

Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

The PCN was issued on 25 February 2006 at 14:08 to vehicle XXXXXXX in Broad Street Car Park for being parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park. Mr XXXXXXXX alleges that the contravention alleged did not occur. He says that his vehicle was not parked “after expiry of time paid for”. He has produced two pay and display tickets both

for this car park and for the date in question. There is no dispute that the first of these expired at 13.22 and was positioned face up in front of the gear stick within the car as shown in the photograph at page 19 of the Council’s bundle. Mr XXXXXXXX previously submitted a second

pay and displayed ticket purchased at 13.22 (immediately as the earlier one expired) and due to expire at 15.22. He explains, and the Council do not appear to dispute, that he had purchased the second ticket and stuck it to the driver’s side window, but that it had become detached and fallen out of view between the driver’s seat and the driver’s door.

Page 2 of 2

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BN 05042E

I have to decide whether or not the contravention as alleged occurred. Liability for penalty under

the Road Traffic Act 1991 is “strict” in that the Council do not need to prove any “fault” or

“intention” on the part of the driver. The Council does have a discretion as to whether or

not to enforce a penalty where there are mitigating circumstances, but the exercise of this discretion is not usually an area in which the Adjudicator has power to interfere. The Council have not explained why they have elected to seek to enforce this PCN where there is persuasive evidence

(taking account of the matching times on the two tickets) that a ticket was purchased and a

reasonable attempt made to display it.

Mr XXXXXXXX argues that the earlier (expired) ticket noted by the attendant - (on the basis of

which the PCN was issued for “being parked after expiry of time paid for”) - is irrelevant

because (albeit unbeknown to the parking attendant) he had in fact paid for further time and had

purchased ticket valid for the period in question. He argues that the vehicle was therefore not in

fact therefore “parked after expiry of time paid for”.

Whilst I accept that the parking attendant could not have known of these circumstances, the

burden of proof remains on the Council to establish that the contravention as alleged on the PCN

is the one that occurred. I am satisfied that a ticket valid at the time of issue of the PCN had been

purchased (albeit it had fallen out of view), so that the correct contravention should have been

failure “clearly to display a valid pay and display ticket”. In the circumstances this appeal is

allowed.

Toby Halliwell

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 12 June 2006

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Ask for the discretion policy. The councils right/obligation to consider discretion applies in all cases and at any time.

[nero12]

under the rta 1991/tam 2004 and from the secretary of state local athorities have a duty to act fairly. This means that they must have a policy document set out for members of staff to refer to

 

You have a right as an appealant to ask for this policy document, if they do not have one then you can ask for an explanation as to why. The adjudicators will take a very dim view of this and will probably side with you. I have personally had three of these(and counting) types of tickets cancelled so I know it works.

 

here is an adjudication to refer to, check the bottom part where it states that the ticket was out of view but has clearly been paid for.

 

 

 

 

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BN 05042E

Adjudicator’s Decision

Mr XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

and

Bath & North East Somerset Council

Penalty Charge Notice BN01722742

Penalty Charge £60.00

Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

The PCN was issued on 25 February 2006 at 14:08 to vehicle XXXXXXX in Broad Street Car Park for being parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park. Mr XXXXXXXX alleges that the contravention alleged did not occur. He says that his vehicle was not parked “after expiry of time paid for”. He has produced two pay and display tickets both

for this car park and for the date in question. There is no dispute that the first of these expired at 13.22 and was positioned face up in front of the gear stick within the car as shown in the photograph at page 19 of the Council’s bundle. Mr XXXXXXXX previously submitted a second

pay and displayed ticket purchased at 13.22 (immediately as the earlier one expired) and due to expire at 15.22. He explains, and the Council do not appear to dispute, that he had purchased the second ticket and stuck it to the driver’s side window, but that it had become detached and fallen out of view between the driver’s seat and the driver’s door.

Page 2 of 2

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BN 05042E

I have to decide whether or not the contravention as alleged occurred. Liability for penalty under

the Road Traffic Act 1991 is “strict” in that the Council do not need to prove any “fault” or

“intention” on the part of the driver. The Council does have a discretion as to whether or

not to enforce a penalty where there are mitigating circumstances, but the exercise of this discretion is not usually an area in which the Adjudicator has power to interfere. The Council have not explained why they have elected to seek to enforce this PCN where there is persuasive evidence

(taking account of the matching times on the two tickets) that a ticket was purchased and a

reasonable attempt made to display it.

Mr XXXXXXXX argues that the earlier (expired) ticket noted by the attendant - (on the basis of

which the PCN was issued for “being parked after expiry of time paid for”) - is irrelevant

because (albeit unbeknown to the parking attendant) he had in fact paid for further time and had

purchased ticket valid for the period in question. He argues that the vehicle was therefore not in

fact therefore “parked after expiry of time paid for”.

Whilst I accept that the parking attendant could not have known of these circumstances, the

burden of proof remains on the Council to establish that the contravention as alleged on the PCN

is the one that occurred. I am satisfied that a ticket valid at the time of issue of the PCN had been

purchased (albeit it had fallen out of view), so that the correct contravention should have been

failure “clearly to display a valid pay and display ticket”. In the circumstances this appeal is

allowed.

Toby Halliwell

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 12 June 2006

 

 

 

 

 

TICKET UPSIDE DOWN NOT A COTRAVENTION ADJUDICATION

 

 

 

 

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BX 05006M

Adjudicator’s Decision

Mr XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

and

Braintree District Council

Penalty Charge Notice BX20040681

Penalty Charge £60.00

Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

The PCN was issued on 11 January 2006 at 15:05 to vehicle XXXXXXXX in White Horse Lane

Car Park for being parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay

and display ticket. Mr XXXXXXXX has appealed against liability for payment of the penalty

charge and attended a hearing before me in London on 22 June 2006. He explained that 11

January was a very cold day and he had left home early, arriving at station the car park at

approximately 6 a.m. The charge for parking all day is £3 but Mr XXXXXXXX only had 2 x £2

coins, which he had to put into the machine to obtain a ticket. The machine gave no change, but

provided a ticket, which, incidentally printed the time one hour out since it had not been adjusted.

Mr XXXXXXXX opened his car and left the ticket on the dashboard.

When the PA patrolled the car park he observed that the ticket was face down and issued the

penalty charge notice. Mr XXXXXXXX returned to his car after 9pm and was amazed to find the

PCN. Having paid £1 over the full charge, he immediately sent the ticket to the council expecting

them to cancel the PCN. They declined to do so on the basis that the PCN had been face down on

the dashboard. They did not address Mr XXXXXXXX’s comment that the machine was not

calibrated accurately.

Page 2 of 2

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BX 05006M

A penalty charge is only payable where there has been a contravention of a provision of the

traffic regulation order relating to the car park. In this case it is the Braintree District Council

(Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Off Street Parking Places) Consolidation

Order 2004. Article 7 deals with the requirement to charges for parking. as follows:

The first difficulty with Article 7 is that in two places the charges are describes as, “referred to in

paragraph (ii) of this article”, whereas there is no paragraph (ii). Then article 7(d) suggests that

the ticket “shall be attached in a conspicuous position on the vehicle in respect of w which it was

issued”. In this case the ticket was in a conspicuous position so I do not consider that Mr

XXXXXXXX has contravened Article 7(d) as it is drafted. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Finally, I am bound to say that it is hard to understand the council’s position in this case. The

whole purpose of a ticket issued by the machine is to prove that payment has been made for

parking. Mr XXXXXXXX provided the evidence and that should have been the end of the

matter. Also the council retained Mr XXXXXXXX’s ticket and failed to supply a legible copy as

evidence in his appeal. That is a most unsatisfactory way to handle the other party’s evidence.

Caroline Sheppard

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 26 June 2006

[nero12]

TICKET UPSIDE DOWN NOT A COTRAVENTION ADJUDICATION

 

 

 

 

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BX 05006M

Adjudicator’s Decision

Mr XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

and

Braintree District Council

Penalty Charge Notice BX20040681

Penalty Charge £60.00

Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

The PCN was issued on 11 January 2006 at 15:05 to vehicle XXXXXXXX in White Horse Lane

Car Park for being parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay

and display ticket. Mr XXXXXXXX has appealed against liability for payment of the penalty

charge and attended a hearing before me in London on 22 June 2006. He explained that 11

January was a very cold day and he had left home early, arriving at station the car park at

approximately 6 a.m. The charge for parking all day is £3 but Mr XXXXXXXX only had 2 x £2

coins, which he had to put into the machine to obtain a ticket. The machine gave no change, but

provided a ticket, which, incidentally printed the time one hour out since it had not been adjusted.

Mr XXXXXXXX opened his car and left the ticket on the dashboard.

When the PA patrolled the car park he observed that the ticket was face down and issued the

penalty charge notice. Mr XXXXXXXX returned to his car after 9pm and was amazed to find the

PCN. Having paid £1 over the full charge, he immediately sent the ticket to the council expecting

them to cancel the PCN. They declined to do so on the basis that the PCN had been face down on

the dashboard. They did not address Mr XXXXXXXX’s comment that the machine was not

calibrated accurately.

Page 2 of 2

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BX 05006M

A penalty charge is only payable where there has been a contravention of a provision of the

traffic regulation order relating to the car park. In this case it is the Braintree District Council

(Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Off Street Parking Places) Consolidation

Order 2004. Article 7 deals with the requirement to charges for parking. as follows:

The first difficulty with Article 7 is that in two places the charges are describes as, “referred to in

paragraph (ii) of this article”, whereas there is no paragraph (ii). Then article 7(d) suggests that

the ticket “shall be attached in a conspicuous position on the vehicle in respect of w which it was

issued”. In this case the ticket was in a conspicuous position so I do not consider that Mr

XXXXXXXX has contravened Article 7(d) as it is drafted. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Finally, I am bound to say that it is hard to understand the council’s position in this case. The

whole purpose of a ticket issued by the machine is to prove that payment has been made for

parking. Mr XXXXXXXX provided the evidence and that should have been the end of the

matter. Also the council retained Mr XXXXXXXX’s ticket and failed to supply a legible copy as

evidence in his appeal. That is a most unsatisfactory way to handle the other party’s evidence.

Caroline Sheppard

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 26 June 2006

WILL FIND MORE IFF NEED BE

[Hobbie]

How many you able to find?

[nero12]

RELEVANT POSITION AND APPROPRIATE MANNER OF DISPLAY ADJUDICATION

 

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: CA 05004B

Adjudicator’s Decision

Mr XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

and

Carlisle City Council

Penalty Charge Notice CA 21033214

Penalty Charge £ 50.00

Appeal Allowed on the ground that the contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner

Reasons

This case was listed before me today as a personal appeal. In that respect, the Appellant attended and gave

evidence. In addition, XXXXXXXXX attended on behalf of the Council in the capacity of an observer.

She made it clear, however, that she was prepared to assist with any queries and did in fact do so.

The circumstances are as follows. At 3.56pm on 26th September 2005, a Parking Attendant issued a

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the Appellant’s vehicle, registered number XXXXXXXX, at a time when

it was parked in The Sands car park. The ground on which the PCN was issued was that the vehicle was

parked in a Pay & Display car park without clearly displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket.

The Appellant appeals on the ground that the contravention did not occur because the vehicle was in fact

displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket at the time. In that respect, the Council accept that the Appellant

had bought a Pay & Display ticket, which was valid and covered him for parking at the time the PCN was

issued, and the only issue before, therefore, is whether or not that ticket was properly on display in the

vehicle.

The Council’s Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) purports to deal with the display of Pay & Display tickets.

In that respect, Article 21 provides that a Pay & Display ticket “shall be exhibited on the vehicle in the

Relevant Position throughout the said period….” The term “Relevant Position” is in fact defined by

Article 1.31 but only in relation to the display of disabled badges, parking discs and any other badges. It is

Page 2 of 3

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: CA 05004B

not, therefore, defined in relation to the display of Pay & Display tickets. Article 1.23 refers to the fact

that pre-paid tickets (i.e. Pay & Display tickets) must be displayed “in the appropriate manner.”

Furthermore, Article 1.01 provides that the term “Appropriate Manner” “in relation to the display of prepaid

tickets and permits means in such a position:- (a) inside the vehicle and in such a manner that date

and time symbols or permit details thereon are clearly visible form the front or side of the vehicle.”

Consequently, whether this is the intention of the TRO or not, the TRO provides that a Pay & Display

ticket is properly on display if it is inside the vehicle and if the details on the ticket are clearly visible form

the front or side of the vehicle. It does not require, therefore, that the Pay & Display ticket is, for example,

either displayed on the dashboard or fixed to the inside of the windscreen or driver’s side window, as most

other TROs do.

The issue for me, therefore, is whether I am satisfied that the Pay & Display ticket was inside the vehicle

and that the details on it were clearly visible from the front or side of it.

The Council naturally rely on the evidence of their Parking Attendant. He has recorded in his

computerised notes that “Screen Clear.” He has not, for example, gone on to note that he checked all the

windows by the use of an abbreviation, normally used by Parking Attendants i.e. “AWC, meaning “All

Windows Checked.” Consequently, the Attendant’s sole reference to “Screen Clear” indicates that he may

well only have checked the windscreen of the vehicle. He has, however, taken photographs of the vehicle,

which show that there is nothing attached to the windows of the vehicle or, indeed, the dashboard itself.

In his evidence before me today, the Appellant has confirmed what he has said throughout in his written

communications with the Council. He had parked on this car park in order to collect his son from Carlisle

station and, having bought a Pay & Display ticket, he placed the ticket on the dashboard. He left his dog

in the vehicle and the dog is in fact the “passenger”, to whom the Appellant refers in his letters to the

Council. When he returned to the vehicle, the Pay & Display ticket was no longer on the dashboard but it

was positioned on the “indent” in the dashboard. However, the Appellant confirmed that the particulars on

the ticket could be read from the driver’s side window. The Appellant can only conclude that the

movement of the dog in his car had caused the ticket to fall from the dashboard to the indent.

In October 2005, the Appellant took a photograph from outside of the driver’s window with his ticket

positioned on the indent. This photograph has been produced by the Appellant with his Notice of Appeal

and it is clear from that photograph that the particulars on the ticket can still be read from the side of the

vehicle. The photograph was taken by the Appellant purely and simply to show where exactly the ticket

was.

Page 3 of 3

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: CA 05004B

Unfortunately, the indent, to which the Appellant refers, cannot be seen on the photograph taken by the

Parking Attendant on page 21 of the Council’s evidence. The Council received a copy of the Appellant’s

photograph towards the end of March 2006. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Council chose not to attempt

to enhance the Parking Attendant’s photograph on page 21, as this may or may not have established that

the Pay & Display ticket was on the indent.

Having considered all the evidence available to me, I accept the evidence of the Appellant. I find as a fact,

therefore, that, at the time the PCN was issued, the Pay & Display ticket was displayed on the “indent”, as

shown on the Appellant’s photograph. I further find the particulars on it were clearly visible form the side

of the vehicle. I also find, therefore, that the contravention did not occur.

For the above reasons, therefore, I allow the Appellant’s appeal.

Clifton Barker

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 30th June 2006

Issue Code 4

[nero12]

How many you able to find? [/quote

 

 

how many do you recon the OP needs :lol:

[nero12]

How many you able to find? [/quote

 

 

how many do you recon the OP needs :lol:

write back to the LA ,

 

state that it appears that they have not properly concidered your appeal.

 

refer to the adjudiactions, and ask for the discretion policy document should they not cancell your ticket.

 

Post if you need help with the letter.

[nero12]

write back to the LA ,

 

state that it appears that they have not properly concidered your appeal.

 

refer to the adjudiactions, and ask for the discretion policy document should they not cancell your ticket.

 

Post if you need help with the letter.

It may be worth writing a letter of complaint to the cheife executive of the LA and also to the local gouvernment ombudsmen to boot.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It may be worth writing a letter of complaint to the cheife executive of the LA and also to the local gouvernment ombudsmen to boot.

 

Not yet. This will not help at this time.

[nero12]

 

Not yet. This will not help at this time.

why's that mate,

 

thought it maybe worth putting the boot in at the informal stage.