Signs facing the wrong way

[green_and_mean]

on your decision or definition of relevant maybe.

there is PLENTY more on removal that that little snippet as well you know G&M. you are in No position to decide what is relevant only the OP is. you don't know all the facts but he does. I find your post at the very least misleading. Are you trying to help people or just get them to pay regardless ?

 

more of the guidance to follow. anyone with an interest is better off getting the original document and reading it.

get it here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf

 

further selections (inter alia)

54. When a vehicle is parked where parking is permitted, authorities must not33

immobilise or remove in the first 30 minutes following the issuing of the PCN,

with the exception of ‘persistent evader’ vehicles (see paragraphs 65-66)

where the time limit is 15 minutes. When a vehicle has been immobilised, a

CEO must34 affix a notice to it. The regulations set out what that notice

must35 say. The immobilisation device may only be removed by or under the

direction of a person authorised to do so by the enforcement authority,

following payment of the release fee and the penalty charge. not relevant as parking is not permitted on a SYL during controlled hours

 

 

55. Where a vehicle is causing a hazard or obstruction the enforcement authority

should remove rather than immobilise. If the vehicle is parked where parking

is prohibited (such as on double yellow lines), then the vehicle can be

removed as soon as a PCN has been served as stated by myself

 

56. If a driver returns to the vehicle whilst immobilisation or removal is taking

place, then unless they are a persistent evader, it is recommended that the

operation is halted, unless the clamp is secured or the vehicle has all its

wheels aboard the tow truck. If immobilisation or removal is halted the PCN

should still be enforced. not relevant as the op said it had gone when he returned

 

57. When a vehicle is immobilised and subsequently removed to the pound, the

driver does not have to pay the clamp release fee37. not relavant as the vehicle was not clamped

 

So your post has helped the OP any more than mine in what way? Maybe if you took the time to read the OPs original post rather than take any chance to criticise me you would not make yourself to look as stupid as you do.

[lamma]

Op did not break down the fee structure (the 200 quid) there is also mention of th reasonable costs aspect . So you CANNOT say this is not relevant as you have no idea whatsoever - even the "red ink" doesn't make a difference

Do you know what inter alia means ?

As I said i suggest anyone interested reads the whole document.

[coot]

Went to New Zeland House today to make my representations to PATAS.

 

He spoke for a bit, said he'd read my side and was going to read what H&F wrote for their side of the story. He read this aloud then looked at their photographic evidence. He looked at my photographic evidence, asked where the controlled zone was in relation to where I parked and said "I'm allowing your appeal". It was clear to him that I was in a controlled zone and that the yellow line I parked on did not have a clearly visible sign so therefore I will be getting the £260 back! Over in less than ten minutes.

 

The thing that angers me is that if it was that easy for the adjudicator to see that the pcn and tow was unfair then the council must have as well but chose to try and scare me off. :mad:

 

 

Thanks to all that offered their help and assistance. Much appreciated.

[crem]

 

The thing that angers me is that if it was that easy for the adjudicator to see that the pcn and tow was unfair then the council must have as well but chose to try and scare me off. :mad:

 

Doesn't that speak volumes.