PCN issued east sussex CC

[moosh-col]

Hi All

I received a ticket issued by east sussex CC 16/08/2008 for "parked causing an obstruction"

I note there are NO marked parking bays, I did not block anyone, I took a photograph clearly showing that all cars had exited the car park around mine with no problems, and showing that I had not caused an obstruction to anybody.

The only parking restrictions were not to park adjacent to one of the walls, which of course I didn't.

Do you think I have a case to object? Is there a standard type letter I should use?

 

Many thanks in advance!

[wimberry]

I am no expert, but because the ticket was issued by the council you might not have much luck. Hope someone else can help you!

[lamma]

you need to post pictures of all of the PCN - suitably washed of your personal details. councils often mess them up.

and pictures of the signs and location.

[moosh-col]

Thankyou for the replies, I will scan and upload tomorrow!

[robin9342]

I'm not sure East Sussex CC issue PCNs. Are you sure its not one of the district or borough councils such as Hastings/Rother/Brighton etc?

[moosh-col]

Good question!

It had the eastsussex.gov.uk label all over it and the address to write to or pay is 'The parking Shop' as detailed here: www lewes gov uk/transport/2315 asp

[robin9342]

OK, we will wait until you post up the ticket (and the photo)

[moosh-col]

here's one of the pics: www sys3 com/ian/1.jpg

the pcn all seems in order, but i will scan and post tomorrow...

[moosh-col]

here's both sides of the pcn:

www sys3 com/ian/ticket1.jpg

www sys3 com/ian/ticket2.jpg

[robin9342]

What planet are these people on? . Exactly what are you supposed to be obstructing? There are no marked bays and presumably no instructions on how to park. You should appeal on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I don't think there is a standard wording because its an informal appeal at this stage, but I'm sure someone could draft a reply for you...

[moosh-col]

Thanks for confirming that I am not mad!

I have written a note as per below, We'll have to wait and see!

 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

On 16/08/2008 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason of (92) Parked Causing an Obstruction.

 

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I did not cause an obstruction and complied with all notices displayed. I parked within any marked bays of which there were none, in addition, I made absolutely certain that I did not prevent any other persons or vehicles from being able to enter or exit the car park or their chosen parking places.

 

I took the liberty of photographing my vehicle on my return which clearly shows that I was parked without causing an obstruction.

For this reason I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

 

[robin9342]

Thanks for confirming that I am not mad!

I have written a note as per below, We'll have to wait and see!

 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

On 16/08/2008 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the alleged reason of (92) Parked Causing an Obstruction.

 

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I did not cause an obstruction and complied with all notices displayed. There were no marked bays. In addition, I made absolutely certain that I did not prevent any other persons or vehicles from being able to enter or exit the car park or their chosen parking places.

 

I took the liberty of photographing my vehicle on my return which clearly shows that I was parked without causing an obstruction. I have enclosed a copy to support my appeal.

For this reason I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

 

I am definitely not an expert, but I would make these changes. There may be some more advice from others later.

[Guest Ting]

Thanks for confirming that I am not mad!

I have written a note as per below, We'll have to wait and see!

 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

On 16/08/2008 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason of (92) Parked Causing an Obstruction.

 

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I did not cause an obstruction and complied with all notices displayed. I parked within any marked bays of which there were none, in addition, I made absolutely certain that I did not prevent any other persons or vehicles from being able to enter or exit the car park or their chosen parking places.

 

 

I took the liberty of photographing my vehicle on my return which clearly shows that I was parked without causing an obstruction.

 

For this reason I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

 

 

No offence, but that should make them laugh at the first sentence! What has RTA 1991 got to do with it?

 

Also - not seeing the images. i have a vague recollection of seeing a non-compliant one from this Council recently. Is it my browser or are images not showing? I'm seeing others in other posts.

-

[bmwman]

Hi

 

Although I have not looked at the TMA 2004 as yet from what I can see in the top paragraph on the back. It states the Notice to owner will be sent to the registered keeper is it NOT the owner who is responceable for paying the registed keeper may not be the owner as in the case of a leased car. Also contact TPT to see if East Sussex CC have signed up to the scheme. I don't think they have. Which makes it fraud under the fraud act 2006 sections 1 to 5

[lamma]

Civil Parking Enforcement in Lewes District – Annual Report 2004/05

[bmwman]

East Sussex County Council covers all the towns in East Sussex how ever the ticket should have been issued by Lewis District Council surly

[Guest Ting]

Can anyone confirm whether or not those images a showing or perhaps educate a stupid newbie on what I might be doing wrong?

 

ta

[lamma]

cut and past the links to the images that are not working for you - or quote the relevant post.

[Guest Ting]

I'm seeing www refs in posts 8 and 9 but not showing as 'links'.

Unreactive to cursor.

 

Thanks for your help. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.

-

[lamma]

you are not going to like this... you are not seeing references to web addresses. you are seeing what were web addresses (URLs) with full stops taken out. it is called 'munging'. just copy a 'reference' and paste it into the address bar of your browser, replace the spaces with full stops and press enter. then the magic happens.

[green_and_mean]

To save you the effort...

 

www.sys3.com/ian/ticket1.jpg

www.sys3.com/ian/ticket2.jpg

www.sys3.com/ian/1.jpg

[Guest Ting]

Hi

 

Although I have not looked at the TMA 2004 as yet from what I can see in the top paragraph on the back. It states the Notice to owner will be sent to the registered keeper is it NOT the owner who is responceable for paying the registed keeper may not be the owner as in the case of a leased car.

 

I concur. CEoPC Gen Regs - Schedule, para 1

 

www.sys3.com/ian/1.jpg

 

You will notice that they also fail to mention who will serve the NtO.

 

Invalid PCN.

 

Unsure about the 'legality of enforcement' issue you raised 'bmw'.

They use NCP. - including on and off-street. Maybe something in that but not my area.

-

[lamma]

Agree. But thw whole TMA 'owner thing is a mess isn't it ? "“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;" despite the fact that the 'owner' 'keeper' and 'registered keeper' may be three separate people (that old thing). clear as mud as is much of TMA

[Guest Ting]

Agree. But thw whole TMA 'owner thing is a mess isn't it ? "“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;" despite the fact that the 'owner' 'keeper' and 'registered keeper' may be three separate people (that old thing). clear as mud as is much of TMA

 

Agree TMA is a mess and still being sorted out.

 

The wording of the Regs though, is very specific and is statute.

-

[lamma]

agree - again ! is that a hat trick ?