Order for Recovery - unpaid penalty charge

[adamna]

This is a problem with a rigid system that doesn't make allowances for the unusual. It's biased in their favour.

 

I think the notice of rejection might be interesting. If they didn't offer the clear evidence you asked them for, it may be flawed. If it is flawed, you could state that you didn't get a notice of rejection, perhaps. Can you scan, wash and post it?

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to offer conditional payment, and there is nothing to stop them communicating reasonably with people who ask questions, that they have accused of something that they seek to profit from. This is possible whatever the process 'should' be, especially if they have not made it clear that the OP was entitled to view further evidence as they 'should' have done.

 

It's a big problem that it's difficult to turn the 'one eyed' tanker round, and one that needs addressing.

[Conniff]

I can't see how this is not positive proof. If you can't turn left, then you can bet that you can't turn right from the opposite direction either, even if you could turn right from the opposite direction, to be that far up the road you would have had to be sitting at the junction waiting for the Transit to clear or be humping around that corner which would have put you on the curb side of the road, that only leaves one possible way you could have come from, the traffic lights at the front of the pictures.

As the cars haven't moved, and your not shown at those lights, you obviously weren't at those lights and went straight on, the only other possibility is come from left (where it shows your car emerging), and turn left.

 

If you look at the angle of your car and the Transit van, they are not pointing in the same direction.

End of story as far as I can see.

 

If you really want to carry on with this then go ask them to show you the video, that will end all quieries

Edited February 8, 2009 by Conniff

[adamna]

I take it that is you coming from the left and turning left.

Only you will know, is there a sign saying you have to go straight on ??

I think this is the point, plus it's not conclusive that the vehicle emering from the left is the OP's.

[green_and_mean]

There is no legal requirement to even include photos on the PCN all that is needed as far as the contravention is concerned is a time, date and description.

[Conniff]

I think this is the point, plus it's not conclusive that the vehicle emering from the left is the OP's.

 

 

But they will have seen the full moving film and know that it is you coming out from the left.

 

All you can do is ask your mate to pay up and if he wont then don't be his mate any longer and don't lend your car to anyone.

[adamna]

Isn't that a bit prejudiced? We know you did it, and you must just believe us? Remember they didn't offer to show any better evidence.

 

You might think we all ought to trust them, but I see no reason to, nor are they infallible, and they do stand to profit. It's not like they've never been mistaken, or plain wrong.

 

I think the OP has played very fair, offering conditional payment is generous.

[Conniff]

No, I don't think it is prejudiced. The op knows that is his car up the road, the one showing the plates.

He also can see that it is the same car emerging from the left, me and you might not but he will and anyway, where else could that car have come from?

 

If you look at the distance the bus has moved from the bus stop and the distance the white Transit coming towards on the other side has travelled, I don't see how he could have come from anywhere else.

 

This thread could be ended here, all he has to do is say he will pay them a visit and ask to see the film.

 

If there is no right turn from the right as there is no left turn from the left then it couldn't have come from the traffic lights at the front of the picture, so 'must' have come from one of those directions.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Conniff

[green_and_mean]

Isn't that a bit prejudiced? We know you did it, and you must just believe us? Remember they didn't offer to show any better evidence.

 

You might think we all ought to trust them, but I see no reason to, nor are they infallible, and they do stand to profit. It's not like they've never been mistaken, or plain wrong.

 

I think the OP has played very fair, offering conditional payment is generous.

 

You don't have to beleive them you can contest it thats why there is an adjudicator. How could a conditional payment be accepted at what point would the Council know the owner was satisfied a contravention had occured? He asked for more proof they sent more photos, he should then have paid or appealed.

[adamna]

They sent more photos without anything to confirm that there was no left turn.... If he's not the driver, he does need to know.

[Conniff]

I agree with you there adam. I was thinking he would know the car when I said that.

Still easily settled, take a drive and have a look. If yes, then are they legal?

Some photos posted on here would probably put that last bit to bed.