single yellow in restricted street

[boblit]

Aaaargh, I have just been issued a ticket for contravening: 01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

My confusion is that although the signs do indicate 10:00AM- 4:30PM Mon-Sun they do not specify that single yellow's are included (Everywhere else I have come across excludes these from the resident parking restrictions and they are OK when pay and displays are no longer in operation). I couldn't find a pay and display within a block of where I parked and assumed bank holiday meant they wouldn't be in operation anyway.

On Richmond Upon Thames website it states that the CPZ covers yellow lines, not much use when you're reading signs on the street!

Has anyone contested a similar PCN.

 

ps Car Make on PCN is incorrect, does this make a difference?

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts/help

[green_and_mean]

In a CPZ controoled zone the times of the single yellow lines are the time of the zone unless there are different times shown on the line itself. Generally they are similar times to the 'time plated' bays in the street but this is not always the case. If in doubt its always best to assume you cannot park on a SYL if you cannot find the time rather than assume you can. The make of car is unlikely to get the PCN cancelled.

[boblit]

Thanks for kinda confirming what I thought. Pretty boring!

[nero12]

Thanks for kinda confirming what I thought. Pretty boring!

Had 3 cancelled on make of car alone so yes I would inculde this on your appeal. I will pm paperwork if need be with permission of course to prove the point. Read the jbourdon thread here where you will find a suitable letter

 

wrong car make for PCN + Misleading Signs - Penalty Charges Forum

 

 

It also appeared on this site

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/181290-wrong-car-make-pcn.html

 

Many will say that the info does not have to be there by law which is correct, however if they choose to include it then they must correctly identify the vehicle

 

The cpz signs have to conform to legislation and so do syl's. Are there any problems with the lines and were there cpz entry signs on both sides of the road.

 

It maybe worth scanning in the ticket front and back without personal stuff.

 

Do you have your v5 form handy.

Edited April 12, 2009 by nero12

[boblit]

Here are the scans of ticket and V5.

PCN front.pdf

 

PCN back.pdf

 

v5.pdf

[green_and_mean]

How can you say the make is wrong when both the PCN and Log book say its a range rover?? What car is it??

[Al27]

Dodgy sounding timescales on the back.

 

"Within 14 days from the date of service" takes away a day doesn't it?

 

"After 28 days from the date of service" likewise?

[patdavies]

How can you say the make is wrong when both the PCN and Log book say its a range rover?? What car is it??

 

The make on the V5 is Land Rover - which is correct. The model is Range Rover.

 

It's like a CEO putting down the make of vehicle as Focus instead of Ford

[green_and_mean]

The make on the V5 is Land Rover - which is correct. The model is Range Rover.

 

It's like a CEO putting down the make of vehicle as Focus instead of Ford

 

I guess he should have put Tata that would have cheered the OP up, lol. I guess it would be much easier for CEOs just to have half a dozen 'makes' to choose from but no doubt mini owners would claim it was not a BMW and Volvo drivers object to having a Ford. I suggest that he appeals if he feels he has a case you never know the Adjudicator may be up for a laugh.

[Al27]

Unlikely to get the PCN cancelled on car make.

 

Doesn't matter though as the wording about timing is all over the place. See Al's Bar vs Wandsworth

 

Turning to the next element, the prescribed period for payment is 'before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice'. The PCN says 'within 28 days'.

 

The general rule is that where a period is fixed for the taking of some step, the day of the act or event from which the period runs is excluded in calculating the period. Mr Pitt-Payne conceded that 'within 28 days' fell to be construed in accordance with this rule as excluding the date on which the PCN was issued. The wording does not literally comply with paragraph ©, but does it substantially comply?

 

Mr Pitt-Payne referred me to Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands) Ltd [1967] 2 All E.R. 900, which he conceded was against him. This concerned the interpretation of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 6 rule 8(1), which provided that a writ was valid 'for twelve months beginning with the date of its issue'. The Court of Appeal held that 'beginning with the date' included the day on which the writ was issued and ousted the general rule.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne urged me to construe this case narrowly; to treat it as authority for the meaning of 'beginning with' only in the context with which the Court was concerned and as not applying to a penal or quasi-penal administrative penalty. This is a most unappealing proposition. If the term's meaning is dependent on context, it would mean that in every context where the term appeared there would be likely to be uncertainty as to its meaning. I would in any event have decisively rejected it, but in any case it seems to me to be inconsistent with the decision in Trow.

 

Furthermore, another authority, Hare v Gocher [1962] 2 Q.B. 641, is to the same effect as Trow: In Hare, where the words in question were 'beginning with the commencement of this Act' and 'beginning with the date on which it is passed', Winn J concluded that the phrase 'beginning with' was especially used to avoid equivocation and to exclude the ordinary rule.

 

In Trow, Harman LJ said 'I see no escape from the conclusion that where the word "with" is used, the first day is included'; and Salmon LJ said that 'Any period of time to be calculated as commencing or beginning with a certain day must include that day.' I emphasise: 'Any period'. This makes clear that this is a matter not of context but of the ordinary meaning of the language.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne argued that if the draftsman had intended the first day to be included, he could have made that clear by including words such as 'including the day of issue of the notice'. The answer to that is that given that the meaning of the phrase chosen by the draftsman is well established, any such embellishment would have been verbiage.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne also argued that if the wording of the PCN differed from the language of the statute, the effect was to give an extra day for payment to be made. If there was an error, it was in favour of the person liable to pay; so nobody was prejudiced by the error. This argument might well be relevant to the second substantive question - the effect of non-compliance - but it does not support the argument that the PCN is compliant. The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law. The fact that it may as a matter of administrative practice allow longer than the prescribed periods (an issue I will return to) is a different point and cannot justify a misstatement of the legal position, which is the purpose of the requirements of section 66(3).

 

The PCN therefore fails the compliance test in this regard also.

 

The PCN is invalid - they can't even decide whether to use 'within' or 'after', so they've shot themselves twice.

[boblit]

Thanks for the comments and the decisions referred to. Given that I have time I am going to appeal both points;

 

1- that it is a land rover (not a rover, nor land cruiser....etc) esp given the car was observed for 16mins until a PCN was issued (plenty of time for the CEO to read the badges on the car)

2- that the conflicting references to the periods of payment (specifically that "The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law." the PCN become noncompliant itself.

 

Before I mail this I will try and locate the statutory limits for Local Authorities on the OPSI site pointed to by Nero12 (although finding a specific clause may prove tricky having skimmed through them already)

 

I really appreciate everybody's comments and do realise that my situation is a bit of a stretch, but having suffered badly in the past am keen to run it up the flagpole anyway!

 

Thanks

[green_and_mean]

Thanks for the comments and the decisions referred to. Given that I have time I am going to appeal both points;

 

1- that it is a land rover (not a rover, nor land cruiser....etc) esp given the car was observed for 16mins until a PCN was issued (plenty of time for the CEO to read the badges on the car)

 

What like the badges on this 1995 land/range rover vogue se??

 

[boblit]

Yes, as I said a stretch!, but nevertheless....

[patdavies]

The trademark green oval/gold lettering Land Rover badge is clearly visible.

 

And to take it a point further; what if this were related to an early Jaguar XJ6. Nowhere on the exterior of the vehicle does it say Jaguar - there is only the Jaguar head badge.

[green_and_mean]

The trademark green oval/gold lettering Land Rover badge is clearly visible.

 

And to take it a point further; what if this were related to an early Jaguar XJ6. Nowhere on the exterior of the vehicle does it say Jaguar - there is only the Jaguar head badge.

 

If Land Rover is the make and range rover the model what is a 'vogue SE'? The make at this point of its history was BMW anyway.

[crem]

If Land Rover is the make and range rover the model what is a 'vogue SE'? The make at this point of its history was BMW anyway.

 

Vogue SE would be the model "specification"

[boblit]

Hi all,

 

Just posting an update to tie this thread up. SUCCESS !

 

I received a letter today informing me that the PCN has been cancelled. I've attached the letter I sent and the reply I received. Once again thanks to everybody for your advice and thoughts and of course to the site which facilitates these forums.

parking ticket letter.doc

[nero12]

Hi all,

 

Just posting an update to tie this thread up. SUCCESS !

 

I received a letter today informing me that the PCN has been cancelled. I've attached the letter I sent and the reply I received. Once again thanks to everybody for your advice and thoughts and of course to the site which facilitates these forums.

Nice one mate well done, cant read the cancellation letter tho.

 

BY the letter sent tho, wrong make strikes again along with the other stuff LOL

Edited June 3, 2009 by nero12

[boblit]

Thanks nero12,

 

Here's another attempt at the reply!

 

Please let me know if you're unable to read it still and i'll type it out in full.

 

Boblit

[nero12]

Thanks nero12,

 

Here's another attempt at the reply!

 

Please let me know if you're unable to read it still and i'll type it out in full.

 

Boblit

Nah still cant. Thumbnails a bit fuzzy.

[boblit]

Sry

 

typed out version attached!

 

boblit

response.doc

[nero12]

Sry

 

typed out version attached!

 

boblit

Slam dunk win !!

 

Wrong make again LOL