Council issuing NTO without issuing PCN

[green_and_mean]

Would you please advise me on the way PCN's are numbered as from your comments it appears they go up 11 at a time.

I believe that a CEO prints a 'test ticket' at the start of each day/shift.

Therefore if the 'test ticket' prints out as HG22165736 is it correct to assume that the first PCN that the CEO issues will be HG22165747?

What happens when the last digit is a 9?

For example does HG22165769 become HG22165780?

 

The test ticket number has no relevance as its not a PCN it just shows the date and time are correct usually the first PCN issued would be 11 after the last one the day before. The HG is the code for Havering, the first 7 digits are sequential and then a check digit is used. Sometimes the check digit can be a letter just to confuse you, lol.

[dandy1764]

This is a great thread and Spellboy you've got them and they know it.

 

I wonder if the Director of the Department or Local Councillor/MP would be interested to know were our hard earned taxes are being spent.

 

Shows up LA's for what they are.....a law unto themselves...across the board.....across the country in every department.

 

Please keep the info flowing

[spellboy]

Thanks for your support. You may have seen my other thread at

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/195003-ultimate-punishment-refusal-pay-5.html

 

Please do not think that I am a serial parking offender. In 22 years of living in Havering I have never encountered a situation like the one I now find myself in.

If you check the other thread you will see that I did indeed inform my local MP who was good enough to try to get the LA to look at the alleged offence again. Unfortunately the only result from that was the NtO that sparked off this current thread.

Having initially made polite observations to the LA that, in the first alleged contravention I was likely to succeed due to incorrect signage and roadmarkings I suddenly received an NtO 45 days after an earlier alleged contravention when the CEO originally did not give me a PCN.

It seemed as if the LA were determined to get me somehow because I had dared to complain to my MP.

I feel, as you probably do also, that the amount of council employees' time wasted to date on both of these alleged contraventions has cost Havering Council taxpayers far more than the fines will generate, even if the LA win against my appeal.

I do not think my case is unique. Imagine what this is costing if this situation is being repeated nationwide.

It's fortunate for me that, being retired I have time to spend writing letters and chasing around the net for info.

Most people just don't have the time or the knowledge that these things can be fought and simply pay up within 14 days to benefit from the 50% discount.

It's like being bribed with one's own money into paying a fine that may not lawfully be justified.

If I am successful in my appeal I may be awarded costs which will waste even more money.

Edited August 20, 2009 by spellboy
spelling

[green_and_mean]

I feel, as you probably do also, that the amount of council employees' time wasted to date on both of these alleged contraventions has cost Havering Council taxpayers far more than the fines will generate, even if the LA win against my appeal.

I do not think my case is unique. Imagine what this is costing if this situation is being repeated nationwide.

 

On both occasions you are clearly in the wrong there is a photo of you parked on the footway contary to a law that has been in place for over 20 years and in the other you admit you parked without a permit to hoover your car so you are hardly an innocent victim.

The fact that the Council or more correctly one or more of its staff have failed to follow the correct procedure doesn't detract from the fact that if you hadn't parked where you did none of this would have happened. You may feel smug in the fact that you may escape paying the fines but it has cost you far more of your own time than ANY member of Council staff who are paid to deal with your case and it may have escaped your notice but it is you that actually pays those wages. You are correct in one thing and that is that most people in a similar situation do pay and that is because a) they are honest enough to realise they where in the wrong and b) sensible enough to realise spending hours of their time to get off a £50 fine is not worth the effort.

[dandy1764]

green and mean is this a guise that you adopt or are you really like how you are coming across in the posts.

 

Have you never felt wronged, why do you help people on here if this is how you feel?

 

It is all about Natural Justice and you dont seem to grasp that. I would not even begin to establish how many people you may have helped on these forums...you may have your reasoning for this stance.....but being a council employee does not justify this.

 

Again I do not want to be drawn into any arguments that I have nothing to gain from ....I have enough issues needing addressed myself and I am thnkfull for the help I recieve.

 

FACT, Local Authorities across the country are generally overstaffed and running way below the capacity that the would be if they were a private firm. It is a bit of a generalisation, but one that I have confidence in stating.

 

I would wind your neck in a little it is not personal just an opinion.

 

Please dont be offended I am sure you do more good on the forums than most but get off the old boys back eh.

 

choi

[lamma]

An injustice to one is an injustice to all. Those that do not stand up condone. Some try to sell 'roll over and pay'.

[spellboy]

On both occasions you are clearly in the wrong there is a photo of you parked on the footway contary to a law that has been in place for over 20 years and in the other you admit you parked without a permit to hoover your car so you are hardly an innocent victim.

The fact that the Council or more correctly one or more of its staff have failed to follow the correct procedure doesn't detract from the fact that if you hadn't parked where you did none of this would have happened. You may feel smug in the fact that you may escape paying the fines but it has cost you far more of your own time than ANY member of Council staff who are paid to deal with your case and it may have escaped your notice but it is you that actually pays those wages. You are correct in one thing and that is that most people in a similar situation do pay and that is because a) they are honest enough to realise they where in the wrong and b) sensible enough to realise spending hours of their time to get off a £50 fine is not worth the effort.

 

I am never sure if you are playing Devil’s advocate or whether you actually believe all the comments you make.

 

In this thread I have already stated that I knew I had taken a risk in parking where I did.

When I saw the CEO walking away from my car I expected a PCN would be on the windscreen.

If there had been I would have paid it within 14 days and it would have cost me £60 not £50.

For whatever reason; the CEO did not serve the PCN and therefore the enforcement process cannot be pursued.

That just happens to be the law, as I understand it.

Additionally the LA failed to respond to my representations within the specified period.

However the LA will not accept their errors and are asking me to pay the full fine of £120.

They are forcing me into making an appeal because they won’t admit they have failed to do the job they are paid to do.

 

The situation is the same in my other thread. The LA want to punish me for a very minor contravention of parking in a resident’s bay for one minute. However when I point out that they have significantly failed to mark out and sign the bay in accordance with the statutory regulations they don’t want the rules to apply to them.

A case of ‘do as I say not as I do’.

 

You mention honesty in your point (a).

The LA are not honest enough to accept that they are in the wrong when they fail to observe their own rules.

To deal with your point (b)

Councils are, in many cases, getting away with fining people who have not actually broken the law. They are taking advantage of the fact that many of us do not know the legal obligations that apply to the council.

The purpose of this forum is, as I understand it, to make the public aware of their rights so that we are not bullied into paying fines that are not justified.

There has been much in the media recently about how much councils are fleecing from motorists.

It is all about making money and nothing to do with parking control.

In days gone by Traffic Wardens gave a discretionary 5 minutes before booking people.

In those days it was more about common sense than making money.

 

I do not feel smug at all.

I am very grateful to those people who have given me guidance and the confidence to fight back.

Even if I win the appeal I will not feel smug because in reality I will not actually have won anything.

I simply will not pay a fine that I should not have been asked to pay in the first place.

I doubt that the LA will be punished for it’s unreasonable behaviour and will no doubt carry on making money out of motorists.

 

Can someone please advise me on the following.

I recently saw a motorist parked with 2 wheels on a footway.

A little further along I saw a ‘camera car’ parked on a double yellow line on the other side of the road.

Inside was a young woman in uniform operating a camera and photographing the other parked car.

No doubt the motorist will be sent a PCN.

However isn’t the woman photographing him also illegally parked and also breaking the law?

This was around 12 noon on a weekday.

I was on foot BTW.

Edited August 22, 2009 by spellboy

[Jamberson]

Can someone please advise me on the following.

I recently saw a motorist parked with 2 wheels on a footway.

A little further along I saw a ‘camera car’ parked on a double yellow line on the other side of the road.

Inside was a young woman in uniform operating a camera and photographing the other parked car.

No doubt the motorist will be sent a PCN.

However isn’t the woman photographing him also illegally parked and also breaking the law?

This was around 12 noon on a weekday.

I was on foot BTW.

 

Possibly yes, possibly no. She may have a dispensation for yellow lines - it's impossible to say. In any case even if she was where she should not have been, it doesn't mean the particular car you saw was parked correctly so it's not really relevant - although I can see why it would irritate.

[rickyd]

Was the camera car parked or merely stopped? No doubt wiser minds will be able to explain the legal distinction, although it probably depends on the car being occupied on not.

 

I would think that they would have some form of exemption. I see disabled drivers parked on double yellow lines all around Glasgow.

 

I think its an entirely different matter if the camera car was causing an obstruction or on pedestrian crossing "zig-zags"

[lamma]

"For whatever reason; the CEO did not serve the PCN and therefore the enforcement process cannot be pursued. That just happens to be the law, as I understand it." You misunderstand the law.

[dandy1764]

I thought the law is unenforceable if there has been procedural impropreity by the Local Authority, but I dont know I thought I read this on this site.

 

I does not matter anyway the LA and there employees are supposed to act with integrity, honestly and follow procedure and statute as dictated by the Scottish Executive in our neck of the woods. Your LA have not and therfore are acting ultra vires, Fact.

 

Its always good to get the good, the bad and the ugly version of input from posters.....there is a fair share of knowledgable people on this site....negative, positive and matter of fact.

[lamma]

see regulation 10 PCNs under the TMA, thems the postal ones

[spellboy]

"For whatever reason; the CEO did not serve the PCN and therefore the enforcement process cannot be pursued. That just happens to be the law, as I understand it." You misunderstand the law.

 

Would you please explain the misunderstanding?

 

In a post elsewhere on this forum someone stated that if a PCN isn't fixed to a vehicle or handed to the driver it has to be posted within 14 days to the owner. If that isn't done then, the poster said, the contravention cannot be enforced.

Is that information incorrect?

[spellboy]

see regulation 10 PCNs under the TMA, thems the postal ones

 

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean.

Could you expand a little please?

What is TMA?

Where do I find regulation 10?

I apologise if I appear dim.

I am just trying to understand your comment.

[lamma]

Traffic Management Act see S.I. 2007/3483, Regulation 10. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/uksi_20073483_en.pdf and see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf

[spellboy]

Was the camera car parked or merely stopped? No doubt wiser minds will be able to explain the legal distinction, although it probably depends on the car being occupied on not.

 

I would think that they would have some form of exemption. I see disabled drivers parked on double yellow lines all around Glasgow.

 

I think its an entirely different matter if the camera car was causing an obstruction or on pedestrian crossing "zig-zags"

 

I have seen reports where CEO's have served PCN's on cars waiting on yellow lines with drivers behind the wheel and engines running.

I think most if not all CEO's would serve a PCN on a normal car parked on a double yellow line regardless of whether it was causing an obstruction or not.

However it would be a brave CEO who served a PCN on a camera car.

Maybe they have exemption...that's what I am trying to find out.

If they have exemption it would seem like a case of double standards.

[spellboy]

Traffic Management Act see S.I. 2007/3483, Regulation 10. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/uksi_20073483_en.pdf and see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf

Thank you very much for providing that info.

I've quickly gone through and will obviously read it more thoroughly.

On first reading it seems to me that the LA are not following the guidelines.

The NtO I received through the post stated (incorrectly) that the PCN was 'served' by the CEO on the date of the alleged contravention. I therefore assumed that the postal requirements did not apply.

Am I still correct in thinking that even though a vehicle is photographed causing a contravention, enforcement only begins when a PCN is served?

Is it therefore correct to assume that if a PCN is not served at the time or sent through the post (within the correct period) then the contravention cannot be enforced?

[Jamberson]

Spellboy.

 

Have you filed for a hearing with the adjudicator yet?

 

Again, why don't you send the Council a letter (clear and to the point) asserting that their rejection letter was out of time? Forget all the circumstantial stuff about conversations, pharmacies, on-duty/off-duty, photographs of vehicles, and the like - it will just confuse the person reading it.

 

State the date of your letter, the date of their reply and the fact that the gap is well over 56 days. Please would they confirm that they will now cancel the PCN.

 

You can almost certainly get this resolved via that route, particularly if you have applied for adjudication.

[green_and_mean]

I have seen reports where CEO's have served PCN's on cars waiting on yellow lines with drivers behind the wheel and engines running.

 

I think that you will find waiting is prohibited on yellow lines regardless of the driver being present or the engine running.

[dandy1764]

Even with a disabled badge on show?

[spellboy]

Spellboy.

 

Have you filed for a hearing with the adjudicator yet?

 

Again, why don't you send the Council a letter (clear and to the point) asserting that their rejection letter was out of time? Forget all the circumstantial stuff about conversations, pharmacies, on-duty/off-duty, photographs of vehicles, and the like - it will just confuse the person reading it.

 

State the date of your letter, the date of their reply and the fact that the gap is well over 56 days. Please would they confirm that they will now cancel the PCN.

 

You can almost certainly get this resolved via that route, particularly if you have applied for adjudication.

 

I did as you suggested but I was simply referred back to the adjudication process.

My hearing was set for 12/12/2009.

I then left to visit relatives in Australia returning on 28/11/2009.

I found the following letter in the post when I got back.

 

 

So it seems to be all over. I am very relieved. However as I have said before I haven't won anything because the CEO never gave me a ticket in the first place.

 

I would like to thank all of you (especially Pat Davies and Jamberson) who gave me the information and encouragement to make a stand against the LA.

 

I hope my experience will encourage others to do the same.

[Jamberson]

Good stuff. Glad to hear it's all over for you.