Parking Ticket Kensington and chelsea scandal.

[noddyaccount]

I am currently appealing what I consider to be an unscrupulous p.c.n from R.B.K.c . However I noticed in the media how R.b.kC have ben slammed for their contractor putting ticketing targets on their operatives , civil enforcement or whatever they call themselves these days , effectively several whatever the fs have been reprimanded for not giving out enough tickets . This I understand is contrary to statute and may have affected me as if the c.e.os felt pressure to give out tickets that could explain my dodgy p.c.n .

Can I ask the council whether one of the c.e.os reprimanded was one who ticketed me ?

Can I call as a witness the contractor responsible for this erroneous policy to explain themselves ?

Can I bring up the matter itself with the adjudicator , as it has been reported in the press and raised in the Council ?

[Jamberson]

I think you need to separate out the two issues. Your PCN is one thing, which you need to fight on its merits. The overall performance of the staff and council is another.

 

Why don't you ask for the info you want, and see what response you get? Won't affect the validity of your PCN though.

[green_and_mean]

I think you need to separate out the two issues. Your PCN is one thing, which you need to fight on its merits. The overall performance of the staff and council is another.

 

Why don't you ask for the info you want, and see what response you get? Won't affect the validity of your PCN though.

 

I agree the two are different matters, Police Authorities get given home office targets to meet but it wouldn't get you off in Court. If you get let off by PATAS you could then complain it was issued because of staff being pressurised but at this stage you are still technically 'guilty' and the PCN was issued correctly.

[lamma]

We have no idea at all whether the PCN was issued correctly or not. Its liability not 'guilt'. and at this stage its still only a Notice isn't it.

[adamna]

but at this stage you are still technically 'guilty' and the PCN was issued correctly.

That's the Mean bit for you.... G&M knows nothing of the specific incident, but of course they've been caught bang to rights. Glad he's not a judge with a little black hat.

 

Now, what's the Green bit about?

[green_and_mean]

That's the Mean bit for you.... G&M knows nothing of the specific incident, but of course they've been caught bang to rights. Glad he's not a judge with a little black hat.

 

Now, what's the Green bit about?

 

Its actually fact not my opinion until you appeal or have the PCN cancelled you are liable and the PCN is deemed to have been issued correctly, unless you know something I don't? If thats not the case then the OP need not do anything and just sit back and relax.

If he is not guilty of the contravention why is he liable, or do you need a dictionary?

[lamma]

Dictionary. whoa, that change from 'was' to 'deemed' was a rapid volte face. from fact to opinion. and deemed is just opinion, rebuttable. It's civil parking - guilt doesnlt come into. no matter how many times you misuse the word. Plus liability in this is not directly linked to culpabaility. "The person appearing to be owner" may not have been driving but is still held liable. You also know this. And we know you know this. Saying the OP should sit back and relax when you know there is a statutory appeal process that if he ignores it will see him nailed and bailiffs turn up. As ignoring it woul let enfoircement kick in which is when liability is crytallised, not before. You also know this. This is a help forum and you seem to be doing the opposite of helping the OP. Find the facts then apply the law/regulations. We know you know this as well.

[adamna]

The terms 'get you off' and 'let off' imply guilt, and some sort of goodwill with a condescending pat on the head or frustration at enforcing a proper outcome. Can it be accepted that very many pcns are issued INCORRECTLY?

[noddyaccount]

The terms 'get you off' and 'let off' imply guilt, and some sort of goodwill with a condescending pat on the head or frustration at enforcing a proper outcome. Can it be accepted that very many pcns are issued INCORRECTLY?

 

Don't let G&M get to you , there will come a point when his logic holds no water , we have locked horns several times and he ? does have some usual pertinent points and a devil's advocate point of view . I have always assumed that he gets paid for his opinions , at least I hope so , as he can't really believe them . The question is the statutory point of whether the attendants were acting under illicit parameters or not rendering the p.c.n's unlawful .

[green_and_mean]

Dictionary. whoa, that change from 'was' to 'deemed' was a rapid volte face. from fact to opinion. and deemed is just opinion, rebuttable. It's civil parking - guilt doesnlt come into. no matter how many times you misuse the word. Plus liability in this is not directly linked to culpabaility. "The person appearing to be owner" may not have been driving but is still held liable. You also know this. And we know you know this. Saying the OP should sit back and relax when you know there is a statutory appeal process that if he ignores it will see him nailed and bailiffs turn up. As ignoring it woul let enfoircement kick in which is when liability is crytallised, not before. You also know this. This is a help forum and you seem to be doing the opposite of helping the OP. Find the facts then apply the law/regulations. We know you know this as well.

 

Since when has 'guilt' not been relevant to civil matters? If I hit your car and you take me to the small claims court am I not guilty of damaging your car? Just because you get found 'guilty' in Court it does not mean you cannot be guilty of a non criminal act. If you are parked in contravention you are guilty of breaching the parking regulations. I suggest you go off and learn the English language correctly before trying to score brownie points with your smart arsed comments. Maybe if you actually read my post rather than just trying to tear it apart you would see that I was simply stating that until the PCN was cancelled there are no grounds of complaint since until that point it is still valid and correctly issued. I never said it was correctly issued maybe you and adamna should invest in some reading glasses.

[green_and_mean]

The question is the statutory point of whether the attendants were acting under illicit parameters or not rendering the p.c.n's unlawful .

 

It is illegal to give bonus payments for issuing PCNs it is not illegal to sack or discipline staff for being incompetant.

[lamma]

there is no guilt in a civil matter, merely (potential) liability. read a bit of tort law for a start. You are confusining 'legal' and 'lawful'. And once again insisting on the misuse of 'guilt'. Lots of posts we have had on this. Guilt is a decision in court relating to a stautory offence.It is attributed after the event if at all. Handy word to use to stigmatise people but totally wrong - and why would anyone on a help forum want to stigmatize people ? Try a legal dictionary. My English is excelllent thanks. Perhaps the smartness extends beyond merely my arse. You omitted to to rebutt the liabaility v culpability point by the way. "I was simply stating that until the pcna was cancelled there are no grounds of complaint since until that point it is still valid and correctly issued" is an irrelvant thesis and totally wrong and I am sure you know it. You may like to assume that it is 'valid and correct' but thats just your assumption. How many invalid and incorrectly issued PCNs have we ween - its a very LARGE number. Facts first then then the apply the law and the regs, you know this and we know you know this. This is a help forum. Can the OP give us the pertinent facts please, scan of PCN and any other documents recieved, pictures of the signs and lines, the TRO. So we can get back on track.

Edited February 27, 2010 by lamma

[adamna]

I was simply stating that until the PCN was cancelled there are no grounds of complaint since until that point it is still valid and correctly issued. I never said it was correctly issued maybe you and adamna should invest in some reading glasses.

I have my reading glass on thank you. But there, you've said it again.

 

What you probably mean to say is that the issuer believes it to be valid and correctly issued until you can show them otherwise. And they will cling on to that belief for as long as possible and pursue until they get financial satisfaction.

 

As for there not being any grounds for complaint until it's cancelled, isn't that the object of complaining - to get it cancelled? I personally complain even after it's cancelled, but I'm not grafteful for titbits.

 

One does have to wonder exaclty what your interest is in these matters, and whether there should be a health warning attached to your advice.

[Fair-Parking]

I couldn't agree more with the posts that seek to direct this back to being a help forum and not a platform for attention seekers and those who seem to possess a perverse sense of indignation whenever somebody looks for help on this forum.

 

I probably won't help the OP much but he/she may feel better that the word 'belief' is far more relevant to this case than many give credit for. Under current legislation which itself is irresponsibly flawed, all a local authority has to do to receive an Order for Recovery from the Traffic Enforcement Centre is register a belief with that office that contravention has taken place. There is no burden of proof on the local authority.

 

Once the local authority has asked for the registration of the charge the Traffic Enforcement Centre has no power to refuse the request. Thus all warrants of execution that are issued are done so purely and entirely on a 'presumption of guilt'.

 

Now if that illegal concept isn't worth arguing against, then it's rather

difficult to imagine what is.

[green_and_mean]

there is no guilt in a civil matter, merely (potential) liability. read a bit of tort law for a start. You are confusining 'legal' and 'lawful'. And once again insisting on the misuse of 'guilt'. Lots of posts we have had on this. Guilt is a decision in court relating to a stautory offence.It is attributed after the event if at all. Handy word to use to stigmatise people but totally wrong - and why would anyone on a help forum want to stigmatize people ? Try a legal dictionary. My English is excelllent thanks. Perhaps the smartness extends beyond merely my arse. You omitted to to rebutt the liabaility v culpability point by the way. "I was simply stating that until the pcna was cancelled there are no grounds of complaint since until that point it is still valid and correctly issued" is an irrelvant thesis and totally wrong and I am sure you know it. You may like to assume that it is 'valid and correct' but thats just your assumption. How many invalid and incorrectly issued PCNs have we ween - its a very LARGE number. Facts first then then the apply the law and the regs, you know this and we know you know this. This is a help forum. Can the OP give us the pertinent facts please, scan of PCN and any other documents recieved, pictures of the signs and lines, the TRO. So we can get back on track.

 

You seriously need to get yourself a dictionary it doesn't matter how many times you say it the words guilt and guilty can be used in many contexts outside of the Court room, in Court you are gulity of the offence charged, I'm guilty of wasting too much time on this stupid forum, my wife is guilty of eating too many chocolates, my children are guilty of leaving the lights on when they go out. Maybe you should email a few dictionary compilers and tell them there is only one use of the word now and they are all wrong. If anyone is detracting away from the helpfulness of this site its you with your pointless and incorrect semantics. I have probably given more useful advice in the last year than you have in your entire membership maybe you could direct me to the last PCN that was cancelled as a direct result of advice you gave??

Maybe if you stuck to giving advice rather than attacking other posters more advice would be given?

 

guilty ˈɡɪltɪ adj. (guiltier, guiltiest) 1 culpable of or responsible for a wrong. 2 conscious of or affected by guilt (a guilty conscience; a guilty look). 3 concerning guilt (a guilty secret). 4 a (often foll. by of) having committed a (specified) offence. b Law adjudged to have committed a specified offence, esp. by a verdict in a trial. øøguiltily adv. guiltiness n. [OE gyltig (as GUILT, -Y(1))]

[green_and_mean]

Thus all warrants of execution that are issued are done so purely and entirely on a 'presumption of guilt'.

 

 

How can you be guilty in a civil case??

[noddyaccount]

How can you be guilty in a civil case??

 

You are found guilty by default contrary to English Common Law , you have to prove your innocence contrary to the Bill of Rights 1689 , the same bill the MPs are now using in Their defence , That's How .

Semantically you are correct G@M , guilt has other meanings outside of criminal law , but you are being a bit disingenuous in the context of a parking ticket as the 'Guilt' is assumed and punished by occasionally criminal bailiffs in a criminal manner ,ironically more than you would get for being a criminal such as a shoplifter .

[lamma]

You are assumed liable not guilty. sigh. Try a legal dictionary G&M. fair-parking is correct about the assumptive nature of the process and the enabling legislation. We need facts from the O/P while G&M is busy riding his high horse.

[noddyaccount]

You are assumed liable not guilty. sigh. Try a legal dictionary G&M. fair-parking is correct about the assumptive nature of the process and the enabling legislation. We need facts from the O/P while G&M is busy riding his high horse.

 

I am the O/p , I am appealing on a lines and signs matter anyway , as I am confident the council are wrong on this one , because the ticket was obviously issued on a wing and a prayer in a place c.e.os usually allow you to park as the lines are totally worn away and they know it .

The reason that I asked the question originally was because , if c.e.os were getting pressure to meet targets , unofficial or otherwise , that would explain perhaps , the c.e.os illogical rationale with this one . Therefore it is directly relevant , if the poor fella felt his job was at risk if he did not meet his quota, I upped his numbers.

[lamma]

Okay, sounds like you have it under control. good pics and args etc. Thanks for posting back.

[noddyaccount]

It is illegal to give bonus payments for issuing PCNs it is not illegal to sack or discipline staff for being incompetant.

 

By incompetant do you mean not giving out enough tickets ?i.e not meeting targets ?

Oh I see , very clever , approach it from the other end , rename it to get the same objective , Or not allowed to give out carrots but allowed to apply stick , inspired . Of course the c.e.os already being on the sticky wicket of newly arrived immigrant won't have the nouse or resources to challenge you , why didn't you think of it before , so much cheaper than wide-screen t.vs , and it will keep the others on their toes , win win !

[Fair-Parking]

Green & Mean - That's exactly the question I have been asking.