Removal of my car

[00765]

Hello,

I was issued with a council parking ticket when I parked my car outside my house on the dropped curb, as my dad's car was obstructing my way & I had to run in to use the loo. Less than one minute after I ran into the house, a parking attendant issued a ticket despite both my mum & dad telling him, that I would be right back. In fact my dad went to get the keys to my car to move it but the attendant completely ignored both my parents. When I returned, the attendant admitted that he had waited less than a minute before he issued the ticket.

Can I appeal the ticket?

Many thanks

[green_and_mean]

You can appeal any PCN thats the law, if you mean have you got a valid reason to appeal thats another matter. What was the PCN for, you mention a drop kerb was it parked adjacent to that or something else? If you provide minimal information you are only going to get the minimal amount of advice.

[00765]

Yes I want to know if I have a valid reason. The PCN states that I was 'parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway' I was parked on the dropped level of the dropped curb ( ie two wheels on the dropped level, two wheels on the actual road) for two minutes as my dad went to get keys to move his car out of the way so I could park on the actual drive way. I merely dashe dto the toilet .

Are the parking attendants not supposed to wait 3-5 minutes?

My dad & mother were outside telling the attendant that I was coming right back & indeed I was back within a minute in fact the attendant was still issuing the ticket & the actual ticket states that the alleged contravention occurred at 17:31 & that the ticket was issued at 17:31.

Today is my last day to reply to the PCN as it's the 14th day.

Many thanks

[green_and_mean]

In London footway parking is prohibited even on drive ways however I would appeal on the grounds that you had parked only to get the keys to move the vehicle stopping you parking on your property. There is set observation for footway parking however you are permitted to use the crossover to access your property and I would point this out and state you where moving the vehicles and not actually parking.

[00765]

The council have now sent me a Notice to Owner & a picture of my car with the two left tyres on the footpath with me standing outside the car next to the front passenger door. They have already rejected my initial challenge of the ticket stating what i noted in mhy previous post.

 

Is it worth me appealing the Notice to owner? - the penalty has increased to 120 pounds.

 

Thanks

[Blagton]

The council have now sent me a Notice to Owner & a picture of my car with the two left tyres on the footpath with me standing outside the car next to the front passenger door. They have already rejected my initial challenge of the ticket stating what i noted in mhy previous post.

 

Is it worth me appealing the Notice to owner? - the penalty has increased to 120 pounds.

 

 

You might want to try asking for advise on the Pepipoo forums. Provide scans or digi photos of both sides of the original PCN and NtO.

 

The back is as critical as the front as there are certain things that must be said and those things must be said in a certain way. It seems some authorities are unable to actually do that correctly.

 

Remove all reference to you, your car, reference number etc.

 

Blagton.

[green_and_mean]

You might want to try asking for advise on the Pepipoo forums.

 

Why whats wrong with this forum?

[JimmySpangle]

Why did you run into the house if Mum and Dad were outside avaialble to chat with the parking attendant?

 

Unless your drive is incredibly long or a huge distance from your front door, I cannot see why it would take more than 20 seconds to pick up the other keys and be back out. Oh, you chose to use the loo whilest you were in there.

 

But it would seem that perhaps Mum and Dad were inside. You parked on the pavement, went into the house to get Dad's keys and use the loo whilst illegally parked. Dad and Mum walk passed you and go outside to the parking attendant who suddenly arrived, you stayed in the hosue for a while longer, came back out, had a chat with the parking attendant, posed for a photo and got a ticket. Phew. All this in a minute?

 

Mmmm. Something not quite right with all this.

[twonames]

by his version of the event he left the vehicle to use the toilet not to move the car, green and mean suggested using the "moving the car" as a excuse to get off

[Blagton]

Why whats wrong with this forum?

 

Err....err.....nothing

 

I guess I'm just a little more familiar with the goings on over as it were.

 

Promise I won't do it again

[nevos]

If this all took a minute then, it takes them a while to write the ticket, take pics and even if they are writing a ticket you can drive away before they stick on the car and be free from the fine.

 

My wife got a fine for the ticket which had fallen off the screen, it still had h1.20 minutes to run though, they wouldn't have it, that it was what's known as a fluttering ticket.

 

You can appeal it though, can you guess who funds the appeal board? about 50p from every parking ticket fine.

 

Further, most councils have signed up to this:-

 

With increasing problems of town centre congestion, and demand for on-street parking, coupled with the pressures on police resources, and the low priority given by some police forces to the enforcement of parking regulations, the Road Traffic Act 1991 permitted local authorities to apply for the legal powers to take over the enforcement of, on-street, as well as off-street, car parking regulations from the police, in return they would be allowed to keep the proceeds. Thus in areas where DPE has been granted, parking offences cease to be criminal offences.

Without DPE, fixed penalties (not fines, because the recipient can exercise their right to a Court hearing instead) from the issue of parking tickets by the police is collected by Fixed Penalty Offices (each of which is part of a local Magistrates' Court in each county or metropolitan area) and passed directly to central government. With DPE in place, the local authority retains the income generated from parking penalties to finance parking enforcement and certain other activities such as local transport measures. Local authorities have been able to charge for on-street parking since 1958, but without the effective enforcement provided by DPE, such charging was of limited effect. Local authorities adopting DPE generally employ contractors to run their scheme.

The powers granted by DPE to deal with parking offences include:

 

• The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) - a parking penalty which can be paid or contested, either by appeal (see below) or by defending any resultant claim for payment by the authority concerned at an arbitration hearing under the Small Claims Track of the County Court (this is the only way that PCN penalties can legally be enforced)
  
• The immobilisation of the vehicle - usually by clamping - until a release fee is paid
  
• The removal of the vehicle from the street
  

Appeals against council decisions on PCNs can be made to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in London, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) in England and Wales, the Scottish Parking Appeals Service in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Traffic Penalty Tribunal in Northern Ireland. These bodies are tribunals established under DPE; appeals against their decisions can generally be made only on points of law, through judicial review. They are independent of the councils, albeit being funded by them in England and Wales through a fee of 60p per PCN issued. In Northern Ireland the Tribunal is operated by the Northern Ireland Court Service and all PCNs are issued by the Department for Regional Development as opposed to local councils. [1]

 

Wikepedia

 

 

So, I sent the council a request under the freedom of information act asking how many tickets had been issued in the same area under the same circumstances just to annoy them.

 

What all this means is: The owner gets the fine regardless of who's driving the car plus this is a clear case of taking away peoples rights..

 

You could take it the European Courts but is it worth it?

[green_and_mean]

If this all took a minute then, it takes them a while to write the ticket, take pics and even if they are writing a ticket you can drive away before they stick on the car and be free from the fine.

 

No you won't there is a good chance it will be sent in the post.

 

My wife got a fine for the ticket which had fallen off the screen, it still had h1.20 minutes to run though, they wouldn't have it, that it was what's known as a fluttering ticket.

 

Probably because if no ticket could be seen it could have been obtained from another driver after the PCN was issued.

 

You can appeal it though, can you guess who funds the appeal board? about 50p from every parking ticket fine.

 

Is that why 67% go in the drivers favour??

 

Further, most councils have signed up to this:-

 

With increasing problems of town centre congestion, and demand for on-street parking, coupled with the pressures on police resources, and the low priority given by some police forces to the enforcement of parking regulations, the Road Traffic Act 1991 permitted local authorities to apply for the legal powers to take over the enforcement of, on-street, as well as off-street, car parking regulations from the police, in return they would be allowed to keep the proceeds. Thus in areas where DPE has been granted, parking offences cease to be criminal offences.

Without DPE, fixed penalties (not fines, because the recipient can exercise their right to a Court hearing instead) from the issue of parking tickets by the police is collected by Fixed Penalty Offices (each of which is part of a local Magistrates' Court in each county or metropolitan area) and passed directly to central government. With DPE in place, the local authority retains the income generated from parking penalties to finance parking enforcement and certain other activities such as local transport measures. Local authorities have been able to charge for on-street parking since 1958, but without the effective enforcement provided by DPE, such charging was of limited effect. Local authorities adopting DPE generally employ contractors to run their scheme.

The powers granted by DPE to deal with parking offences include:

 

• The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) - a parking penalty which can be paid or contested, either by appeal (see below) or by defending any resultant claim for payment by the authority concerned at an arbitration hearing under the Small Claims Track of the County Court (this is the only way that PCN penalties can legally be enforced)
  
• The immobilisation of the vehicle - usually by clamping - until a release fee is paid
  
• The removal of the vehicle from the street
  

Appeals against council decisions on PCNs can be made to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in London, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) in England and Wales, the Scottish Parking Appeals Service in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Traffic Penalty Tribunal in Northern Ireland. These bodies are tribunals established under DPE; appeals against their decisions can generally be made only on points of law, through judicial review. They are independent of the councils, albeit being funded by them in England and Wales through a fee of 60p per PCN issued. In Northern Ireland the Tribunal is operated by the Northern Ireland Court Service and all PCNs are issued by the Department for Regional Development as opposed to local councils. [1]

 

Wikepedia

 

 

So, I sent the council a request under the freedom of information act asking how many tickets had been issued in the same area under the same circumstances just to annoy them.

 

Why would it annoy them, who do you think pays for the time wasted certainly not the person doing the FOI. Usually the Council employs staff to carry out FOI requests and they are paid for by you.

 

What all this means is: The owner gets the fine regardless of who's driving the car plus this is a clear case of taking away peoples rights..

 

What right would that be? Its a civil not criminal matter and the owner always has the option of reclaiming the fine from the driver, if you own a vehicle and don't want to be liable for other peoples fines don't let anyone else drive it.

 

You could take it the European Courts but is it worth it?

 

On what grounds would that be?

 

Parking on the footway has been an offence in London for years and there is no exemption to park on the footway to 'use the toilet' the car should have been left on the road. If the car was parked on a vehicle crossover it was more than likely completely blocking the footway for pedestrians.

[nevos]

Well seing as you asked the question green_and_mean and without an exhaustive response to your contribution:-

 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial, both in civil and criminal proceedings.

It is the right most often invoked by applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. The concept of a fair trial contains many elements. At the core is the right to a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

Also contained in Article 6 are:

· the principle of the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven,

· the right of the accused to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence,

· the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance,

· the right to call witnesses and

· the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter where necessary.

 

 

 

IMO by signing up to the DPE it clearly errodes our rights and in this particular instance, I was not the driver therfore did not commit any offence civil or criminal

 

PS: You can add this to the list:-

 

Under the Administration of Justice Act 1970, which makes criminal the collection of civil debts by causing distress and public humiliation.

Edited November 30, 2009 by nevos

[green_and_mean]

Well seing as you asked the question green_and_mean and without an exhaustive response to your contribution:-

 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial, both in civil and criminal proceedings.

It is the right most often invoked by applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. The concept of a fair trial contains many elements. At the core is the right to a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

Also contained in Article 6 are:

· the principle of the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven,

· the right of the accused to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence,

· the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance,

· the right to call witnesses and

· the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter where necessary.

 

 

 

IMO by signing up to the DPE it clearly errodes our rights and in this particular instance, I was not the driver therfore did not commit any offence civil or criminal

 

PS: You can add this to the list:-

 

Under the Administration of Justice Act 1970, which makes criminal the collection of civil debts by causing distress and public humiliation.

 

You have a civil liability as the keeper of the vehicle and under the law a charge was legally levied. As for the hearing you can appeal to an adjudicator so there is a fair hearing and despite your remarks it has been shown by statistics that the hearings are fair and balanced.

 

As for the last bit maybe you should read the entire statute before trying to paraphrase it....

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

[lamma]

so when there is no liability due to the council messing up signs or TRO or paperwork 3 (b) doesn't apply

[green_and_mean]

so when there is no liability due to the council messing up signs or TRO or paperwork 3 (b) doesn't apply

 

How may times have you heard of Councils harrasing people by the number of visits or the threat of publicity? I don't think a couple of visits by baliffs of a period of a few weeks would class as harrasment and anyway if a Court has issued an order for recovery its a legal process. The law is to prevent people from being harrassed prior to any court proceedings if a warrant has been issued this section of the statute does not apply.

[lamma]

for council tickets where the council knows that the signms, TRO or paperwork is flawed "(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not." applies. It is not limited to harassment, there are other options.

[green_and_mean]

for council tickets where the council knows that the signms, TRO or paperwork is flawed "(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not." applies. It is not limited to harassment, there are other options.

 

 

I think you are grasping at straws as far as this statute goes that section relates to the document and its authenticity. It is intended to stop a baliff for example claiming a document has been issued by a court when it was in fact typed up by him. If a warrant has been issued it would not matter if the yellow lines were pink it is still a document of 'official character'.

[lamma]

HR act is thorn in the side of many councils due to the way the go about CPE. bailiff do print their own warrants in many cases !

[green_and_mean]

HR act is thorn in the side of many councils due to the way the go about CPE. bailiff do print their own warrants in many cases !

 

HR act has almost nothing to do with Human rights in regards to parking enforcement. There is a huge different difference between printing and typing up a warrant.

[nevos]

The point I was trying to make and just in case we are going off on a weird tangent is; simply, there is no doubt people are losing their right to be heard.

 

The HR Act is there as a back stop and the Justice Act was in this cased aimed at unscrupulous wheel clampers.

 

Let us consider a few things here:-

 

1: Why is it that Night Club bouncers can issue fixed penalty notices?

 

Because the local councils deem so.

 

2: Why does a person recieve a fixed penalty notice for GBH?

 

Because the Police are massaging the crime figures thus, we are to beleive that the violent crime statistics are going down.

 

3: Have we lost the right to let our wives or friends drive/borrow our cars for fear of getting a parking ticket.

 

4: Why does and why can it, the DVLA sells our information database to anyone who sets up as a parking enforcement company.

 

One step closer to a police state IMO.

 

5: The UK signed up to the HR act then promptly IMO took away our right with the DPE thus, overriding the Road Traffic Act.

 

Finally, what next and where will it all stop?

[green_and_mean]

The point I was trying to make and just in case we are going off on a weird tangent is; simply, there is no doubt people are losing their right to be heard.

 

The HR Act is there as a back stop and the Justice Act was in this cased aimed at unscrupulous wheel clampers.

 

Let us consider a few things here:-

 

1: Why is it that Night Club bouncers can issue fixed penalty notices?

 

Because the local councils deem so.

 

Councils cannot give out ANY penalty without statute to back it up.

 

2: Why does a person recieve a fixed penalty notice for GBH?

 

Because the Police are massaging the crime figures thus, we are to beleive that the violent crime statistics are going down.

 

You cannot receive a FPN for GBH only certain offences are able to be dealt with in this manner.

 

3: Have we lost the right to let our wives or friends drive/borrow our cars for fear of getting a parking ticket.

 

Would you marry someone yet not trust them enough to pay their own parking tickets?

 

4: Why does and why can it, the DVLA sells our information database to anyone who sets up as a parking enforcement company.

 

One step closer to a police state IMO.

 

because their is a need for the details to be available for reasons other than parking

 

5: The UK signed up to the HR act then promptly IMO took away our right with the DPE thus, overriding the Road Traffic Act.

 

The RTA 1991 created DPE so how can it be over riden by it?

 

Finally, what next and where will it all stop?

 

I must have missed the Human right that states everyone must be free to own a car without being responsible for it. Surely if someone is a 'friend' they would pay for any tickets if they borrowed a car? Do you live in fear of letting a friend make a call on your phone in case they phone a premium rate line or australia because you are liable for the bill, or is that a breach of your rights to? What would you do if the 'friend' returned the car with a huge dent in the side or they had used an entire tank of fuel and not refilled it? It is not a hard concept to get your head around you are liable for the vehicle if you cannot ensure it is used within the law don't let anyone use it. You as the owner are responsible for the car you can be on holiday in Australia for six months but if its left on the road and the tax, MOT or insurance runs out whilst you are away you are still liable.

[nevos]

OK, greean_and_mean let me deal with your response one by one:-

 

My mistake on the Fixed Fine it was even less just a caution

here is the story:-

 

A man given a beating in his own home. A young woman bitten and punched by a man. A bottle smashed onto the head of an innocent bystander in an argument. Three victims, all violently assaulted - yet their attackers escaped prosecution, receiving cautions instead.

Half of all criminal cases brought to justice in England and Wales are now dealt with out of court. It's fast justice...but is it fair?

The government says out-of-court punishments, like cautions and fines, are helping to unclog the overburdened courts system and deal swiftly with antisocial behaviour. Critics say it is simply justice on the cheap, letting some serious criminals off the hook and, crucially, denying victims their day in court.

Shelley Jofre investigates whether these decisions, made behind closed doors instead of in open court, are tough on crime or the causes of crime.

 

Panorama

 

This my personal favourite:-

 

UK numberplates are illegal if showing any flag other than the EU ring of stars. This comes from Brussels, in Council Regulation (EC) 2411/98. The plan was that eventually every numberplate, by law, would display only the EU ring of stars, to “foster a common European identity”. But first they had to get rid of those pesky Union flags, Scottish Saltires, etc…

 

The Labour government passed the law in June 2001, but then fudged it, taking “a relaxed view on enforcement”. This was a ticking time-bomb. It only needed some overeager traffic cop to whisk out his notebook and the lid would be blown. That has now happened. Many drivers have recently been fined £60 for displaying a national flag (but the EU ring of stars is fine)…

 

Source

 

I thought the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) was drafted and came into effect on 31st March 2008 superceded everything.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but, are the civil enforcement officers private contractors who rely on bonus i.e. the more they can dish out fines the more money they make.

 

---------------

Had to smile at this:

 

3: Have we lost the right to let our wives or friends drive/borrow our cars for fear of getting a parking ticket.

 

Would you marry someone yet not trust them enough to pay their own parking tickets?

 

Have put this comment ^ in the same box with a note saying: our local community policeman rides around all the cars at the end of the month checking tax disks ( I'm going to video him next time) but, when several cars got smashed by idiots and one old lady died as a result of the same idiots action then one does lose faith in people.

[green_and_mean]

OK, greean_and_mean let me deal with your response one by one:-

 

My mistake on the Fixed Fine it was even less just a caution

here is the story:-

 

A man given a beating in his own home. A young woman bitten and punched by a man. A bottle smashed onto the head of an innocent bystander in an argument. Three victims, all violently assaulted - yet their attackers escaped prosecution, receiving cautions instead.

Half of all criminal cases brought to justice in England and Wales are now dealt with out of court. It's fast justice...but is it fair?

The government says out-of-court punishments, like cautions and fines, are helping to unclog the overburdened courts system and deal swiftly with antisocial behaviour. Critics say it is simply justice on the cheap, letting some serious criminals off the hook and, crucially, denying victims their day in court.

Shelley Jofre investigates whether these decisions, made behind closed doors instead of in open court, are tough on crime or the causes of crime.

 

Panorama

 

This my personal favourite:-

 

UK numberplates are illegal if showing any flag other than the EU ring of stars. This comes from Brussels, in Council Regulation (EC) 2411/98. The plan was that eventually every numberplate, by law, would display only the EU ring of stars, to “foster a common European identity”. But first they had to get rid of those pesky Union flags, Scottish Saltires, etc…

 

The Labour government passed the law in June 2001, but then fudged it, taking “a relaxed view on enforcement”. This was a ticking time-bomb. It only needed some overeager traffic cop to whisk out his notebook and the lid would be blown. That has now happened. Many drivers have recently been fined £60 for displaying a national flag (but the EU ring of stars is fine)…

 

Source

 

I thought the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) was drafted and came into effect on 31st March 2008 superceded everything.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but, are the civil enforcement officers private contractors who rely on bonus i.e. the more they can dish out fines the more money they make.

 

---------------

Had to smile at this:

 

3: Have we lost the right to let our wives or friends drive/borrow our cars for fear of getting a parking ticket.

 

Would you marry someone yet not trust them enough to pay their own parking tickets?

 

Have put this comment ^ in the same box with a note saying: our local community policeman rides around all the cars at the end of the month checking tax disks ( I'm going to video him next time) but, when several cars got smashed by idiots and one old lady died as a result of the same idiots action then one does lose faith in people.

 

You obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about and to quote a source that says 'many motorists have recently been fined' as evidence just goes to show you should go back to reading your Daily Mail.

[nevos]

Well thanks for this:

 

You obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about and to quote a source that says 'many motorists have recently been fined' as evidence just goes to show you should go back to reading your Daily Mail.

 

Just plain rude!