Jump to content


is this council parking ticket legal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4618 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

the question from OP in simple words was: CEO continued with the issue and serving of PCN after OP returned back to the vehicle and no contravention occured (same like someone decided to move car) thereafter. Is CEO right to continue with the service of PCN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK understood now. But the question still is How is OP's circumstances different?

 

In the OP's case the CEO was not prevented from issuing the penalty notice so there is no connection with s.5(1) LLA 2000 or any similar later legislation.

In the High Court case you refer to the decision of the judge was the definition of the word 'issue' in respect of the relationship between s66. RTA 1991 and s.5(1) LLA 2000.

The word 'issue' is not in s.66, RTA 1991 nor is it in s.9 or 10, The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions 2007.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

the question from OP in simple words was: CEO continued with the issue and serving of PCN after OP returned back to the vehicle and no contravention occured (same like someone decided to move car) thereafter. Is CEO right to continue with the service of PCN?

 

 

The contravention did occur, the driver did not set the clock at the time of parking. The CEO saw that contravention and decided to serve, and subsequently did serve, a PCN. The fact that the driver returned and then set the clock during that process does not make any difference.

 

As others have said, the OP can appeal, but cannot say that the contravention did not occur.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting discussion on the meaning of issue and I would just like to throw in this thought.

 

Beyond the specific circumstances of 'issue' noted from the High Court ruling as previously posted, surely the pcn is not issued until the button is pushed for the handheld device to print, or for the ceo to append their signature if hand written, because up until that time the details can be amended? Whilst the details are being inputted or written, it can only constitue 'preparation to issue'? Service is when the driver removes the pcn from the windscreen, is handed it by the ceo or receives it through the post (proof of posting being sufficient).

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we debating the way the PCN was 'issued'? The contravention occured, the CEO issued the ticket, the OP corrected his clock. In a nut shell, the OP closed the stable door after the horse had bolted... its as simple as that IMO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Service is when the driver removes the pcn from the windscreen, is handed it by the ceo or receives it through the post (proof of posting being sufficient).

 

Service is when it is affixed to the vehicle not when it is removed, the PCN must state date of service how can the CEO possibly know when the PCN is going to be removed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

Sorry, but thats a ridiculous comparison. As already been suggested, why don't you try appealing. Being as you are a BB holder may get you some sympathy but technically, you broke the rules.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks sam

i,m just grieved about it

 

he pounced as soon as i went in the door. if you look at the street view it like parking outside a house

i have got an appeal going so just waiting

 

the receptionist said its a hotspot with the warden because you don't expect a time limit disabled space outside the city

she said it always guarantees him a ticket. that's why she keeps a watch outside the surgery and the warden does not like her because of it.

 

the warden has it pretty well sewn up. because he know the receptionist watches him he takes pictures first and in my case i came straight back out as he was still taking the photos. i could have just drove off. but it would have been served by post

he had a chose not to start issuing the ticket.

instead he decided to issue it and breed contempt against traffic wardens

 

last year i stopped a warden getting a slap by a irate motorist. i just said if you do it you will be done for assault. at which point be calmed down

now i think i would just video it

 

anyway weekend here and thats my rant. back to normal life

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how you feel but maybe you should of simpy sorted the clock out when you parked. My mom also has a BB and religiously sets her clock when parking. The CEO was simply doing his job. I mean had a non-BB badge holder had parked in the disabled space and got a PCN, what would you think of the warden then?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

This is a very good example for discussion. Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. In Bexley borough, there's no observation time and do get PCN if stayed a longer at machine to get ticket (maybe short queue, ground or 1st floor machine not working, machine at other end in big car park etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good example for discussion. Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. In Bexley borough, there's no observation time and do get PCN if stayed a longer at machine to get ticket (maybe short queue, ground or 1st floor machine not working, machine at other end in big car park etc).

 

Its not in contravention because the requirement is to 'pay and display' upon leaving the vehicle at rest in the parking place if you at the machine you are in the process of doing so. If you have left the vehicle at rest and gone to get change or carry out some other activity (that is not an exemption) only then would it be in contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. ).

 

i'll see how the appeal goes. but yes people have received parking tickets while in queue to buy a ticket and yes it is open to abuse. ceo will just say no one was at the ticket machine. and your appeal would you was.

i leave on the birmingham border with sandwell.

in birmingham city centre all the disabled spaces are without time limit

sandwell have a time limited space out of the city centre with no parking issues. thats how its easy to to no set the clock.

thats way the receptionist says its a hotspot for tickets, and the warden lays in wait.

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

You are "guilty" - which is to say liable - if a CEO believes you were in contravention and then issues a PCN which is served on you or the vehicle. It is then up to you to absolve yourself through the appeals route.

 

In this scenario, an appeal would succeed. However it would be most improper for a CEO to issue one without waiting a couple of minutes to see if you returned to the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...