PCN appeal rejected, NTO arrived

[AllanB87]

Quick background to the incident, my street has a 1 hour stay and no return within 2 hours restriction in effect from 0800-1800 mon-sat. I park my car in one of the bays overnight if there are no spaces elsewhere and at 0830-0900 I move the car forward by ~50 yards when people head off to work, in an area with no restrictions. My neighbour is usually home from work at 1200 and I leave at 1230, so what usually happens is that I will reverse back into the restricted bay at ~1200 until I leave at 1230 so my neighbour can park in the non-restricted area. I realise this sounds complicated but it is the unfortunate arrangement we have to make when we have so many restricted parking zones around us. Anyway, this is usually done about 3 times a week for the past 18 months without issue. In February I got a PCN on my windscreen at 1201 (roughly 1 minute after re-entering the bay!) saying I parked for longer than permitted. I contacted the council who then supplied the CEO's notes which noted my vehicle in the bay at 0822 and then again at 1201, and as valve positions were in the same region concluded I had contravened the restriction. I was in the bay at the two times indicated but I had been outside the bay between 0845 and 1155-1200, 3 hours 10 mins, complying with the no return within 2 hours. As I only rolled my vehicle forward and back the valve positions are highly likely to be in the same position so I am unsure whether my argument has much weight. I've now received the NTO, do I simply repeat the story I gave in the PCN appeal?

[Jamberson]

You can expect (though it's not guaranteed) that the council will have photos of the car - the wheels at least - as it was at 08.22. Your best bet is to request copies of these along with all the other photos. If you can identify an obvious difference (eg in one, the wheel is on the white line, in the other it is not) then definitely fight on, and you should win.

 

As you now have an NTO it's worth fighting it anyway. If you can get the photos (ask for them by phone, not in writing, as that can cause ridiculous complications!) see if you can spot a tell-tale change, and let us know/see them.

[AllanB87]

You can expect (though it's not guaranteed) that the council will have photos of the car - the wheels at least - as it was at 08.22. Your best bet is to request copies of these along with all the other photos. If you can identify an obvious difference (eg in one, the wheel is on the white line, in the other it is not) then definitely fight on, and you should win.

 

As you now have an NTO it's worth fighting it anyway. If you can get the photos (ask for them by phone, not in writing, as that can cause ridiculous complications!) see if you can spot a tell-tale change, and let us know/see them.

 

I don't know how I can do this as they have only provided me photos of 1201, the time the PCN was issued, so I have nothing to compare them to for 0822.

[Jamberson]

Just phone them on Monday and ask them to email all the photos to you, especially the ones at 08.22. There shouldn't be a problem.

 

If they refuse, or say they don't have any, then don't worry - that will count in your favour as they are demonstrating that they don't have much evidence to refuse your appeal. But chances are, they will just send them to you - then you can prove your case.

[AllanB87]

They replied saying my appeal was rejected, it seems my "query" was interpreted as an appeal and they do not have photos of 0822. I now have to fill in the adjudicator’s form, should I still contest it on the grounds I do not think a contravention occurred?

[Jamberson]

Precisely why I said to phone them. See post two, above, paragraph 2!

 

You can either phone them now, explain what happened and ask them to have a look while you are on the phone - or you will have to go to adjudication. If you application is clear and to the point, and the photos exist and support you, then they might back out - but be prepared for a possible hearing in due course.

 

Meantime - Get copies of the photos and check them out!

[AllanB87]

As I said, they confirm that they do not have photos of the first sighting, just when they created the ticket. I'll just fill in the form with what I posted initially.

[Jamberson]

You only said that you didn't have them - not that the council doesn't have them either. If you are sure of that, then that is a dead end, but still should go in your favour - they are lacking evidence.

 

All you can do is go for it. Like you say, your first post explains all. I would also add on the bit about requesting photos, it being treated as an appeal, and the fact that you have been told they don't exist. It all adds up to the council being a bit disorganised, and will make them look decidedly shakey if they are insisting they are correct.

[green_and_mean]

Why would they take photos of the car when first seen, it was legally parked??

[Jamberson]

Round my way they do. The reason? Because of disputes like this. It protects the council from bogus claims that the car had moved. (Not saying this one is bogus of course, but some are.)

[green_and_mean]

Round my way they do. The reason? Because of disputes like this. It protects the council from bogus claims that the car had moved. (Not saying this one is bogus of course, but some are.)

 

I grasp the reason just not the practicalities of taking hundreds of photos and then trying to find the relevant ones for each PCN. Photos are usually assigned to a PCN automatically due to the time stamp I cannot imagine someone sitting looking through photos for each code 30 issued.

[Jamberson]

Fair point, but like I say, they do in Brighton (or at least did when I worked there). I guess it boils down to individual council policy rather than there being a blanket rule.

[Dangerdoc]

How long do Councils have to serve a NTO after the issue of the PCN. Is there a maximum timescale in which they must do this?

[green_and_mean]

6 months

[Dangerdoc]

Just got the NTO. Ok so, I have been past the bus lane the other day and noticed that the signage is still not at the correct angle towards the carriageway, as previously posted. I believe this further demonstrates the Merton Council attitude to failure to provide correct signage and as they were previously notified of such (and we are not talking a couple of degrees here) then they are acting with malice aforethought in trapping motorists unfairly etc..

 

What is the best way to proceed. Remember the circumstances, Signage poor, road dimensions very incorrect, taper wrong, arrows wrong, also passenger took unwell and was about to throw up. I felt it was safest to be near the carriageway edge to be able to stop and not provide a traffic obstruction. He is a trainee Paramedic. He is also prepared to attest a letter to that effect.

 

So I believe no offence was committed and that there were also significant mitigating circumstances for being in an active bus lane, even though I was not clear on the hours of operation.

 

Any cases I can cite??

 

Please advise.

 

As ever, very grateful for the constructive input and excellent guidance.

 

Doc

[Dangerdoc]

Sorry guys, NTO in front of me at the time or writing. Now I know that this may be petty, in fact really petty, but I remember reading about incorrect wording etc... Taking it to the extreme one line states "If you are making representations under ground 3 or 4 above you must supply the name and address of the person/company the vehicle was sold to or putchased from (if that information is in your possession)."

 

Read carefully: What I have noticed is that they have failed to pay attention to the structure of their notice, again poor due diligence. Note "under ground 3 or 4" and it is not GROUNDS (pleural) and further "sold to or putchased from" note the PUTCHASED and not puRchased. They clearly have no idea of how to pay attention to the structure of their documentation. Again - I feel that they are sloppy in lots of areas.

 

As I say, it might be petty but an incorrectly worded notice is invalid - hmmmm not sure but the expert opinion in case there are known cases on this aspect.

 

Cheers everyone.

 

Doc

[green_and_mean]

Note "under ground 3 or 4" and it is not GROUNDS (pleural) Doc

 

ground 3 or 4 is correct it would only be grounds plural if it said grounds 3 and 4

 

and you seem to hijacked someone elses thread

[Dangerdoc]

Hi G&M. You are indeed absolutely correct. I am sorry for this post as it is definitely on the wrong thread. I am going to C&P it over to my own thread. Thing is - I can't understand how that happened. Must be the jet lag and the long hours.

 

Sorry to all.

 

Doc

[AllanB87]

I've sent off my appeal to the adjudicator but have received notice from the council that my charge has jumped to £75! Is this not meant to be frozen during the appeals process?

[green_and_mean]

I've sent off my appeal to the adjudicator but have received notice from the council that my charge has jumped to £75! Is this not meant to be frozen during the appeals process?

 

It remains the same until you get a charge certificate, so yes it should remain frozen untill the appeals process has ended, do not however confuse that with the discount for early payment which obviously is for early payment and is not frozen.