Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't know. but I suspect its Mays deal with a UK/NI customs border in the sea and some mechanism where NI can back out of the EU alignment if there is a majority vote for it. aka no simple DUP veto/revoke.   .. which I believe the brexiters said was a no go when it was considered under May including Mays 'no Britsh PM could consider it   Wonder of Johnson is going to claim 'its a deal' so I don't need to ask for an extension whether parliament votes for it or not?      
    • they are out of time with their NTK anyway ignore them now sad you didn't spot this in the 1st place! none of what you have done was ever necessary!!
    • So what does this latest pronouncement from Juncker mean- is it more game playing or are we truly stuffed with my deal or no deal?
    • please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement- 21/06/19   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]- 12/07/19   3 Date received 15/07/19   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? N I can't see it   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes a ANPR Camera showing arrival and exit but separate parking machine in car park not at gates    6 Have you appealed? Y Post up your appeal] I am waiting for a copy of my appeal but I have other emails sent i can send  Have you had a response? Y. Email was never sent as they stated on 29th July. Finally got the notice of regection sent by email on 3rd Oct.    7 Who is the parking company? National Car Parks Limited owned by Park24.co   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] NCP, Terrace Road, Bournemouth    For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Not on the letter but found on line its BPA   There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, BPA please check HERE   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here   in either case scan up bothsides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONL
    • Not much point in appealing. You paid for 4 hours and stayed for an extra 45 minutes. Goes to show what a bunch of crooks you are dealing with when you first appealed they delayed their response until you came liable for the higher charge and they wouldn't reduce that sum.   From now on just ignore everything you get from NCP  and their unregulated debt collectors (birds of a feather). They will try to frighten you with increased costs  that you can safely ignore.   In the  meantime please complete the questions asked by dx above and post up any PCNs so we can see if they got them right.   Also we need to see their signs in the car park especially the one at the entrance; any that are different from the others and the T and Cs on the ticket machine.   Before posting the PCNs please delete your name and reg. number plus anything else that might identify yourself.  
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2470 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

In 2012, more parking tickets are issued in the UK than ever before and new technologies to catch motorists continue to be deployed across the country. This film follows the stories of both the council parking enforcement departments who issue tickets - and the motorists who have decided to fight back against the system.

Aside from the stories of the ordinary motorists fighting their individual tickets, the film also follows 'parking campaigners', dedicated amateurs who insist that the councils are unjustly punishing motorists and using parking as a way to raise revenues. These individuals are passionate about pointing out the injustices of the system, battling the councils and saving other motorists from receiving 'unjust tickets'. Their methods are extremely varied. Some get tickets deliberately to prove their point, others take their parking tickets to the High Court, whilst one group have even formed a masked motorcycle gang to take their fight to the streets.

The film also hears from the other side of the issue - the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the legally-binding national body that has the final say on whether motorists must pay their parking tickets or not.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made my blood boil when councils said it was nothing to do with raising revenue. I am sure I saw a few noses growing.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those guys on the motorbikes were fantastic.:-)

Felt sorry for the fella and his wife who may lose their house due to standing up for his rights and then being slapped in the face by the high courts.

I couldn't believe the little cars that travel round with the 'periscopes' that pop up at the rear of the car to 'snap' road users without their knowledge at all. That most certainly does strike as Big Brother is watching and spying on you.

What is this country coming to, when they have to stoop that low to line their pockets with peoples hard earned cash.

Its a wonder anyone wants to use a car nowdays. All these parking restrictions etc etc must be killing this country. As they say, 'money is the route of all evil', and where car drivers are concerned the evil [problematic] come out in their thousands. Car drivers are seen as the enemy in every way. Its utterly disgusting. I felt like slapping a few of those council/enforcers of the 'law' last night, and Im such a placid person normally !:mad2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was particularly maddened by the case they showed going to PATAS where the motorist simply presented one photograph clearly showing that the road sign he allegedly contravened was not visible at the time. The adjudicator asked the council bod for a comment who straight away agreed the sign wasn't there and the case was won!

 

Why the hell did this get to PATAS? Presumably the motorist had already done an informal then formal challenge based on lack of signage. The council could have, and should have accepted the appeal and not made the motorist go all the way to PATAS with loss of earnings and research etc which he cannot be paid for, to win a simple case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was particularly maddened by the case they showed going to PATAS where the motorist simply presented one photograph clearly showing that the road sign he allegedly contravened was not visible at the time. The adjudicator asked the council bod for a comment who straight away agreed the sign wasn't there and the case was won!

 

Why the hell did this get to PATAS? Presumably the motorist had already done an informal then formal challenge based on lack of signage. The council could have, and should have accepted the appeal and not made the motorist go all the way to PATAS with loss of earnings and research etc which he cannot be paid for, to win a simple case.

 

 

totally agree

i would of pushed for expensis on the grounds that the fine should of not got to official appeal stage on the same grounds and that an instant admission of error should of been granted at the unformal appeal stage, causing undue stress and time wasted. the ajudicator then can award expenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was particularly maddened by the case they showed going to PATAS where the motorist simply presented one photograph clearly showing that the road sign he allegedly contravened was not visible at the time. The adjudicator asked the council bod for a comment who straight away agreed the sign wasn't there and the case was won!

 

Why the hell did this get to PATAS? Presumably the motorist had already done an informal then formal challenge based on lack of signage. The council could have, and should have accepted the appeal and not made the motorist go all the way to PATAS with loss of earnings and research etc which he cannot be paid for, to win a simple case.

 

Calm down dear its only a TV programme!! Next you will be telling me its normal for the Council and CEOs to turn up at TPT. Its TV its not real!!! You obviously were not paying attention anyway it was TPT not PATAS as it was a Brighton case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I initially knew about this programme I was worried at how it would come across. As far as I am concerned, the programme was excellent and one good point is that the public will know that appealing a ticket to the adjudicator is not as daunting as many believe. It was not made very clear however that the adjudicators were NOT from PATAS ( which deals with PCN's issued by the 33 London Authorities) and instead; were from TPT. It should be noted that PATAS is not as informal...in fact I would be shocked if PATAS would ever allowed filming to take place in their premises !!

What I found most interesting as well was the Adjudicators hearing brought by the gentleman who claimed that he had displayed his Blue Badge. What I cannot understand is how Ms Anjan Patel as Head of Parking at Sandwell Council could have possibly allowed herself to be filmed. I am sure that she would not attend such hearings in her working day. She had failed to check the file correctly and her parking attendant from APCOA was effectively shown to be a liar !!

Ms Patel is also President of the British Parking Association !!!

What is clear is that the programme will encourage members of the public to challenge PCN's and with each London appeal costing the relavant local authority approx £45 this could be very costly for the councils !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you also see that Ms Patel was pictured on the programme at the exhibition for companies selling parking related services/goods.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the councils argue that making a profit from parking fines is not their aim but merely a reflection of how naughty motorists are. The fact that westminster has painted every road in central London yellow is merely a means of making sure that people parking dont obstruct traffic. If what they claim was true then parking wouldnt be charged for at all. Look at what Westminster Council said when the poll tax was introduced in the 1980's they didint need to charge the residents becuse they made enough from parking to cover their entire expenditure that wasnt paid out of the governemnt allowance. Sutton boasts of a £150k surplus and although their car park charges are reasonable insist on putting them up at a rate above inflation for the last 3 years and have also gone mad with the yellow paint where it isnt necessary to force people into paid parking spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am strongly of the opinion that this year will be one of significant change as members of the public will start making complaints to loval authorities ( and other government bodies) as they will not tolerate being the Governments "CASH COW" much longer.

 

The increase in parking tickets and "fines" for silly things like: throwing a sweet wrapper of out a car window are out of all prorportion.

 

Already the public are starting to make complaints to supermarkets at the way in which private car park operators try to charge £100 for staying too long in Asda !!

 

There will be change...I am sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms Patel is quite astute, The CEO was there to carry the can should the case go badly. (When was the last time anyone heard of a CEO turning up at adjudication) The program opened with a statement of the only lawful purposes of CPE. It ended with a clear statement that using CPE as a revenue measure is illegal. The parts in between showed how 'active' councils are and that there is nothing to fear at adjudication. Despite some minor quibbles I have with some of the content the overall message was very clear. I must add that the adjudicator who misstated the law about costs must, or should, be kicking himself. Did anyone note his name, or know it having had him ? I agree with tomtubby, (which I find is a sensible thing to do) people had had more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is clear is that the programme will encourage members of the public to challenge PCN's and with each London appeal costing the relavant local authority approx £45 this could be very costly for the councils !!!!

 

Do you really think so? Most pay at the discount for a reason and the vast majority would lose at PATAS resulting in far greater income not less. Like it or not the truth is you are never going to win at an adjudicator the best you can do is come out even after hours of your time and Councils will never stop issuing tickets they have a statutary duty to do so and the only money being wasted at PATAS is yours. How can it ever be costly for Councils, they have no money the money they spend on adjudications is the surplus that would have been spent on roads, public transport etc that will have to be paid instead by your Council tax. If you would prefer a hike in Council tax or a cut in services rather than see people punished for parking on yellow lines or not paying etc then you are slightly mad in my view. The programe was a complete load of manufactured garbage aimed at people who already beleive its all a council conspiracy. Most people I have spoken to that are not obsessed with parking issues and spend all their free time on forums think that the people shown needed to get a life rather than some sort of heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say, the majority of tickets issued are probably justified and the majority of people caught 'bang to rights' pay up.

 

However, from my own experience, councils do seem to play a game of bluff with anyone who appeals, regardless of whether there is a good case for cancelling the ticket.

 

Of the dozen tickets I've had over the years, 5 were paid immediately (bang to rights) and 1 was cancelled on informal appeal. The other 6 were refused at both formal and informal appeals and went to adjudication, at each stage all with no new or additional evidence.

 

Yet in every case the council withdrew from adjudication, but not until the very last minute.

 

In other words, as far as my own experience goes, if councils played fair in the first place the number of appeals to the adjudicator would decrease dramatically and there would be virtually no need for PATAS.

Edited by Michael Browne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, from my own experience, councils do seem to play a game of bluff with anyone who appeals, regardless of whether there is a good case for cancelling the ticket.

 

The game of bluff always commences with the local authority dismissing any response to the PCN without sufficient grounds.

 

The false claim that paying up, or going to PATAS ar the only two options, is the second stage of the bluff.

 

Adjudication by PATAS as being a level playing field for both parties is the final part of the hatrick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with most of what you say, the majority of tickets issued are probably justified and the majority of people caught 'bang to rights' pay up.

 

However, from my own experience, councils do seem to play a game of bluff with anyone who appeals, regardless of whether there is a good case for cancelling the ticket.

 

Of the dozen tickets I've had over the years, 5 were paid immediately (bang to rights) and 1 was cancelled on informal appeal. The other 6 were refused at both formal and informal appeals and went to adjudication, at each stage all with no new or additional evidence.

 

Yet in every case the council withdrew from adjudication, but not until the very last minute.

 

In other words, as far as my own experience goes, if councils played fair in the first place the number of appeals to the adjudicator would decrease dramatically and there would be virtually no need for PATAS.

 

I think that situation in many cases is due to the costs involved, if a Council goes to PATAS/TPT it never makes a penny even if they win due to the admin and tribunal fees. Some Councils will therefore hold out until the last moment hoping you pay and then cut their loses but cancelling. City of London actually went for an entire year without taking a single case to PATAS one has to wonder why? I'm sure Councils in the majority of cases do not fold because they have no case its just down to economics.

I never understand why people do not just realise the way to end this is to stop getting tickets not by appealing. If 'consumer groups' spent more time educating people and campaigning for better driving standards rather than looking for technicalities to avoid paying fines CPE would become pointless.

Enforcement in most areas of the uk barely breaks even despite what campaign groups like to imply so if ticket numbers dropped off drastically Councils would be hard pressed to afford CEOs. The headlines may state ticket numbers are increasing but that is because more Councils migrate to CPE from police enforcement each year.

Making more appeals requires more staff, more staff requires greater income, greater income requires increased permit and parking charges and/or increased enforcement to ensure they break even. I suspect that if you really wanted to annoy those that work in the parking departments at your local Council the logical answer would be to pay any PCNs at the discount and never appeal. Income would be reduced and the vast majority of staff made redundant. Making loads of frivolous technical appeals doesn't annoy them as some posters here seem to think it just keeps them employed and probably a nice bit of overtime to go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...