Years worth of parking fines found illegal - Council refuses to refund

[green_and_mean]

Well I wonder. Better in your pocket than in theirs, son

 

Sorry I thought you were suing the Council? Who is going to pay you if you win, the Council staff out of their wages, the elected Council out of their allowance or the Council tax payers?

[Grotesque]

Sorry I thought you were suing the Council? Who is going to pay you if you win, the Council staff out of their wages, the elected Council out of their allowance or the Council tax payers?

 

Please, don't apologise.

I am enquiring after the case of people who have seemingly paid money, of whom some are not going to be refunded what they should not have been charged. Are you suggesting that Councils should not be sued because 'we all pay for it'? So if 'we pay for it' is that carte blanche to break the law? Mildly disingenuous to say the least.

PS: I'm not suing anyone. Even for the hell of it...

Cheers!

[green_and_mean]

Please, don't apologise.

I am enquiring after the case of people who have seemingly paid money, of whom some are not going to be refunded what they should not have been charged. Are you suggesting that Councils should not be sued because 'we all pay for it'? So if 'we pay for it' is that carte blanche to break the law? Mildly disingenuous to say the least.

PS: I'm not suing anyone. Even for the hell of it...

Cheers!

 

 

The point is they should have been penalised because they parked in contravention, they could have contested it as the evidence was filmed on non certified cameras but they chose not to. The law is quite clear you can appeal any parking penalty the notice even tells you the legislation on the top so you can look up the law and prints the grounds for appeal on the back. If you cannot be bothered or are too lazy why should you get a refund several years later just because someone takes the time to challenge and win an appeal?

[MaisyMouse]

What about those that challenged at the time, lost the appeal and were forced to pay up ? The council is witholding the return of funds taken illegally.

[green_and_mean]

What about those that challenged at the time, lost the appeal and were forced to pay up ? The council is witholding the return of funds taken illegally.

 

They obviously either appealed on the wrong grounds or the adjudicator ruled against them. No funds have been taken illegally the Council is entitled to issue a PCN to any vehicle it believes is in contravention, its up to the owner to dispute this claim using the appeals process.

Look at it this way...

 

I park on a double yellow line to deliver some goods and take 7 minutes to do so. CEO issues PCN after a few minutes as he hasn't seen me loading. I appeal on the basis that there was no sign stating hours of yellow line. Appeal is rejected as no sign is needed on double yellows, I pay up. Some months later a friend tells me you can load on double yellows and I should have appealed on those grounds. Should I now be able to sue the Council as I should not have been liable due to an exemption for loading?

[MaisyMouse]

They obviously either appealed on the wrong grounds or the adjudicator ruled against them. No funds have been taken illegally the Council is entitled to issue a PCN to any vehicle it believes is in contravention, its up to the owner to dispute this claim using the appeals process.

Look at it this way...

 

That would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with the appeals process and the adjudication if a crime (and what the council have done IS as crime), if there is no recourse because of the time it takes for information to come to light.

[green_and_mean]

That would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with the appeals process and the adjudication if a crime (and what the council have done IS as crime), if there is no recourse because of the time it takes for information to come to light.

 

What crime has been committed? The information was available at the time, anyone with a PCN could have asked to see the certification for the camera at any point during their appeal......but they didn't!

 

Laura Macowski, who lives in Newham, believes she may have been issued with one of the illegal tickets.

 

She told the BBC: "I paid a fine issued via a camera on the Romford Road about six months ago which I believe was unlawful. I have absolutely no idea why I got the ticket.

 

 

So she gets a ticket which for some reason she thinks is unlawful hasn't a clue why it was issued despite having the reason clearly printed on the PCN, pays it and now wants a refund out of public funds.....priceless!!

Edited August 10, 2013 by green_and_mean

[Grotesque]

The hardware is a legal prerequisite. So the Council have committed an offence regardless of and notwithstanding any subsequent offences committed by others.

[green_and_mean]

The hardware is a legal prerequisite. So the Council have committed an offence regardless of and notwithstanding any subsequent offences committed by others.

 

Its not an offence though is it? An offence is a criminal act with a fine or jail term laid out in the statute for committing the offence. Failing to certify a cctv device for parking enforcement is not cited as a criminal offence in any statute?

Its no different from issuing a PCN whilst not in uniform, its not an offence nobody can be prosecuted it just invalidates the PCN if challenged.

[lamma]

Torts aplenty.

[MaisyMouse]

Its not an offence though is it? An offence is a criminal act with a fine or jail term laid out in the statute for committing the offence. Failing to certify a cctv device for parking enforcement is not cited as a criminal offence in any statute?

Its no different from issuing a PCN whilst not in uniform, its not an offence nobody can be prosecuted it just invalidates the PCN if challenged.

 

Criminal maybe the wrong word, councils have the power to evade justice, by virtue of time limits set out in legislation, outside of which the motorist is unable to obtain a due refund.

 

If it was the other way round, I'm sure the authorites would have no hesitation sending in the legal vultures, and throw taxpayers money at clawing back the funds.

[green_and_mean]

Criminal maybe the wrong word, councils have the power to evade justice, by virtue of time limits set out in legislation, outside of which the motorist is unable to obtain a due refund.

 

If it was the other way round, I'm sure the authorites would have no hesitation sending in the legal vultures, and throw taxpayers money at clawing back the funds.

 

Do you also think that the 28 day limit for serving a PCN is also unfair then? Or what about all the PCNs that got cancelled due to non compliant signage that would now not be after the Herron High Court substantial compliance case? Do you think the Council should chase up all those owners and tell them they now want the PCN paid?

[Kiki1]

Whilst the 28 day period is within level playing ground territory, the discrepancy of correspondence times (LA has almost two months in order formulate an excuse/reason for rejection, the motorist doesn't get anywhere near the same), plus the ability to issue a charge certificate on a whim is outside the bounds is nothing short of criminal.

[Grotesque]

...I guess council mannagers would not necessarily agree with you

 

"LOL" etc...

[TheBogsDollocks]

The point is they should have been penalised because they parked in contravention, they could have contested it as the evidence was filmed on non certified cameras but they chose not to. The law is quite clear you can appeal any parking penalty the notice even tells you the legislation on the top so you can look up the law and prints the grounds for appeal on the back. If you cannot be bothered or are too lazy why should you get a refund several years later just because someone takes the time to challenge and win an appeal?

 

What twaddle. People may not appeal not because they are too lazy but because they trust that the council is acting lawfully. When you get your council tax or water bill you don't instantly delve into the regulating law to see that it is correct just because you can appeal against the sum charged, you trust that it is correct. It is reasonable to assume that a council or authority is acting lawfully. If the cameras were not certified then the PCN is not being served on the evidence of an approved device as claimed and so the evidence is discredited. Judges in the highest courts everywhere in the world dismiss cases due to evidence being discredited. If the council knew that the cameras were not certified and were not "approved devices" then they committed the unlawful act of obtaining money under false pretences.

Edited August 15, 2013 by TheBogsDollocks

[TheBogsDollocks]

I think you mean as far as issuing a penalty charge the offences didn't take place, the legislation that determines if a contravention takes place is a traffic order which has nothing to do with cameras.

 

More twaddle. Your bias is really coming through on this one GM, do you have some affiliation with Newham? A postal PCN reliant on CCTV can only be served on the record produced by an approved device.

 

Reg 10(1)(a) is quite clear

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made

 

No approved device = no lawful postal PCN and no evidence of any contravention regardless of what the traffic order says. Simples!

Edited August 15, 2013 by TheBogsDollocks

[green_and_mean]

More twaddle. Your bias is really coming through on this one GM, do you have some affiliation with Newham? A postal PCN reliant on CCTV can only be served on the record produced by an approved device.

 

Reg 10(1)(a) is quite clear

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made

 

No approved device = no lawful postal PCN and no evidence of any contravention regardless of what the traffic order says. Simples!

 

I never said the PCN was lawful but if you park on a yellow line for example you are in contravention even if you never even get caught, let alone have a lawful PCN served on you. Trying to say you can only commit a contravention if you a) get caught and b) get served with a legal PCN is clearly untrue?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I never said the PCN was lawful but if you park on a yellow line for example you are in contravention even if you never even get caught, let alone have a lawful PCN served on you. Trying to say you can only commit a contravention if you a) get caught and b) get served with a legal PCN is clearly untrue?

 

So what? A local authority cannot use unlawful means to deal with people who commit contraventions.

 

Local authorities must be beyond reproach in all that they do. The real disgrace of many cases concerning LAs and their cowboy enforcement methods is that no-one appears to be properly held to account.

[green_and_mean]

So what? A local authority cannot use unlawful means to deal with people who commit contraventions.

 

I never said they could, maybe you could point to the post where I said so??

 

If the cameras were unlawful then the recipient of the PCN should have appealed.

[Conniff]

That's the point, they didn't appeal because they didn't know, they trusted the lying **** that are councils.