Parked on kerb outside Disabled persons house. Ticketed by Camera!!!

[Jamberson]

Ahahahahahahah!

What council do you work for?

Especially Hounslow council never ever cancel pcn at appeal stage.

Just have a wonder on pepipoo and you will see how many drivers have been issued pcn incorrectly and had appeal refused, then won at the adjudication stage.

A note for the op: ask Hounslow council for proof that the camera is an approved device.

They will send you an internet link which will take you to a confusing page with one approved device listed for Hounslow.

That's the approval of their control room; no camera in Hounslow is an approved device!

This was the case up to end of 2012 (last ticket I got), they might have had other cameras approved now but I strongly believe not.

Also once you take them to the adjudicator, you will receive their evidence in full.

check the signatures of the camera operator witness statement and the person rejecting the appeal: they will probably match with different job titles, the former being a camera operator, the latter a traffic enforcement manager.

Ever seen a manager working as a camera operator?!?!

Adjudicator won't be impressed.

Further more, the fact that they haven't given you the opportunity to pay the pcn at the reduced rate after the appeal decision is procedural impropriety.

They haven't got a clue!

That's Hounslow for you!

 

Is "Ahahahahahaha" supposed to be you laughing? If so, you're being a bit childish.

 

Your post before was about "councils"being merciless. If you are talking now specifically about Hounslow, then I will say openly that I don't know how Hounslow operate. If that's what you meant you should have said it in the first place because countless PCNs are cancelled at the informal stage. That's just a matter of fact - but if Hounslow are different, then OK.

[Pocket Nines]

Ahahahahahahah!

Further more, the fact that they haven't given you the opportunity to pay the pcn at the reduced rate after the appeal decision is procedural impropriety.

 

How do you know that was the case. Apart from it not being a legal requirement, you are faced her with an appellant who clearly hasn't a clue and, most of all, no documents have been shown to support that statement.

Since you mention another forum then you know full well that they have the savvy not to jump to such assumptions because they won't help at all without seeing documents.

Where is the rejection that 'didn't re-offer'? It sounds more like he doesn't understand the full process.

 

I have no idea if your info on CCTV use is of any use currently but the more basic facts of the case haven't even been clarified or explored.

At face value, he hasn't a leg to stand on considering what he thinks might be relevant. Disclosure of docs and a full and proper description of what happened might change that.

Who was at the vehicle during the time of contravention?

Where are pics of the location?

Does he know he can (and probably should) get this postponed to understand his position more fully).

Does OP even understand 'assisted alighting' (for future reference only - no need to park on footway)

--------

Incidentally, I'm sure that many PCNs ARE cancelled by Councils in response to initial challenges or Reps. I believe Jamberson has been in a position to know that.

To say none are, is ridiculous.

[king12345]

Assistant Head of Parking Management and Business processing Manager at the same time... As I thought.

Since they've been caught out with that certain Manager signing herself as a camera operator, they now made up some more titles.

The result is the same: that manager did not operate the cctv and did not witness the contravention, someone else did.

There I say it: is it someone that is not supposed to be employed in uk, from a certain background that seems to be very popular with security jobs?

Now, as a matter of urgency ask for certificate of approval of that particular camera and you will start to cramble the sand castle.

The more evidence you ask for the more they will contradict themselves and make a mess because they shouldn't issue these pcn.

Hounslow is now covered in double yellow lines, yellow boxes, 200ft bus stops and all other sorts of restrictions, all covered by cctv.

The profit is gigantic!

Don't pay up!

Go to the adjudication and ask for costs.

They need to be taken down for good.

Please post as much documents as possible with personal details blanked and any other identifiers.

They haven't got a clue on how to prepare a file, so surely there's a lot of improprieties to point out to the adjudicator.

Don't forget to request cctv certificate of approval under fia and start the patas process before the deadline.

[Chancerz]

My case will come into the list for decision on Monday 14th April. The deadline to submit additional information to the adjudicator is Tues 8th April... Is there anyway I can get an extension?

 

It's also not a face to face hearing it's a decision by post.

[king12345]

My case will come into the list for decision on Monday 14th April. The deadline to submit additional information to the adjudicator is Tues 8th April... Is there anyway I can get an extension?

 

It's also not a face to face hearing it's a decision by post.

Call patas and tell them that you are waiting for evidence crucial to the case and see what they say.

Usually they let you move the hearing.

Ask if you can change it to a hearing in person, always better to show up there and explain things properly, so if there's something unclear you can explain it to the adjudicator

[Pocket Nines]

Call patas and tell them that you are waiting for evidence crucial to the case and see what they say.

Usually they let you move the hearing.

Ask if you can change it to a hearing in person, always better to show up there and explain things properly, so if there's something unclear you can explain it to the adjudicator

 

I think this would be best as he has no tangible case at present.

 

Just ask for the hearing to be changed and rescheduled. I've done this by phone in the past but not sure if they still do. They may want an e-mail or letter.

 

Dx,

As i mentioned people have been doing this for over 30 years

You should look at 'Legitimate expectation' as a possible point of appeal, maybe. Also in conjunction with the sudden imposition of CCTV enforcement, where you might otherwise have been 'informed' by a CEO on the street. It gets quite involved to make the latter point.

 

Can you describe more fully exactly what happened in terms of assisting Gran and who did what and in what order, who was at the vehicle and when ------- and then akso insert which parts of those events were covered by the CCTV footage?

[Chancerz]

My wife is dealing with this as she was driving. She does not want to prolong this situation or go to a hearing as she is pregnant and does not want the stress. She feels we should have just paid the fine in the first instance and been done with it. I disagree and feel that not enough of us have any fight in us.. too many of us roll over and let these people get away with these ridiculous fines.

 

What i have done in order to keep the peace in my house (and not feel the wrath of a pregnant woman) is write the following to the adjudicator with my wife and put it in the post earlier so it would reach them by tomorrows deadline. If i was dealing with the case i would have asked for an extension and a face to face hearing.

 

I know it may not be the strongest appeal but let me know your thoughts?

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

RE: Case No.....

 

Please accept the following additional information in relation to the above case.

 

After reading through the council’s evidence I would like to clarify a few details.

 

Firstly the Council’s DVD of the incident does not show the full footage. If it were provided you would see my partners Grandmother getting out of the drivers side back seat and being escorted into her house with the aid of a wheelchair. I often put shopping on the back seat of the car as the wheelchair is in the boot, which would leave very little space for bulky items hence why shopping was placed and subsequently taken from the rear seats.

 

Hounslow council also state the presence of a gentleman and question why this was not mentioned in the appeal. I was not aware a man was present at the house upon my return as her son, my partner’s uncle, often visits. The appeal was based on disability and ease of access; the presence of a man does not change this fact.

 

I would also like to add that that my partner and I often take his grandmother shopping and have regularly used this method. His grandmother can walk short distances, only if heavily assisted; yet we try to encourage this as much as possible. If she is feeling up to it she will walk from the front door to the car hence why we park directly outside her property and on the pavement so she can see that it is only a short walk to the vehicle.

 

If we were to park anywhere else she would not even attempt to walk to the car as it would not be in her sight and therefore mentally she would think it was not within her walking distance, which means she would not try walking at all. As a family, we try to encourage as much mobility as possible and cannot stress the importance that this physical and mental activity provides.

 

The fact that Hounslow Council have made it seriously difficult for an elderly disabled person to have the independence and freedom they require to function and access services normally is both distressing and disheartening. They have made a simple task that my family have been performing for many years with no problems extremely arduous, to the point that my partners’ grandmother is virtually housebound as she feels she is putting her family out (especially the women) by making them load and unload a wheel chair into the car and by the latest turn of events.

 

The Disability Discrimination ACT states: The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) gives people with disabilities important rights of access to everyday services. The DDA also requires the council to make "reasonable adjustments" so that disabled people may have use of facilities.

 

My view is that allowing a case like this would constitute a reasonable adjustment so that a disabled person could go shopping and return home as normal.

 

I would also request under the FIA that Hounslow Council provide a certificate of approval for the Camera mentioned in this contravention. Also when reading through the evidence the camera operatives name is not mentioned nor a witness statement provided and signed for by the camera operative, which I would also request. Instead a ‘[NAME]’ has signed herself as both Assistant Head of Parking Management on the opening page of the evidence and then as Business Processing Manager further in the evidence. This makes no sense as to what the true role of this person is and whether there is a conflict of interest.

 

Why have Hounslow Council installed double yellow lines and Parking CCTV directly outside a disabled persons home of more than 40 years? What is the reason for putting double yellow lines on this road if they have never been required here before? Surely they should put a disabled parking bay, to make life easier for said person. Instead it seriously impedes on her quality of life, freedom and independence. The council need to address this issue and we are currently pursuing this with them.

 

I ask that a level of common sense and discretion be used in this instance. All of the family and I are looking for alternatives to these new and current parking restrictions to avoid any further penalties, however in the meantime this is sadly and greatly impacting on this lady’s quality of life.

 

These mitigating circumstances are completely genuine and I would like to feel that the council are working with us and not against us in making the lives of those who are disabled and their carers in our community easier and not vice versa.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

From looking through the evidence document it seems like Hounslow Council have employed specific people to create this intimidating document set out like an official legal battle so it scares people into paying up and not fighting on.

 

The DVD footage only shows the car parked on the pavement (drivers side two wheels on the pavement) the driver side rear door open and my partner's uncle coming out of the house taking out a large 10 pack of kitchen roll off the back seat and going into the house. The Camera then moves away after zooming in on the number plate.

 

What i am happy to do, if anyone else find themselves in a similar situation in the future is Scan in the 25 page double sided document and post it on here for people to scrutinise? I'm sure other councils may follow suit and use a similar document for themselves. People can then refer back to this thread and hopefully it will be able to help them...

 

Let me know if anyone would like for me to do this?

 

Many thanks for all your advice so far.

[Pocket Nines]

I got a bit lost earlier with 'there was a man -- there wasn't a man' and whatever the Council said about it - and something you were mistaken about etc.

 

Most crucially and of possible help to you --- was someone at the vehicle for the whole time it was parked?

[green_and_mean]

Your appeal is complete nonsense, if the road is wide enough for a disabled bay as you claim why did you park illegally on the footway? The DDA adjustments are the reason disabled people are given blue badges and if the disabled person has one they could park outside the house on the yellow lines. Getting side tracked by who signed what is also a bit pointless as there is no requirement for a parking ticket issued on the evidence of an approved device to even have a camera operator it could be an unmanned system where does the signature come into the scheme of things? There is no exemption for boarding and alighting that allows you to park on the footway so missing out bits of evidence is also of little help. You would have thought that having someone wheelchair bound that you would have more consideration in the first place than to park on the pavement.