Incorrectly issued parking fine

[kh123]

Hi all.

 

I received a PCN yesterday 21/12/14 for "parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (partly on footway) code 62 2"

 

This PCN was issued at osborne grove E17 by Waltham forest council.

 

I had just entered a shop for about 3 minutes, and as I returned the civil enforcement officer was starting to get the ticket ready.

 

 

I explained my situation to him, that I had just run in to get some calpol for my niece,

and that I was able to park here as there are no restrictions and

he told me that a tiny bit of my wheel was on the pavement.

 

 

He said that he is sorry, and carried on writing the PCN.

I contested this as my wheel was on the road and not on the pavement.

 

Now he had no time to take pictures of anything and there are no camera's around there.

How can I go about appealing this, as I really cannot afford to pay it.

 

Also I'd like to add that I appreciate all the help you guys have given everybody else, and would like to say thank you for all replies.

 

Have a good Christmas!

[Michael Browne]

Have you checked that there are no photos:

 

https://onlineservices.nsl.co.uk/WalthamOCMLive/default.aspx

[king12345]

No pictures = no pcn.

It's your word against the man on commissions

[Michael Browne]

No pictures = no pcn.

It's your word against the man on commissions

 

Rubbish, photos are not mandatory and lack of them doesn't mean the PCN is unenforceable

[Jamberson]

...and they aren't on commission anyway.

 

It's a nice thought that the council has to prove its side with photos, but just isn't the case.

[green_and_mean]

If you were doing nothing wrong why did you drive off surely if the ticket was being issued for being on the footway and you were on the road the logical think would have been to take a photo yourself using your phone or wait for him to take a photo of the car which you claim was legally parked?

[king12345]

...and they aren't on commission anyway.

 

It's a nice thought that the council has to prove its side with photos, but just isn't the case.

 

They're on commissions, they call them bonuses or something else, but the more pcn they issue the more money they get.

Having no photos of the offending vehicle is very shaky ground for the council.

The adjudicators know that the parking wardens are kind of keen and without proofs of the offence they'll be inclined to cancel the pcn.

After all, why would the parking warden's word be more reliable than the one of the driver?

I would appeal simply by stating that the parking warden must have made a gross mistake because all of your 4 wheels were on the road.

They'll refuse the appeal (they usually do) and when you go to patas just ask for proofs that they don't have

[Jamberson]

They're on commissions, they call them bonuses or something else, but the more pcn they issue the more money they get.

Having no photos of the offending vehicle is very shaky ground for the council.

The adjudicators know that the parking wardens are kind of keen and without proofs of the offence they'll be inclined to cancel the pcn.

After all, why would the parking warden's word be more reliable than the one of the driver?

I would appeal simply by stating that the parking warden must have made a gross mistake because all of your 4 wheels were on the road.

They'll refuse the appeal (they usually do) and when you go to patas just ask for proofs that they don't have

 

Everything you say is wrong.

 

They are not on commission, nor do they receive bonuses or "something else" for issuing PCNs. They don't get more money, the more they issue. They are just on flat salaries. Where do you get these ideas from??

 

There is no "shaky ground" in not having photos, let alone "very" shaky ground. Photos are merely for clarification. Without them the CEO notes are relied on. What possible reason do you have for saying they are on very shaky ground?

 

Adjudicators are not inclined to cancel PCNs without proof. You don't know how the legislation works. The burden of proof is largely on the appellant, not the CEO or council. What experience do you have of the adjudication system?

 

Why would the "warden's" word be more reliable? Because, contrary to your views, they are not on commission and have no incentive to issue PCNs for imaginary contraventions. However the driver has every incentive to misrepresent the facts.

 

I am sure you mean well and are on the side of the OP, but making up assertions about where he stands is worse than pointless. You are risking leading him into copping a hefty charge.

[JoeyJoeC]

They aren't getting bonuses or commission. Although they are "expected" to issue tickets, as that is a major part of their job. They could inform drivers that they shouldn't park where they are able to, but they don't. If two are patrolling the same area in a day, one issues 20 and the other issues none, then they will be investigated to find out why. There was a documentary about this some months back.

[Jamberson]

Of course they are expected to issue tickets. That's their job. It's like saying people who work in call centres are expected to answer the phone, or will be investigated to find out why.

[green_and_mean]

After all, why would the parking warden's word be more reliable than the one of the driver?

 

 

 

Why would the CEO pick on a legally parked car out of the thousands they see each day many of which will be parked in contravention? The CEO will get paid his salary regardless of the outcome, the driver would be £120 better off, so who is more likely to lie???

[king12345]

Everything you say is wrong.

 

They are not on commission, nor do they receive bonuses or "something else" for issuing PCNs. They don't get more money, the more they issue. They are just on flat salaries. Where do you get these ideas from??

 

There is no "shaky ground" in not having photos, let alone "very" shaky ground. Photos are merely for clarification. Without them the CEO notes are relied on. What possible reason do you have for saying they are on very shaky ground?

 

Adjudicators are not inclined to cancel PCNs without proof. You don't know how the legislation works. The burden of proof is largely on the appellant, not the CEO or council. What experience do you have of the adjudication system?

 

Why would the "warden's" word be more reliable? Because, contrary to your views, they are not on commission and have no incentive to issue PCNs for imaginary contraventions. However the driver has every incentive to misrepresent the facts.

 

I am sure you mean well and are on the side of the OP, but making up assertions about where he stands is worse than pointless. You are risking leading him into copping a hefty charge.

 

No, I'm not wrong, but you're not either given that you have not passed any advice.

The ceos ARE on commissions, fact.

If you need confirmation of it send a foi request to your council and see for yourself, but be warned that you will need to start a war to get the info from them.

I did.

They've been taking pictures of offending vehicles since many people got fines for just passing by, including myself.

They used to take number plates down and issue tickets for allegedly parking on double yellow lines.

Then some smart ass like me and many others challenged their pcn and won.

Now they all carry a camera and take pictures of the contravening vehicle, otherwise the adjudicator would have no reason to doubt the driver version of events (I.e. I never stopped my car and never parked there).

I think you are the one who hasn't got a clue about the legal position of an appellant: They're innocent until proven guilty on a balance of probability.

This means that if the council produces a pcn as the only piece of evidence, they will be on extremely shaky ground.

Despite all of this I strongly advise to pay any money requested as a matter of urgency, so maybe, with more cash in the coffin, my council tax won't go over the roof (this last sentence must be read in a sarcastic light).

[Jamberson]

The word is coffers, not coffin.

 

And you remain wrong on every point. CEOs don't work for councils usually. No-one gets PCNs for just passing by. In parking you are not innocent until proven guilty. Photos are not necessary, and so on... I really can't be bothered picking through it all again - please be more responsible in what you post. You are saying things which could cost someone else money, and obviously don't know the system.

[king12345]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

 

Ok, as I'm so stupid and ignorant, I guess that all people related to this story are liars or as stupid and ignorant as me.

Note where it talks about bonuses and all illegally issued tickets.

Contractors work for money, more pcns means more money.

Again, if you want to advise the op to pay up, that's fine with me.

Personally I always challenged all pcns I got in my 20 odd years driving and always won.

Regarding your attempt at spelling lesson, you might be aware that when typing on a phone, some words are automatically changed by the software.

Does you now what I means, innit?

[renegadeimp]

Let's stop the childish arguing. If you you want to argue who is right and wring, make a new thread or use PM's

[Jamberson]

I think it's more important to correct silly remarks by people who don't know the system. I wouldn't characterise that as childish arguing - the OP needs sound advice, doesn't he?

[renegadeimp]

Yes he does. But the constant arguing from post to post doesnt achieve that.

[king12345]

See my previous post for one of the hundred links available online proving my point.

At least I gave advice rather than just issue unprovoked attacks.

 

To the op, as no advice rather than pay is good on this thread, I suggest you research the numerous posts of people in your same situation who have won their appeal, me being one of them in April 2013 (my last pcn)

[Jamberson]

King - please drop it. You are not helping anyone. Your previous post linked to some newspaper story three years ago - that's completely useless in this case.

 

If the OP wants advice, he should answer the questions put to him in posts 2 and 5 concerning the photographic evidence and chain of events. That would give us some basic info to be able to advise him on what best to do. Instead of just telling him he's onto a winner, without knowing the details, we need some facts on the table.

[kh123]

thanks for the replies guys and girls

Edited December 29, 2014 by kh123

[kh123]

Hi, as mentioned I had to get the calpol to my niece and was in a rush, I did not think at the time. Although afterwards I thought that they would argue that I had moved my car and then I took photo, so didn't think that there was any point in taking one.

[Jamberson]

You have the right of appeal, if you haven't already. It would be worth trying to find out what evidence they have and what the CEO notes say (you can enquire by email and they will hopefully just tell you). If you appeal and fail, then I would probably pay at that point. But nothing to lose at this stage.