Used an 'NHS only bay' in a council car park, got a PCN, but signs are too high up to read?

[Jamberson]

Hi Jamberson

They didnt move it,

they just rotated 90 degrees so its visible just as I wrote in my defence plea.

 

I know - and you can't rotate something without moving it.

 

Look

- the council can do what it sees fit with their signs, when it sees fit.

You may suspect that if the council moves - rotates - the sign

- then it proves this or that, but in truth it doesn't prove anything on its own.

That's whay I suggest you dig around and see if you can find out why they rotated it.

 

 

It could be for some other reason

- you don't know yet

- and equally you won't know if any case you may put together would have any retrospective weight.

After all, you had a free adjudication process and an impartial judgement on the case was made.

 

To be honest, phrases like "admission of guilt", "clearly in the wrong", "extortion", "mugged" and so on, are not constructive.

 

 

You need to get some facts.

Even when you have them, your chances are still slim to none,

but if you want to fight for a refund you'll need to investigate it first.

[think about it]

What evidence do you have that it was the council that moved the sign and not a third party, perhaps even someone else whose inattention led to a PCN of their own?

[Mike505]

So far I have not written to the council, only to the adjudicators hoping that they would reverse their decision.

 

 

Obviously, judging by their silence they are hoping I will go away.

 

 

I am going to write the council too, but I am not hopeful about a reply.

 

 

As for Basic Account Holder,

I wrote on this forum hoping to get some suggestions for justice..

comments like yours smack of schadenfreude and not at all helpful.

[Michael Browne]

Your reluctance to show the adjudicator's decision isn't helpful either

[Mike505]

There is no reluctance MB, I simply dont have it.

But what is there to know?

 

 

They ruled against me and thats that.

I will dig some more and try to find it.

 

 

The main thing is that they have refused to even acknowledge my recent correspondence to them

with copies of my plea and recent photos.

 

 

They know once they enter into correspondance they may be forced to reverse their decision.

This injustice doesnt just affect me personally,

it affects the public on the whole.

 

 

You'd think a council body would own up to their mistakes,

not when it come to siphoning money to their coffers

[Michael Browne]

There is no reluctance MB, I simply dont have it. But what is there to know? They ruled against me and thats that. I will dig some more and try to find it.

 

You say you have all the evidence etc, yet cannot produce either the pcn no. or the London Tribunal reference no.

 

Sorry I simply don't believe you.

 

You also say you wrote to the adjudicators by recorded delivery, with photographs, asking them to ask the council to refund. One assumes that if you seriously wanted them reverse their decision, you would have included the reference no. in order that they would know which case you were talking about.

[Mike505]

Michael, let me assure you that I am not some whacko wasting other people's time.

 

 

If you care to trace this thread before you embark on invective,

I did include the pcn and case numbers but they have been blanked,

probably by the moderators.

 

 

I have finally gotten through to the adjudicators by phone and they tell me they are on the case.

They have forwarded my recent photo (above) to the council

and they are awaiting their response.

 

 

I am not saying its an open and shut case,

but why, when I thoroughly pleaded my case of inappropriately placed signs,

does the council take my money and then go and do exactly as I suggested?

 

 

Think about it... if the sign was in the position that it is in now,

I would have seen and not incurred this penalty.

I will keep you posted

[Michael Browne]

If you care to trace this thread before you embark on invective, I did include the pcn and case numbers but they have been blanked, probably by the moderators.

 

They may possibly have done, but you're the one with all the original documentation, ie the pcn itself, the NtO, your representations to the council, their rejection letters, correspondence to and from the London Tribunals, all of which will have quoted the pcn no. Yet you still can't/won't provide that one piece of basic information.

 

One has to wonder why?

[Mike505]

Excuse me Michael, you are getting rather tiresome.

The only documentation that I am NOT in possession of is the tribunal's decision letter.

I HAVE all the rest.

 

 

As I said in my previous post, I have managed to contact the adjudicators and they are looking into the matter,

so what is your problem?

 

 

The tribunal have all the documentations

(pcn, decison letter, my defence plea, my recent letter to them showing the rotated parking sign etc etc)

and they are REVIEWING the case.

 

 

Or are you saying that YOU want to see the docs?

Why?

 

 

You have already seen that its not ok to forward pcn details on this site?

 

 

Ask the moderator.

I'm confused

[Michael Browne]

The only documentation that I am NOT in possession of is the tribunal's decision letter. Or are you saying that YOU want to see the docs?

Yes

 

Why?

So that we can see precisely the reasons why the adjudicator refused your appeal, which may help us to help you.

 

You have already seen that its not ok to forward pcn details on this site? Ask the moderator. I'm confused

There is nothing in the site rules that preclude posting pcn or London Tribunal ref no's if you're happy to. Clearly you aren't, which leads to the conclusion that there's something in the adjudicator's decision which you don't want us to see.

 

If I'm wrong just post the no's

[Mike505]

For Christ's sake Michael...

I HAVE POSTED THE NUMBERS A FEW POSTS UP AND THEY HAVE BEEN BLANKED!!!!!

 

 

Why are you so adamant on seeing them?

You dont have to believe anything I say, just stop responding to me and go about your business.

 

 

As I have said, the tribunal said they are looking into the matter.

. if they dont have the details that you say I am "hiding",

why would they be looking into the matter?

 

 

Or dont you believe me on that either? In which case say so so

and I will stop responding to you.

have a good day sir.

[honeybee13]

For Christ's sake Michael... I HAVE POSTED THE NUMBERS A FEW POSTS UP AND THEY HAVE BEEN BLANKED!!!!! Why are you so adamant on seeing them? You dont have to believe anything I say, just stop responding to me and go about your business. As I have said, the tribunal said they are looking into the matter.. if they dont have the details that you say I am "hiding", why would they be looking into the matter? Or dont you believe me on that either? In which case say so so and I will stop responding to you. You have a good day sir.

 

For information, the numbers were removed by the site team, they were provided by Mike505. It was felt that they were personal information.

 

HB

[Michael Browne]

From that I'll take it that you are never going to post a copy the adjudicator's decision?

[Mike505]

Thank you Honeybee13. Michael, you have shown blatant contempt for my posts calling me a liar on more than one occasion. There is no point in posting the adjudicator's decision, I am not anxious to have you onside. Suffice to say the jury is still out on this one. If you are really interested, stay tuned and I will update. Other than that I have nothing further to say to you.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

What's to say they haven't decided to move the sign because of any ruling, but purely on the basis that they are likely to save time dealing with another complaint kike this if they move it slightly.

What's to say they even moved it? Could a kid bot have turned it?

Or the wind?

 

Didn't your defense rely on them being too high, not the wrong way?

 

We, as Michael has rightly said, need to see a copy of the decision to see what basis he gave that decision on. We cant see or use the pcn numbers etc so have to rely on you posting a pdf of the docs.

[think about it]

What's to say they even moved it? Could a kid bot have turned it?

.

 

Exactly why I asked what evidence he had that it had been moved by the council and not a third party? No reply though...

[barns66]

I do not know if it makes any differance but from the photo,it seems to me.it's a new post the signs have been placed on,in a different place.

[Mike505]

(a) In my plea I said the sign was too high AND facing the wrong way. Both contribute to the sign being inadequately visible, therefore a PCN generator

(b) The wind blew it? really? Exactly 90 degrees? God must have disagreed with the tribunal and heard my plea then. Also why would a kid waste his ASBO energy to rotate a sign thats 11 feet high? Indeed, why would ANY third party bother to rotate the sign?

© As honeybee said, the pcn and case numbers have been deleted for privacy reasons. On reflection I think it was foolish to have have posted them, but I am glad they were blanked (thanks moderators) because, really, I came here for sage advice and guidance, instead I got a load of bullcrap from some mean and cynical posters

[Michael Browne]

Here you go, don't know what all the fuss was about:

 

The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a permit bay in an off-street car park without clearly displaying a valid permit.

Mr. xxx does not in fact dispute this but he criticises the quality of the signage.

He says that he believed he could pay and display and duly did so.

He did not see any signs to indicate the bay was restricted to permit holders only.

He has provided photographic evidence to support his assertion that the signage of restrictions was not clear and adequate.

He says that he parked in heavy rain and rushed out of his vehicle to the pay and display machine.

He criticises the location of the time plate ‘on a post’ and also its height on the post.

He has provided a copy of his pay and display ticket.

The motorist should never assume restrictions and must check the relevant signage.

Any motorist who parks without properly checking takes the risk that the vehicle is parked in contravention.

The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs of the signage relied upon and I have been able to consider these together with Mr. xxx’s photographs and those taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer.

Having done so I am satisfied that there were a series of signs indicating ‘NHS permit holders only in blue bay and that Mr. xxx’s vehicle was parked in a blue bay.

I am satisfied that the signage of restrictions was clear and adequate to inform the motorist who gave the question the appropriate degree of attention.

While I accept that Mr. xxx made a genuine error, this amounts only to mitigation.

The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

[Mike505]

I believe that this was what was in the adjudicator's letter.

 

 

Dont you agree that the council, having collected their fine,

then go and rotate the sign as per my plea constitute an admission of guilt tantamount to fraud?

 

 

It is clear I would have seen the sign had it been in its present orientation

and thus this is an unjust and duplicitous penalization.

 

 

If the council had been satisfied with the decision above they would not have changed the sign,

and thus they should issue a refund

[Mike505]

"While I accept that Mr. xxx made a genuine error, this amounts only to mitigation."

 

So when does "mitigation" become more than just mitigation? In my view, when the "mitigation" has been changed to reflect the defence plea. It is an admission by the council that their signs are NOT clearly visible. But they went ahead and collected the penalty anyway. Did they charge me for giving them advice on how to display their signs? Yes they did. Surely this is unjust.

[Michael Browne]

I believe that this was what was in the adjudicator's letter.

 

 

Dont you agree that the council, having collected their fine,

then go and rotate the sign as per my plea constitute an admission of guilt tantamount to fraud?

No

 

It is clear I would have seen the sign had it been in its present orientation

and thus this is an unjust and duplicitous penalization.

Except that you've already said:

It was raining heavily when I parked so I wasnt about to turn my head up at the sky to read ANY signs even if I saw them.

When its pelting it down, the last thing you'd do is to look up.

You just want to run to the ticket machine and out of the rain as quick as you can.

 

If the council had been satisfied with the decision above they would not have changed the sign, and thus they should issue a refund

 

 

As barns 66 has said the two photos of the pole have differences, the base for one, so the orientation could have been changed then.

 

Whilst I agree the sign could have been better positioned at a lower height, the fact is you admit that because it was raining hard you didn't bother to check, we've all done it, but it still remains your responsibility.

[Mike505]

Yes the lamp post has been changed judging by the photos. The fact remains that I would have seen the sign in its present orientation, even with the height and the rain. had the sign been facing the right way, it would have been visible to someone walking to or from the ticket machine. Look.. the whole gist of my argument is that they have changed the sign to conform with my defence plea, and as such it throws the whole of the adjudicator's ruling out of the window.

[Michael Browne]

Look.. the whole gist of my argument is that they have changed the sign to conform with my defence plea, and as such it throws the whole of the adjudicator's ruling out of the window.

 

No it doesn't, even in it's previous orientation the adjudicator ruled that:

I am satisfied that the signage of restrictions was clear and adequate to inform the motorist who gave the question the appropriate degree of attention.

 

And you've admitted you didn't bother to look.

[Mike505]

I never admitted "I didnt bother to look". I made it quite clear in my plea that signs should be clear and visible in all meteorological conditions. That is why I then added that it was not visible in the rain because even in clear conditions it would have been hard to see. Regardless of all that... why dont you question their decision to rotate the sign? Isnt that the most glaring fact here? Shouldnt they be refunding me the penalty which they now was enforced under false conditions?