Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Guys, we have three days left in which to respond to this.   While I appreciate all the input we've received, at present we seem to be left with more questions than answers so is anyone in a position to advise what to do next please?
    • The only way I can guess that I Go 4 got my details was through a car insurance search website.  At the time of thisCCJ I insured with the RAC,  THEN THE sAGA.  aT NO POINT DID i TAKE OUT INSURANCE WITH ig4 .  They certainly never wrote to me saying I owed them money.  The debt is for £235., so if I did owe,  I would have paid it,  but I knew nothing about it and to this day have never heard from J C International or IG4.
    • Thank you, just received letter back " acknowledging that the account is now Statute Barred, whilst they do not consider that they have breached any law or regulatory guidelines, the account has been withdrawn from their regular collections process and closed. You won't be contacted by us our agents regarding this matter".   Thank you all for your help, nice to finally get it settled.
    • The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue. You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. You started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule. I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion. In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread (a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and (b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD. I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen. As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14).   The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged. If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration. If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question. For the final time, the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned).   To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday):   I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings...   She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.    
    • So ignore any calls/letters off DCAs and try and work with PayPal directly to pay small amounts that I can afford?  Like ive said, I’ve opened a new bank account and transferred my regular in’s and out’s to that account. I’ve removed my old debit card from PayPal but left on there my old bank account info, reason being I’m hoping that makes it easier to send payments to PayPal. Does this seem a good idea? 
  • Our picks

beffbee

Contravention 26 - Parking straight onto a yellow line

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 322 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

Hello!

 

I received a PCN Code 26 for parking straight onto a single yellow line.

 

This is a quiet section of road in front of the Windmill Pub in Clapham Common.

I've lived in the area for 6 years and park here every saturday morning, and always pull nose into the spots, as all the other cars do as well.

 

I received a PCN code 26 "Vehicle parked more than 50 cms from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place." However as the pictures show, i literally could not have been closer to the yellow line.

 

The parking as been done this way for years and years - and it feels odd that i received the ticket at 8:35am on a saturday morning, when the parking is only restricted Monday - Friday.

 

I saw the parking attendant later on giving more unsuspecting car owners tickets for the same thing

- i asked him why i have received one when i've been fine parking there for over six years.

He said that it was because my wheel is more than 50cms away from the yellow line.

I have searched the highway code but can't find anything that says this must be done.

 

I did refute the ticket initially, however Lambeth council upheld the charge.

 

Do i have any grounds for fighting this?

 

Thank you in advance!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you pop those into ONE multipage PDF please

read upload

so we can zoom and rotate.

 

ta


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits more than the specified distance from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place.

 

The CEO is either ignorant or being economical with the truth. There is nothing in the reguklations that mentions wheels. it's any part of your vehicle and the councils photos clearly show your car within 50cms of the SYL

 

Post up your reps and Lambeths rejection letter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The regulation prohibits the waiting of a vehicle where:

(a) the vehicle is on the carriageway of a road and wholly or partly within a special parking area; and

 

(b) no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway; and

 

© the vehicle is not wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of a road in respect of which the waiting of vehicles is specifically authorised

 

Both your and the councils photos confirm you were parked within 50cms NB (b) which mentions 'no part of the vehicle' nothing to do with wheels at all .(although to be fair rejection letter makes no mention)

 

Wait for the NtO and make representations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much. I will send in my Representation and let you know how i get on. I really appreciate the help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree, the reg is for parking too far away from the kerb ( clobbers people double parking in Sth Kensington). If you have committed an offence it would be obstruction but that can apply to any vehicle for almost any reason if a police officer says so and nowt to do with a CEO.

Formal appeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

Well, Lambeth are upholding the PCN. I'm still baffled, they said it's because i'm more than 50cms away from the kerb. I've attached their formal response. At this point, i think i'll just have to pay it, unless anyone has had some positive experiences with the Tribunal appeal?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely appeal to London Tribunals. a) you now have nothing to lose, even if your appeal is refused, you will still only owe £130. b) IMO you have a very good chance of winning and owe nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, no car sold today is less tha 50cm wide so that argument is flawed.

Also have a gander to see if the area is designated as on street parking or parking bay.

 

The other thing to do is look up the specificatiosn for the lines on the road, they have a minimum width and so forth.

Check to see if the ends of the paint lines are terminated correctly.

If not them it isnt a designated on street parking area and the 50cm rule wouldnt apply.

 

Get digging, it isnt that long since that bit of the road belonged to the brewery and the parking zone is on the other side of the road sop the plate you have photographed doesnt apply.

I cant see any plates limiting the parking times for the SYL and all of the other vehicles on goggleyes are parked as you were, which has been the custom since I lived there 40 years ago.

 

I think you stand a very good chance of getting this knocked back, you should use the term "dereliction" when it comes to them arguing about which way round the car should be and anyways, I'm sure it is the wrong application/understanding of the supposed offence

Edited by dx100uk
space/spell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in the outcome of this one. If you do go to a tribunal, please would you come back and tell us what the ruling was.

 

It seems from what I can find online that Michael's point is correct - in essence, if any part of the vehicle is closer than 50cm to the kerb, you are not in contravention. That doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to be how the regs are worded, in which case you are not in contravention.

 

One thing you might try meantime is calling the council's parking section and just asking if they could clarify the rules. Explain what happened and ask why you are in contravention - see what they say. It might clarify things, or it might make them withdraw the charge - you never know your luck.

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...