PCN issued 4 minutes after expiry of ticket

[aussie1975]

Hi Guys,

 

Can anyone help me!

 

I was in my colleagues company car today and we returned to the car, according to my mobile at 1117. Our ticket expired at 1113. The wardens were issuing the ticket as we approached and when I showed him my phone showing 1117 and advising that he has to observe the car for at least 5 minutes, he just showed me his ticket machine which showed 1119 and then issued the ticket. It was probably a minute between arriving back, disputing it with him and then issuing the ticket. After reading through loads of threads on here I notice on the ticket:

 

a) It says 'Date of Notice' on top (whcih I guess is ok but there was several points about the wording of this.

b) Was seen in xxxxx From/To: (This is blank) At: 11:19

 

It doesn't indicate what time he observed the car from and to and in my opinion cntravenes their minimum 5 minute observation time.

 

I have used the example of a letter by Deemacperth (hope you don't mind) from April 06 and written the following:

 

27.02.2007

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

I write in reference to PCN: XXXXXXX issued to registration XXXXXXX

 

I ask you to strike this PCN out on the following grounds.

• The PCN had not been issued by the time I returned to the vehicle, the warden XXXX printed the ticket as I entered the car, after I had clearly told him I was the owner and had returned to the vehicle.

• On returning to the vehicle I questioned the validity of the ticket with Warden XXXX as the clock on my phone indicated 1117 who then remonstrated with myself and my colleague for a number of minutes before printing the ticket.

• This clearly contravenes your own guidelines of ‘Observation Period:¬ Minimum of 5 minutes’ as only 4 minutes had passed when from expiration date, when we returned to the vehicle.

• After 2 minutes of extremely rude remonstrating by both wardens, to the point of being intimidating to myself, and thankful a male colleague was with me, Warden XXXX printed the ticket which indicated 1119.

• I question the validity of the PCN as the PCN in question does not state the time that the vehicle was first seen and does not adhere to the standards demonstrated clearly by the DoT model ticket. I refer you to Macarthur v. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council and Al’s bar and Restaurant Ltd v. London Borough of Wandsworth.

• Photographic evidence taken by Warden XXXX was taken after the remonstrations and issuing of tickets had occurred so will clearly show a later time that the alleged incident actually occurring, thus making it in admissible.

Further to striking out the PCN, I ask that you take actions to provide further training for warden XXXX and make a note of his surly, ignorant attitude towards myself and my colleague, both members of the public, when I remonstrated with him about his illegal issuing of the aforementioned PCN. Raising your voice, and phrases like ‘ I’m issuing you a ticket because people like you ignore laws and will keep breaking them’ are unacceptable. I am a model citizen and will not be made to feel like a criminal by a traffic warden issuing an unlawful ticket. Finally, grunting and walking away is not what I construe as a very public facing attitude and I shall be writing to the Transport Secretary and my Member for Parliament pointing out the failings of a Wandsworth Council member of staff in this incident.

 

Any advice on this situation or the letter and should I send it straight away or wait for the NTO as the PCN advises would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers,

[beetlejuice]

Aussie,

 

same thing happened to my wife today, she had the two kids with her I like your letter and will give it a try, I'll let you know. Same thing happened to me a week or so ago. Always in a car park that is virtually empty and fro a parking fee of a few pennies, this is a devisive way to make money more car owner tax GRRRRRRR!!!!

[Rob S]

I think you will find that in the case of an expired parking ticket, they don't have to wait 5 minutes before issuing a PCN. The contravention occurs as soon as a valid ticket has expired.

[beetlejuice]

Rob S thanks,

 

Surely teh charge is disproportionate £80.00 fro 4-8 minutes overstay on a 40p ticket, where do these councils get off. Does anyone know if this could be appealed/challenged in court, say following paying the PCn and try to claim it back as such.

 

BJ

 

[Rob S]

BJ,

 

I agree, the penalty is disproportionate to the contravention, but the councils have the 1991 Road Traffic Act that allows them to issue these PCN's. However, they have to play a straight bat too. Their PCN's have to be legal, so it might be worthwhile checking the wording on it to see it is compliant.

 

As for paying up and trying to claim it back later, the chances of that are remote. By paying you are accepting the penalty. It might be worth your while to take a look at the parking section of PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice and post a message there. There are some knowlegable people about who know the processes involved. Some of them lurk here so they may pop in and assist.

[johnnyrotton]

Where does the law state by paying a ticket your accepting the penalty rob ?

[beetlejuice]

Rob,

 

Looked at PePiPoo have downloaded recommended book on PCN avoidance, my tickets seem fairly well covered on all fronts date of contravention etc.

I have today written to my MP to complain about severity of fine over supposed 'offence' will post her reply!

 

Did I see somewhere that the Council need to prove who was driving car in order to chase said person for the monies?

 

 

BJ

[Rob S]

This is in respect of PCN's issued by local authoritys Johnny. As far as I am aware there have been cases where people have paid them and tried to appeal, but they have been turned down at PATAS.

[Rob S]

Rob,

 

Did I see somewhere that the Council need to prove who was driving car in order to chase said person for the monies?

 

 

BJ

 

BJ, unfortunately not. The council can extract the money from the registered keeper.

 

However, if you ever get a ticket for parking on private property from some of the leeches out there, they do have to prove who was driving the car and parked it there to be able to prove there was a contract in place to allow them to claim for damages. The companies claim otherwise, but they are just trying bluff and bluster tactics to scare people into paying.

[johnnyrotton]

Bollocks to appealing , if you think your being unfairly treated, pay your 30 quid and have your day in court, these appeal boards are a joke....

[johnnyrotton]

Ime not being funny or nowt, but where are these laws stated about having to prove who parked the car etc, is it written?

[beetlejuice]

No I just thought I read it on a thread here somewhere at the NTO stage!!!

 

BJ

[dw190]

Ime not being funny or nowt, but where are these laws stated about having to prove who parked the car etc, is it written?

 

It matters not who parked the car when it is Council controlled DPE. Ultimate liability lies with "The Owner" or the person appearing to be the owner. ie. Registered Keeper.

 

If the ticket was issued for parking on private land by a private parking enforcement company then it falls under contract law. Contract could only be made with the driver entering the land.