Southwark Council Blue Badge

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

One of the grounds of appeal is you never owned the car but I was trying to imagine how as a non car owner you could suddenly end up with a PCN.

 

Like this - Car PA sees has reg HJ 06 ACB but PA notes HJ 06 ABC and I get the NTO when PCN is not paid.

 

Is but one example

[green_and_mean]

Like this - Car PA sees has reg HJ 06 ACB but PA notes HJ 06 ABC and I get the NTO when PCN is not paid.

 

Is but one example

 

 

Surely you do own HJ 06 ABC though so you cannot claim you never have! You would have to use the contravention did not take place.

[menigma]

Playing devils advocate as an adjudicator I may look at the evidence and say the PA was there, your car was there, what reason would the PA have to lie or not place a PCN on the car?

 

Yet again your argument is selective G&M. Yes I was there, the car was there and the PA was there. But, considering he took two pictures of the car and the blue badge as stated in my original post. I will ask the adjudicator why did he not simply not take a picture of the ticket stuck to the windscreen.

 

Because it was never on the windscreen.

 

Because he had not even printed the ticket.

 

Beause the PCN was not posted to my address he is not even claiming I prevented him from issuing the ticket.

 

Because successful PCN's are directly related to his take home pay.

 

Because if an adjudicator may wonder if I am lying to avoid a hefty fine he also has to consider how the LA and PA financially benefit from dishonest recording. Thats called balance

 

M

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Surely you do own HJ 06 ABC though so you cannot claim you never have! You would have to use the contravention did not take place.

 

Not if my argument is that the PA has either made an error or that the car is a clone.

[menigma]

After all you have more to gain by lying than the PA as you are aiming to get off a hefty penalty charge.

 

Get off a hefty penalty charge. No Sir. I do not have a valid PCN to pay.

[patdavies]

Surely you do own HJ 06 ABC though so you cannot claim you never have! You would have to use the contravention did not take place.

 

I think that Bernie was perhaps over brief in his example.

 

The PCN/NtO lists the VRM and the make and colour of the vehicle.

 

For example.

 

The PA sees a white Audi with a VRN of AB 06 XYZ and tickets it, but mistakenly writes down BA 06 XYZ as the VRM.

 

You own a red Mini with the VRM BA 06 XYZ, the NtO will come to you since the wrong VRM is on the PCN.

 

You have never owned a white Audi BA 06 XYZ, therefore the correct grounds is never having owned the vehicle.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I think that Bernie was perhaps over brief in his example.

 

The PCN/NtO lists the VRM and the make and colour of the vehicle.

 

For example.

 

The PA sees a white Audi with a VRN of AB 06 XYZ and tickets it, but mistakenly writes down BA 06 XYZ as the VRM.

 

You own a red Mini with the VRM BA 06 XYZ, the NtO will come to you since the wrong VRM is on the PCN.

 

You have never owned a white Audi BA 06 XYZ, therefore the correct grounds is never having owned the vehicle.

 

 

Pat,

 

I'm grateful for your expansion.

In truth I was also thinking of the circumstances where (using your example) I do own a white Audi BA 06 XYZ but it has been cloned and I am in discussion with the DVLA on the subject.

 

Anyway, it's also not the issue here. The issue is that to leave "I have never owned the vehicle in question" off the NTO in my view unlawfully fetters the motorists right of appeal and renders the NTO unlawful and unenforcable. In these circumstances (IMHO) the only option is for the NTO to be cancelled and as the law does not permit an NTO to be reissued, for the PCN to be cancelled also.

[green_and_mean]

Yet again your argument is selective G&M. Yes I was there, the car was there and the PA was there. But, considering he took two pictures of the car and the blue badge as stated in my original post. I will ask the adjudicator why did he not simply not take a picture of the ticket stuck to the windscreen.

 

Because it was never on the windscreen. Who says, only you?

 

Because he had not even printed the ticket. How do you know he must have issued the PCN at some point for you to get an NTO?

 

Beause the PCN was not posted to my address he is not even claiming I prevented him from issuing the ticket. It was not posted to your address because he is claiming it was on your car hence no requirement to post it!

 

Because successful PCN's are directly related to his take home pay. Not true but if it was goes against your argument because if it was the case why would he not have placed it on your car?

 

Because if an adjudicator may wonder if I am lying to avoid a hefty fine he also has to consider how the LA and PA financially benefit from dishonest recording. Thats called balance

 

Photos are not required and lack of them is not proof of PCN being served.

M

 

Its all about the burden of proof.

 

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/Hayward-v-Croydon.pdf

[menigma]

G&M

 

Please answer the following questions:

 

Why take 2 photos of my vehicle but decline to take one of the ticket on the windscreen?

 

Why did he not simply place the ticket on the windscreen as I was there, the vehicle was there and he was there?

 

Is it beyond reason he printed the ticket after I drove away?

 

Are virtually all PA's on commission for successful PCN's?

 

I know you are a local authority employee, but please don't worry. I am sure my PCN dispute won't affect your pay rise.

 

M

[green_and_mean]

G&M

 

Please answer the following questions:

 

Why take 2 photos of my vehicle but decline to take one of the ticket on the windscreen?

 

Why did he not simply place the ticket on the windscreen as I was there, the vehicle was there and he was there?

 

Is it beyond reason he printed the ticket after I drove away?

 

Are virtually all PA's on commission for successful PCN's?

 

I know you are a local authority employee, but please don't worry. I am sure my PCN dispute won't affect your pay rise.

 

M

 

You are missing the point I am not judging you just bringing up points that will be raised. Throwing your toys out of the pram and just saying you are innocent will not win an appeal. I know PAs who have worked in Southwark and they do not get bonuses based on issued PCNs and as far as I'm aware no other Borough in London does either although some do have attendance bonuses. Good luck in your appeal please pop back and tell us how you got on.

[menigma]

All I am doing is just bringing up counter arguments to the points you raised. This is after all a forum. I certainly won't be throwing anything out of my pram

 

Thanks for your best wishes and I will keep the forum updated.

 

M

[menigma]

Success !!!!

 

After over ten months of waiting, I was notified on Friday Aug 1st (my appeal was Monday 4th Aug) by Patas that Southwark Council have decided not to contest the PCN issued by their dishonest PA and I have won the appeal. This after being told in three seperate letters from Southwark that they where satisfied that the 'PCN had been issued correctly'. tw*ts.

 

Anyway, another win for the little man.

Edited August 3, 2008 by menigma

[JonCris]

Well done mate congrats!!

 

Just like to mention that contrary to what some have stated here & contrary to the governments recent guidelines, PA's do get paid bonuses dependant on PCN's issued & those that don't are given targets which if not achieved their jobs are in jeopardy

[menigma]

Well done mate congrats!!

 

Just like to mention that contrary to what some have stated here & contrary to the governments recent guidelines, PA's do get paid bonuses dependant on PCN's issued & those that don't are given targets which if not achieved their jobs are in jeopardy

 

Thanks Jon.

 

I have never believed for one second that councils/contractors have ever stopped issuing ticket targets despite what politicians, councils or members of this board say. It is just too large a cash cow. After all, why did the PA in my case feel he had to dishonestly issue my PCN if it made no difference to him?

 

Doesn't make sense, does it?

[green_and_mean]

Thanks Jon.

 

I have never believed for one second that councils/contractors have ever stopped issuing ticket targets despite what politicians, councils or members of this board say. It is just too large a cash cow. After all, why did the PA in my case feel he had to dishonestly issue my PCN if it made no difference to him?

 

Doesn't make sense, does it?

 

If you are that convinced why not do a FOI request and ask if there is a bonus scheme for CEOs?

[JonCris]

I for one don't need too I know it's true.

 

Also what about the threat of job loss if they don't 'perform' or are you saying that's a myth also

[green_and_mean]

I for one don't need too I know it's true.

 

Also what about the threat of job loss if they don't 'perform' or are you saying that's a myth also

 

Surely in ANY job if you don't do it properly you will get the sack eventually? If the average PCN issue in an area is 15 a day and a particular CEO constantly returns with only 5 a day week in week out what would you as an employer do?

[lamma]

But its a bout keeping the traffic moving not issuing tickets. If the 5 a day person was keeping the traffic moving better I would promote them, sack the 15 a day ones and get the newly promoted CEO to train the replacements to do the job properly.

Its not about tickets at all don't forget.

 

or is all about targets and money after all

[JonCris]

Quite Lamma Any PA who manages to keep the traffic flowing, where needed & without using PCN's as a FIRST resort should be praised.

 

I just remembered when the Parking Wardens where under the control of the police that's precisley what they did do & very succesfully without the need to ticket everyone.

 

It's only since the councils & their jobsworths have been given control that they are now running amock & it's got absolutley nothing to do with traffic flow more like revenue flow no matter how they try to disguise it

[menigma]

If you are that convinced why not do a Freedom of Information Act request and ask if there is a bonus scheme for CEOs?

 

No need for that, you have already posted that some boroughs give 'attendance bonus'. You can't get the 'bonus' if you don't have the job in the first place, can you?

 

And how do you keep the job? by not underperforming, maybe?

 

The reason I am so convinced GM is the dishonest PA who caused this thread to start would have simply walked away once I returned to the car. It would have been no skin off his nose, but he attempted to defraud me out of sixty quid. For what reason, if it did not affect him in any way?

 

After all he was at work so he would have got his 'attendance' bonus. Wouldn't he ???

[green_and_mean]

No need for that, you have already posted that some boroughs give 'attendance bonus'. You can't get the 'bonus' if you don't have the job in the first place, can you?

 

And how do you keep the job? by not underperforming, maybe?

 

The reason I am so convinced GM is the dishonest PA who caused this thread to start would have simply walked away once I returned to the car. It would have been no skin off his nose, but he attempted to defraud me out of sixty quid. For what reason, if it did not affect him in any way?

 

After all he was at work so he would have got his 'attendance' bonus. Wouldn't he ???

 

Maybe if motorist did not park where they were not supposed to like yourself there would be no need for CEOs at all!!

[lamma]

there is no need for dishonest ones in any event.

You have to wonder why they behave that way, what motivates them to do this instead of keeping the traffic moving...

[Rob S]

Maybe if motorist did not park where they were not supposed to like yourself there would be no need for CEOs at all!!

 

Maybe if local authorities didn't see decriminalised parking as a cash cow and stopped introducing restrictions where they are not needed they might get a lot more respect from the general public:rolleyes:

[green_and_mean]

But its a bout keeping the traffic moving not issuing tickets. If the 5 a day person was keeping the traffic moving better I would promote them, sack the 15 a day ones and get the newly promoted CEO to train the replacements to do the job properly.

Its not about tickets at all don't forget.

 

or is all about targets and money after all

 

How many PCNs get issued when the driver is present? You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. What does the 15 a day person do lie in the road to stop the traffic whilst he issues, lol? What do you suggest a CEO does if he finds a car on DYL go door to door carrying out enquiries to find the owner to get it moved? Estimated PCN issue is not just made up its derived from conmpliance surveys and other traffic management data.

[lamma]

You need to revisit the circumstances of the case

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/113589-southwark-council-badge.html#post1120895

 

and consider the actions of the warden/CEO which is what this thread is actually about as it bears no relation whatsoever to your last post.

 

Also consider the action of the council

"After over ten months of waiting, I was notified on Friday Aug 1st (my appeal was Monday 4th Aug) by Patas that Southwark Council have decided not to contest the PCN issued by their dishonest PA and I have won the appeal. This after being told in three seperate letters from Southwark that they where satisfied that the 'PCN had been issued correctly'."

 

Not about the money or acting fairly or revenue then. yeah right.