Author Topic: Southampton Way: We have a test case  (Read 8406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Southampton Way: We have a test case
« on: 24 December, 2011, 09:45:27 PM »
I've just had this email via YouTube from somebody who got a PCN in the Tesco bay. What is the current state of play regarding an appeal? Do we have an 'off the shelf' appeal or would Nigel care to champion his cause?


I have been caught by the Southwark scammers in the parking bay outside Tesco on Southampton Way. I've found your very well produced video and am keen to appeal as you suggest at the end, but I'm not sure exactly what to say.

 I had a look on notomob.co.uk and ticketfighter.co.uk but I can't quite work out how to make my appeal.

 Sorry to ask you to help me with my homework, but since you're familiar with the exact setup, I thought you might be able to point me directly to the right place.

 The two most likely sounding options on Southwark's appeals site are:

 - A procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority
 - The relevant designation order was invalid

 I assume that my first point would be something about the bay being non-compilant and the parking sign being confusing but it would be great to know in what way it isn't compliant.

 I would then put some stuff from the rest of your video about how dangerous the set-up is.

 Thanks!


FPW sent me this a little while back but I'm not sure if we have anything else?

See below taken from Patas website, I think this adjudication allows us to state the bay is unforceable
 
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2110544676
Appellant: Mr Joshua Angol
Authority: Southwark
VRM: RJ54UKT
PCN: SO33866394
Contravention Date: 18 May 2011
Contravention Time: 11:32
Contravention Location: Southampton Way
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: In bay for special vehicle class e.g. motor cycles
Decision Date: 07 Nov 2011
Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The  CCTV evidence shows there is no carriageway legend "loading only" required to accompany a sign to Diagram 660.4 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. In the absence of any evidence of authorisation for its absence by the Secretary of State I cannot be satisfied that the bay was substantially compliant and clearly signed. It follows that the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed. 
« Last Edit: 26 December, 2011, 08:10:50 PM by Esinem »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #1 on: 25 December, 2011, 07:26:32 AM »
It sounds loke a "slam dunk." That is unless Southwark have special authorisation from thre DfT for the bay as it is marked.

I will do it!

Give me a ring after Christmas.
« Last Edit: 26 December, 2011, 08:15:00 PM by Nigel W »

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #2 on: 26 December, 2011, 08:11:43 PM »
Good man! Many thanks. Let's 'nigel' them  ;)
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline jos3000

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #3 on: 28 December, 2011, 08:25:07 AM »
Hi all,

Thanks so much for taking up my cause! My original notice was on the 19th of December, so it would be really great to enter my appeal in the next couple of days, so that I only need pay the discounted amount if the appeal doesn't go as planned.

Is there anything you need me to do?

Jos

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #4 on: 28 December, 2011, 09:18:11 AM »
Sorry Mate but once you take it to a PaTAS Appeal and lose the penalty doubles. This applies whenever you put your Representations into the Council.

The good news is I have not lost one yet!!  The Additional good news is if your PaTAS Appeal is lost you still pay ....... nothing!!!  We will pay any penalty for you.

I have sent you an message.

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #5 on: 04 January, 2012, 01:13:08 AM »
Southwark, be afraid, very afraid, you are about to be nigelled!  :-ev-:
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline ljl

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #6 on: 03 February, 2012, 10:18:42 AM »
I have also received a PCN for mid Jan on a sat morning. At the time someone had pointed out that there's camera, so I double checked and the sign very clearly stated "Parking for 30 min, no return" and I didn't see any timing restrictions. The loading bay sign below said 40min no return so I assumed it's totally a different matter. I went back today and the top sign now has some timing attached and the time I was there (11am on a sat morning) is no longer legal. Can you help?

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #7 on: 03 February, 2012, 02:25:44 PM »
Did you, by any chance, take a picture of the sign whilst is was without the timing reference?
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #8 on: 03 February, 2012, 04:04:34 PM »
If you take it to Patas and tell them that the sign didn't say what it does now, Southwark will have to come up with proof that it did. It is for them to prove the offence, not for you to prove you didn't commit it. Also, I seem to recall at least one person's appeal succeeding because the $car didn't record the signage it was enforcing against.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline ljl

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #9 on: 06 February, 2012, 01:34:25 PM »
I didn't take a photo, but that's greatly useful, thanks!

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #10 on: 07 February, 2012, 07:24:41 PM »
The 1st 2 pics were taken in June last year and the 2nd 2 I have just taken today. They look identical apart from the somewhat more jaunty angle now.

@ljl "I didn't see any timing restrictions." therein lies the rub, I fear. Look again!
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #11 on: 17 February, 2012, 06:58:23 PM »
Not my appeal but here is one for this restriction:

2120027874

Contravention Location:   Southampton Way
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   In bay for special vehicle class e.g. motor cycles
Decision Date:   16 Feb 2012
Adjudicator:   Gerald Styles
Appeal Decision:   Refused
Direction:   None
Reasons:   
I have examined the clip sent and decided that the  penalty charge is properly payable.

There is approved signage limiting use at the time of report to goods vehicles and the appellant minicab is not of this class.

I am satisfied  the cctv car evidence is legally admissible.

A penalty charge is not invalidated on account of poor visibility or indeed a lack of camera warning sign.

I am satisfied that  bays status was clear and use by the minicab  was not covered by exemption. This was not a simple passenger set down or pick up  but driver  cash machine use. No  question  of minicab passenger exemption  or concession properly arises.


The Penalty Charge Notice gave detail instructions  about seeking to view the moving images etc. Including a wish to see the cctv images in the representations reply section of that form disregarded   the instruction  on the fist page of the Penalty Charge Notice and I am not persuaded the appellant point about a request being ignored can justify cancellation in the present case.

APPEAL REFUSED

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Southampton Way: We have a test case
« Reply #12 on: 18 February, 2012, 06:41:07 AM »
I hate to say this, but that signage seems perfectly clear to me - it says 'from Monday to Saturday between the hours of 7am to 10am and from 1pm to 7pm this is a Parking Bay which anyone can use for up to 30 minutes and once you've left, you can't come back for 2 hours, so make sure you don't forget anything. Between 10am and 1pm on Monday to Saturday it's a loading bay, during which time it can only be used by goods vehicles to make deliveries for up to 40 minutes, but should you happen to discover you've forgotten to deliver something, you can go round the block and repark with impunity. On Sundays it's a complete free for all, and you can park anything in there for as long as you like, we really don't give a toss'.
I'm not quite sure how they would prove that you parked for 30 minutes, drove round the block, and reparked for another 30 minutes within 2 hours using a $camera car, but hey-ho.

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player