No pcn issued where do i stand with this

[dangerous beanz]

Sounds like the normal tactics to me.
You'll get all hyped up and ready for the appeal and they may not even show!

[Ewan Hoosami]

You seem somewhat surprised that the council rejected your representations. We are not. Councils typically reject representations as a matter of course and this is the point where most motorists give in and simply pay. Bexley are especially corrupt in use of this technique.

We would like to see a scan of your automated rejection letter (PERSONAL DETAILS REDACTED) and also the exact wording of your appeal if you have a copy.

[DastardlyDick]

Does the letter you got say "Notice of Rejection" anywhere on it?

If so, they should also have sent you the form to appeal to PaTAS.

[Ewan Hoosami]

I'm sure she'll have that, Dick. Bexley are complete tossers on a good day but they generally manage to get this bit right. (probably the only thing they get right.)
In any event, terri, part of your PATAS appeal should be along the lines of:

I am appealing the validity of the PCN the council says it issued on the basis that I believe there has been a procedural impropriety. I admit I was parked on the footway on the day in question. I was not willfully reckless in parking this way and only did so because there were cars already parked in this manner when I arrived. I was genuinely unaware that I was committing a contravention and for that I apologise. I was engaged in the business of taking some photographs for a wedding at the time and I became aware that there may be a problem when I went out to my car to retrieve some further photography equipment.

I noticed that some of the other vehicles along the street had been served PCNs and that there was a CEO close to my own vehicle. I asked him/her (delete as applicable) if I was going to receive a ticket and they replied that if I moved my vehicle immediately then one would not be issued. I thanked them for their advice, moved my vehicle to the roadside, removed some zoom lenses from the boot and went back to my duties. I returned to my vehicle some three hours later and there was no PCN on the screen nor any evidence that there had been one such as glue residue.

I was rather surprised to say the least when I receive a notice to owner asserting that a PCN had been served. I respectfully draw your attention to the THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATUTORY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS  http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-cpe-statutory-guidance/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf specifically, from page 13:


Collecting evidence of contraventions


44. The local authority must provide evidence of the contravention either from a CEO’s direct observation, or from the record of an approved device
45. The PCN must either be fixed to the vehicle or given to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle, although there are three exceptions to this - see paragraph 47. The information that a PCN must contain is set out in the Regulations. It is recommended that the PCN also gives:
vehicle make and colour (if evident);
detailed location of vehicle (full street name);
the contravention code;
observation start and finish times;
PCN number (all PCNs should be uniquely identifiable);
CEO’s identification number; and
the vehicle’s tax disc number and expiry date.
46. Photographs and notes by the CEO about the circumstances should be kept as further evidence that the contravention took place and to help resolve any disputes. Authorities should provide CEOs with the appropriate equipment, training and guidance to collect such evidence in the circumstances that the authority has prescribed. The use of digital cameras and similar technology is strongly encouraged. Authorities should disclose their evidence at the earliest possible opportunity.

I submit to the adjudicator that the council has failed in it’s duty to provide evidence of the contravention. The CEO it seems captured only one single image at the scene. It shows my vehicle and a tree. The road itself is not visible in the image and it is not apparent exactly where this location is. Also there is no PCN stuck to the vehicle’s screen. I understand that it is common practice for CEOs to capture multiple images which clearly show the served PCN and the nature of the contravention itself. The image of my vehicle from the council’s website is timed at 10:58. In the NTO the council claim the PCN was served at 11:01. This is clearly after I had moved my vehicle so at the time of preparation, I was not parked in contravention. If the CEO asserts that I was not present at the time then they may need to explain why their photographic evidence differs completely from usual practice.



This is only one single point, terri, and you should also include separate reasons of appeal as detailed by the other members. There’s no such thing as too many points of appeal and we have found that the ‘kitchen sink’ approach is best.

[Ewan Hoosami]

And another thing............

I've only just street viewed Lovel Avenue. This road has a pavement parking allowed sign and some marked bays:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.465307,0.100858&spn=0.361041,0.76149&cbp=12,75.2,,0,2.74&layer=c&panoid=uj_EUCmsppwE51tPx7WyVQ&cbll=51.465307,0.100858&dg=opt&t=m&z=11

With a set up such as this, is there anything to stop you parking outside the bays? If not then that may be a slam dunk on it's own. What do you think chaps?

[dangerous beanz]

Residents parking only applies from 1-3pm Mon-Fri
That relevant?

[DastardlyDick]

And another thing............

I've only just street viewed Lovel Avenue. This road has a pavement parking allowed sign and some marked bays:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.465307,0.100858&spn=0.361041,0.76149&cbp=12,75.2,,0,2.74&layer=c&panoid=uj_EUCmsppwE51tPx7WyVQ&cbll=51.465307,0.100858&dg=opt&t=m&z=11

With a set up such as this, is there anything to stop you parking outside the bays? If not then that may be a slam dunk on it's own. What do you think chaps?

Having looked at the link you helpfully provided Ewan, I see that all the bays marked on the pavement also have timeplates saying "residents permit holders only Mon - Fri 1pm - 3pm" which I'm guessing is to stop commuters from nearby Welling Station parking there all day, although as 27th April was a Saturday, it's not really relevant. I also notice that there is one sign of a car parked on the pavement at each end of Lovel Avenue which permits pavement parking but does not have the variant sign "in marked bays only". Also, there is no signage saying where you cannot park on the pavement (car on pavement with red line through) except one as you leave Lovel Avenue. To me, that combination would say that outside of Mon-Fri 1pm-3pm anyone can park on the pavement, however I, of course, am not a PaTAS adjudicator, and since I have heard that they are increasingly going down the line of "substantially compliant" with regard to signs and lines, I'm not at all sure that one of them would agree with me!
I think we need to see the TMO.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Thanks Dick, I thought that the signage (or lack of it) left room for ambiguity. I tend to agree with your assumption of PATAS' opinion but I would be inclined to throw it in anyway (with photos of the signs at each end of Lovel Avenue as corroboration) along with my grounds of the council being lying scumbags 'forgetting' to photograph the contravention and last, but not least, your discrepancy between printing and posting (do you have a link for that or a point in the right direction?) Another one I have thought of is the tax disc details on the PCN. We haven't got it but the council will have to provide a copy to contest and I'll bet you a pound to a bucket of shit the tax disc details aren't on there.

 

[Ewan Hoosami]

Got it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/19/made

19
(2) A notice to owner served under paragraph (1) must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under regulation 3(3) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state—

(a)the date of the notice, which must be the date on which the notice is posted; (my bolding and underline)

Hope you've still got that envelope, terri.

[DastardlyDick]

Thanks Dick, I thought that the signage (or lack of it) left room for ambiguity. I tend to agree with your assumption of PATAS' opinion but I would be inclined to throw it in anyway (with photos of the signs at each end of Lovel Avenue as corroboration) along with my grounds of the council being lying scumbags 'forgetting' to photograph the contravention and last, but not least, your discrepancy between printing and posting (do you have a link for that or a point in the right direction?) Another one I have thought of is the tax disc details on the PCN. We haven't got it but the council will have to provide a copy to contest and I'll bet you a pound to a bucket of shit the tax disc details aren't on there.

 

You would probably win your bet Ewan, but since I don't fancy collecting a bucket of s*** never mind transporting it to you, I won't take you up on it thanks :-)

I'd be interested to see what the CEOs notes (if any) say about the lack of photo's although I suspect they'll say either "driven away" or "pcn handed to driver" both of which we know to be complete bowlocks of course!

[Ewan Hoosami]

How about printed out and stuffed in pocket to be discarded later. The first terri knew about it was the NTO claiming the PCN was served. A drive off would trigger a PCN by post. Gotta keep those numbers up or you'll be sent along to Westgate for an interview with Ken.

(handslip smiley) 

[DastardlyDick]

How about printed out and stuffed in pocket to be discarded later. The first terri knew about it was the NTO claiming the PCN was served. A drive off would trigger a PCN by post. Gotta keep those numbers up or you'll be sent along to Westgate for an interview with Ken.

(handslip smiley) 

A good point re the drive off - completely forgot it was an NtO not a combined PCN/NtO 

Since the CEO has to account for how the PCN was served, I'll go with "handed to person appearing to be the driver" - it's still complete bowlocks of course, but it'll be one persons word against another, so unless Terri has a witness to say that CEO didn't hand it over it'd be down to the adjudicator again as to who he/she finds more credible.

[Pat Pending]

Would the CEO be required to attend a hearing?

[Ewan Hoosami]

I'd go for DNC on the day. Tina Brooks (Bexley's chief parking weasel) is one of our biggest fans so there's no way she would send one of her shifty looking f ckers along with that flimsy photographic evidence. In fact there's only one polecat (weasel operating under a pseudonym) I can think of stupid enough to do that.

[DastardlyDick]

Would the CEO be required to attend a hearing?

I don't think they can be ordered to attend PaTAS (or TPT) since they're adjudicators, not Judges, and the  chief weasels would be unlikely to want them off street - think of the money they'd lose!