PCN appeal help.

[alistairdale]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Thanks for the advise.... I'll let you know how it goes.

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Not true. It is extremely rare for adjudicators to award costs

For a start yes a tribunal can award costs, when it is clear that it should have never have got as far as a tribunal. Secondly tribunal or court, regards of what you name them, they are still the same, just with differe format, procedures and powers. Not to mention, should the NTO uphold the councils decision, then the council would have to take it to court to enforce the penalty notice. In fact Caroline Shepard is the cheif adujacator in England and Wales, but is also a barristor and was the person that designed the appeal system over 10 years ago.

Many people have been taken to court by councils for parking tickets, so your stating i am incorrect is not actually true. Not only that but is the ticket is found invalid then the council must ensure that the OP is in the same position he/she was in prior to issuing the parking notice, to fail to do so would prejudice the OP, hence why they would have to pay the OP's costs to reimburse the op for the finanical costs they have incurred defending against an invalid or unlawfully issued parking ticket. The op could infact issue a claim for emotional distess and financial deteriment to recover such costs if necessary.

There is also nothing stopping the OP from taking the matter to court either - http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Coun...ail/story.html

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

For a start yes a tribunal can award costs, when it is clear that it should have never have got as far as a tribunal. I didn't say thay couldn't. I said it's extremely rare

Secondly tribunal or court, regards of what you name them, they are still the same, just with differe format, procedures and powers. Make up your mind, they're the same but different

Not to mention, should the NTO uphold the councils decision, then the council would have to take it to court to enforce the penalty notice. More gobbledygook an NTO doesn't uphold anything

Many people have been taken to court by councils for parking tickets, so your stating i am incorrect is not actually true.
Really? Nobody ever has to appear in court for a parking ticket


Not only that but is the ticket is found invalid then the council must ensure that the OP is in the same position he/she was in prior to issuing the parking notice, to fail to do so would prejudice the OP, hence why they would have to pay the OP's costs to reimburse the op for the finanical costs they have incurred defending against an invalid or unlawfully issued parking ticket.
You would have to convince the adjudicator that the council has acted frivilously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably. Adjudicators are very reluctant to award any costs and only do so in extreme circumstances



There is also nothing stopping the OP from taking the matter to court either - http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Coun...ail/story.html

Excellent example, he lost!!!

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Excellent example, he lost!!!

Yes he lost, but why did he loose? Well thats simple, it was because he had already paid the fine which in law is deemed as acceptance of liability. Hence why he lost. If he had not paid the fine then he would have won, hence why the council was also order to improve the signage. And was it not the lack of signage that the gentleman took the council to court over in order to have the ticket declared invalid? err yep!

For a start yes a tribunal can award costs, when it is clear that it should have never have got as far as a tribunal. I didn't say thay couldn't. I said it's extremely rare - True, but that doesn't mean they will not award costs in this case when you take the full facts into account as per my last paragraph below.

Secondly tribunal or court, regards of what you name them, they are still the same, just with differe format, procedures and powers. Make up your mind, they're the same but different - Just because you refer to tribunals as tribunals it doesnt mean everyone else does - in my eyes a tribunal is a court but without the same power of a court.

Not to mention, should the NTO uphold the councils decision, then the council would have to take it to court to enforce the penalty notice. More gobbledygook an NTO doesn't uphold anything - They can uphold the councils decision! I think you will find that when the tribunal/court (NTO) do not agree with the appealant, then they are indeed upholding the councils decision. Off course we both know that they can not force a council to withdraw a ticket, but that doesn't mean they can not uphold (meaning confirm or support) the councils decision by agreeing with the council! I think you are confusing upholding with enforcing, which clearly a tribunal does not have the power to enforce a PCN.

Many people have been taken to court by councils for parking tickets, so your stating i am incorrect is not actually true.
Really? Nobody ever has to appear in court for a parking ticket - Seriously, are you trying to tell me that a council has never taken anyone to court for non payment of a parking ticket issued by the council? How do you think they enforce the the ticket by getting a warrant! You should read CPR Part 75 Traffic Enforcement of the civil courts court procedure rules, inparticular section 75-5A that allows any party to request a review of the court officers decision, which can also include a request that a hearing takes place infront of a judge in court. Also there is nothing stopping the person who received a parking ticket taking the council to court to have a court decide if the ticket was valid or issued lawfully.

Not only that but is the ticket is found invalid then the council must ensure that the OP is in the same position he/she was in prior to issuing the parking notice, to fail to do so would prejudice the OP, hence why they would have to pay the OP's costs to reimburse the op for the finanical costs they have incurred defending against an invalid or unlawfully issued parking ticket.
You would have to convince the adjudicator that the council has acted frivilously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably. Adjudicators are very reluctant to award any costs and only do so in extreme circumstances - Thats true. So all the OP here has to prove in this particular case is the he had a permit and there was no signage, which it sounds like it will be very easy to proof. Therefore proving the council had indeed acted frivolously, vexatiously (without merit), and unreasonably.



There is also nothing stopping the OP from taking the matter to court either - http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Coun...ail/story.html

Now i have no intention to argue with you further over this issue as it is not going to help the OP. You have your view and legal understanding/intepretation and i have my view and legal understanding/intepretation. Neither of us are wrong, we just have different knowledge and experience on the subject matter.

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

If he had not paid the fine then he would have won,
You mean, he may have done. Just because he lost on one point, you have no idea whether he would have won on others

hence why the council was also order to improve the signage. Not according to your link, his claim – for £380.40 and for Cornwall Council to be ordered to improve signs was dismissed. Nowhere does it say the council changed the sign.

Not to mention, should the NTO uphold the councils decision, then the council would have to take it to court to enforce the penalty notice. More gobbledygook an NTO doesn't uphold anything - They can uphold the councils decision! I think you will find that when the tribunal/court (NTO) do not agree with the appealant, then they are indeed upholding the councils decision. Off course we both know that they can not force a council to withdraw a ticket, but that doesn't mean they can not uphold (meaning confirm or support) the councils decision by agreeing with the council! I think you are confusing upholding with enforcing, which clearly a tribunal does not have the power to enforce a PCN.
No you are confusing an NTO with a tribunal. The NTO (notice to owner) is a piece of paper. It can't uphold anything


Many people have been taken to court by councils for parking tickets, so your stating i am incorrect is not actually true.
Really? Nobody ever has to appear in court for a parking ticket - Seriously, are you trying to tell me that a council has never taken anyone to court for non payment of a parking ticket issued by the council? How do you think they enforce the the ticket by getting a warrant! You should read CPR Part 75 Traffic Enforcement of the civil courts court procedure rules, inparticular section 75-5A that allows any party to request a review of the court officers decision, which can also include a request that a hearing takes place infront of a judge in court. Also there is nothing stopping the person who received a parking ticket taking the council to court to have a court decide if the ticket was valid or issued lawfully.
Oh yes, you've already given a wonderful example of that


Not only that but is the ticket is found invalid then the council must ensure that the OP is in the same position he/she was in prior to issuing the parking notice, to fail to do so would prejudice the OP, hence why they would have to pay the OP's costs to reimburse the op for the finanical costs they have incurred defending against an invalid or unlawfully issued parking ticket.
You would have to convince the adjudicator that the council has acted frivilously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably. Adjudicators are very reluctant to award any costs and only do so in extreme circumstances - Thats true. So all the OP here has to prove in this particular case is the he had a permit and there was no signage, which it sounds like it will be very easy to proof. Therefore proving the council had indeed acted frivolously, vexatiously (without merit), and unreasonably.
If only it were that simple. Meanwhile in the real world, in 2110-2011 PATAS, which covers the London boroughs, decided 69,240 appeals and awarded costs in just 221 cases or 0.31%. The OP's case is a run of the mill instance which we see day in day out on forums. To suggest he can easily recover costs is very misleading.

Now i have no intention to argue with you further over this issue as it is not going to help the OP.
.

I think I have given the OP practical advice. You on the other hand have not.

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

If he had not paid the fine then he would have won,
You mean, he may have done. Just because he lost on one point, you have no idea whether he would have won on others

hence why the council was also order to improve the signage. Not according to your link, his claim – for £380.40 and for Cornwall Council to be ordered to improve signs was dismissed. Nowhere does it say the council changed the sign. - Oh i do apologise you are correct they were not ordered to improve the signage, i must have miss read it - But his case was dismissed only on one ground, that being he had admitted liability by paying the fine, if he had not then his case would have not been heard, perhaps you should spend a bit of time in court watching cases, before you go round saying i have no idea whether he would have won or not as the facts of the case such as the height of the signage resulting in the signage being obscured by another vehicle and the fact the council are responsible for signage and the fact road signage must be clearly visible and not obscured, would have resulted in the claiment of that case winning, if he had nt already accepted liability by paying the fine previously.


Not to mention, should the NTO uphold the councils decision, then the council would have to take it to court to enforce the penalty notice. More gobbledygook an NTO doesn't uphold anything - They can uphold the councils decision! I think you will find that when the tribunal/court (NTO) do not agree with the appealant, then they are indeed upholding the councils decision. Off course we both know that they can not force a council to withdraw a ticket, but that doesn't mean they can not uphold (meaning confirm or support) the councils decision by agreeing with the council! I think you are confusing upholding with enforcing, which clearly a tribunal does not have the power to enforce a PCN.
No you are confusing an NTO with a tribunal. The NTO (notice to owner) is a piece of paper. It can't uphold anything - Big deal what part of court/tribunal did you not understand, as clearly that is what i was refering to, just because i got put the wrong initials in, doesn't mean am confusing the tribunal with an NTO entirely, the point above was the a tribunal can uphold the councils decision, where as you claimed they could not - Stop clutching at straws, by nit picking errors.


Many people have been taken to court by councils for parking tickets, so your stating i am incorrect is not actually true.
Really? Nobody ever has to appear in court for a parking ticket - Seriously, are you trying to tell me that a council has never taken anyone to court for non payment of a parking ticket issued by the council? How do you think they enforce the the ticket by getting a warrant! You should read CPR Part 75 Traffic Enforcement of the civil courts court procedure rules, inparticular section 75-5A that allows any party to request a review of the court officers decision, which can also include a request that a hearing takes place infront of a judge in court. Also there is nothing stopping the person who received a parking ticket taking the council to court to have a court decide if the ticket was valid or issued lawfully.
Oh yes, you've already given a wonderful example of that - Wrong the case i referred to was not brought under part 75-5a, it was brought as a sperate claim to the court by the claiment as a standard court claim and not under the rules of CPR 75-5a. Your showing your lack of legal understanding and how court and claims made to court work here.


Not only that but is the ticket is found invalid then the council must ensure that the OP is in the same position he/she was in prior to issuing the parking notice, to fail to do so would prejudice the OP, hence why they would have to pay the OP's costs to reimburse the op for the finanical costs they have incurred defending against an invalid or unlawfully issued parking ticket.
You would have to convince the adjudicator that the council has acted frivilously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably. Adjudicators are very reluctant to award any costs and only do so in extreme circumstances - Thats true. So all the OP here has to prove in this particular case is the he had a permit and there was no signage, which it sounds like it will be very easy to proof. Therefore proving the council had indeed acted frivolously, vexatiously (without merit), and unreasonably.
If only it were that simple. Meanwhile in the real world, in 2110-2011 PATAS, which covers the London boroughs, decided 69,240 appeals and awarded costs in just 221 cases or 0.31%. The OP's case is a run of the mill instance which we see day in day out on forums. To suggest he can easily recover costs is very misleading. How is it misleading, when it is clear the claiment should never have been given a ticket in the first place? That facts of the OP's case say all that needs to be said, he had a permit, there was no sign limiting parking to 2 hours, there is nothing in the permits usage terms that limits parking to 2 hours, therefore the ticket is invalid and as the council have refused his appeal, they have acted unreasonably, frivously and vexatiously, there is no doubt about it. As such they have course the OP a financial deteriment as are liable for ensuring that the op is put back in the same position he was in before the ticket was issued, its basic law stuff. Even if the tribunal does not award costs the OP can claim it from the council, via solicitor or by small claims court, should the council refuse to pay up. By the way excellent example of using london, when this case is outside of london - Do you know the difference! Now i never said it would be easy to recover costs, just that he can get awarded cost, but that all boils down to how he plays it, and at the time i said he could get awarded cost i saw no point in going through a break down as to how to go about it when hes not even at that stage of things yet.

As for your comment "Mean while in the real world". Well how very mature of you, you know i always find it laughable when someone can not hold an argument without having to make personal insults, as that comment alone is purely questioning my view of reality. Given am a highly respected member of this forum, and you are not, then one most question what your sense of self importance must be, as clearly you seem to think your more important here then i am. Yet your post count and status would suggest otherwise. Now if i was to lower myself to the level of maturity you showed by making that comment, i would simply turn the comment around on you, expecially as you clearly do not know as to when cpr 75-5a can and is used. Yes you may know the run of the mill stuff, but do you actually know the legal techinicalitys. The fact you failed to pick up on what the court would have decided in the example i gave, if the claiment had no already admitted liability by paying the packing ticket, shows your lacking when it comes to the actual legal stuff. So by all means continue on your run of the mill adventure.

Whether the OP wants to follow you on your run of the mill adventure (the basic way of dealing with parking tickets) or whether he wants to go down the more technical and more legal route where he will get his costs back, sometimes without it ever having to go to court, then that is for the op to decide. It is not for you to decide for him, by coming on here and dispute the advice given by others. Especially when i have made it clear that neither of us are wrong, we just basically have different ways of dealing with it.

I think I have given the OP practical advice. You on the other hand have not. - I beg to differ, your first post simply attacked the advice i had given, i see nothing practical about that. There was no need to attack my post in your first post on this thread, as one, that is just impolite, but two, it starts arguments, that do nothing to help the OP. All you had to do was give your advice, you did not have to act the twat by attacking mine or anybody elses post when you give advice on a forum even if your advice differs from theirs as thats just a sign of arrogance, which no one here appreciates.

Now as i said neither us are wrong, as your advice is correct, but then so is my advice - But as you are clearly not aware of CPR 75-5A and how and when it can be used, then i must question your full understanding of how courts work along with your techinical legal understanding.

Now have you heard of section 2 clause 2 of the bill or rights act 1688, which basically clearly states in old english (though i will put it in modern english) "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme" which basically means that all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegal and void. - Now the question is are PCN issued by the council a fine or a contract?

We also have other members here, that have cost birmingham council thosands of pounds as a result of disputing, successfully, parking tickets that had been given. Granted i do not know if they themselves were awarded costs but given who those members where i very much doubt if they did not get awarded costs back. Especially when birmingham council were forced to put up signage and correct road markings.

Now as i said, neither of us are wrong, we just have different understanding and intepretation of how to deal with parking tickets, you evidently prefer the "run of the mill approach" where as i prefer the more legal approach via the courts themselves. Put it this way, if the council are in the wrong, then it means their actions prejudiced the OP as such the OP is entitled to be reimbursed his costs as a result of the councils wrongful actions, thats basic law. As such i will not be replying to anymore of your posts.

Now i will not be responding to anymore of your posts, as i said before, arguing here is not going to benefit the OP of his thread. If you feel otherwsie and therefore choose to carry on the argument, then it only goes to show how little you actually care about the thread and just how much you care about your own self importance on forums. I have dealt with people whom think more of their own self importance than they do of the threads creator and their need for help or of other members, many times and it did not turn out well for them. Now i accept everyone has egos, but egos are not going to help the OP here, where as putting our difference and argument aside will.

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Well, you've convinced me. let's just hope the OP isn't as gullible.

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Whats up micheal, can't you accept that there is more than one way to challenge the validity of a parking ticket, other than your favoured run of the mill way!! If you turely believe that the only way to legally challenge the validity of a parking ticket issued by a council then it is you that is gullible. Or are you saying all those that challenge in court and not by your run of the mill way are gullible too!!

As i said, neither us are wrong, if you can not accept that fact then thats your problem not mine! Tell you what micheal, if you don't like arguments then i suggest you do not cross other forum members by attacking their post just because you wrongly believe their is only one way to challenge a parking ticket. There are both tribunal and court processes that can be used to challenge a Parking ticket and that is a legal fact - CPR75-5A is one way, another way is to issue a claim against the council for emotional distress and compensation for costs incurred due to invalid parking ticket being issued by the council, the court will then have to rule whether the ticket was valid, which in this case it clearly is not.

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

There are both tribunal and court processes that can be used to challenge a Parking ticket and that is a legal fact - CPR75-5A is one way, another way is to issue a claim against the council for emotional distress and compensation for costs incurred due to invalid parking ticket being issued by the council, the court will then have to rule whether the ticket was valid, which in this case it clearly is not.

So for the benefit of the OP, which course are you recommending he take, appeal to the adjudicator, CPR75-5A or issue a claim against the council.

Now i have no intention to argue with you further over this issue as it is not going to help the OP. .

As such i will not be replying to anymore of your posts.

Now i will not be responding to anymore of your posts, as i said before, arguing here is not going to benefit the OP of his thread.

That's three times now. I won't bother holding my breath.

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Micheal i only responded to your post becuase you insulted me e.g. "mean while back in the real world" and "lets just hope the OP isn't as gullible" implying i was. It was you that carried the argument on, all you had to do was respect the thread by agreeing to not carry the arguement on. If you had not made the insultive comments i would have no need to reply. I would have simply given my advice to the OP, without responding to your post, whether you did the same or not would have been upto you, and given you choice to continue to reply despite myself making it clear i did not want this thread to turn into an arguement, all it has done is shown yourself up, especially when i also stated on 3 occasions, at least, that neither of us were wrong.

I recommend that he waits for the formal representation at the council (which is what i stated before you made your first post), whilst at the formal representation he should at the same time make it clear he will sue for damages in court and sue the council for breach of contract, e.g. the permits usage terms and conditions in which the ticket was issued in breach off. By issuing the ticket the council did so in breach of contract. I would also demand that the council reimburse all costs the OP incurred as a result of the councils breach of contract which the op is entitled too (e.g. the council most return the op to the position he was in prior to their breach of contract). Then i would sure love to see how quick the council falls over itself reimbursing the OP his cost to avoid going to court, whilst withdrawing the ticket. This probably will not even need to go to tribunal or to court when that point is made clear at the formal representation to the council. If it did and it did end in court it would not go well for the council, i mean issue a ticket in breach of its own permit rules...Surely not. If the council failed to agree then it would be off to court for breach of contract and issuing of an invalid ticket along with a claim for emotional distress and finanical deteriment (costs incurred as a result of the councils actions). Now i know you did not even think of or consider the contract in place between the council and permit holder, did you!

Now its not just you basic run of the mill stuff now is it. Sure the OP could do it the basic way, but why should the council get away virtually scot free for issuing an invalid ticket and acted in breach of contract that governs the usage of the permit, when they have caused the op emotional distress, loss of time (possible loss of earnings too) costs of travel to and from the spot of the alleged offence to take pictures, and the cost of appealing and having to go through the whole process, when he should have never have been given a ticket in the first place.

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Micheal i only responded to your post becuase you insulted me e.g. "mean while back in the real world" and "lets just hope the OP isn't as gullible" implying i was.
Perhaps you should report those posts



Now its not just your basic run of the mill stuff now is it.

It sure isn't.

And here was I thinking that the OP just wanted the simplest most straightforward way to get his PCN cancelled.

It's a big asumption, but I would imagine that someone who had no idea of the appeal process for a PCN probably has little experience of issuing court claims, contract law etc and even less desire to gain that knowledge. It would certainly be one way to find out what emotional stress and financial loss really feels like.

Of course, should he go down that route, you can be safe in the knowledge that it's not your ar*e on the line.

[teaboy2]

Re: PCN appeal help.

It sure isn't.

And here was I thinking that the OP just wanted the simplest most straightforward way to get his PCN cancelled.

It's a big asumption, but I would imagine that someone who had no idea of the appeal process for a PCN probably has little experience of issuing court claims, contract law etc and even less desire to gain that knowledge. It would certainly be one way to find out what emotional stress and financial loss really feels like.

Of course, should he go down that route, you can be safe in the knowledge that it's not your ar*e on the line.

Thats right, and the chances are their will be no need to issue a claim at all. Its also why i did not overload the OP with information, and was doing it on a step by step process following the usual run of the mill route, as the council will likely back down when faced with such legal arguements at the formal representation, especially when it is pointed out to them that they are confusing one road with that of another, which you yourselve pointed out. So the chance of this even going to court is unlikely once the council are made aware of their mistake and breach of contract, as it would be very embarrassing for them if it did go to court and they got their arses kicked.

Also alot of the stress of going to court would be taken of the OP as i would have helped him at all stages of the process, after all thats what some of us are here for. In fact he has done must the work already by gathering evidence and pictures. All that would be needed would be to use that evidence and make a arguement pointing out the precise facts, such as what road he was parked on, no signage stating 2 hr minimum parking, nothing in the permit usage terms stating 2 hour minimum parking. Off course there's slightly more to it than that, but its pretty basic stuff itself, and more straight forward than going to appeal, then formal representation, then to tribunal. To hell with all that, the councils in the wrong, if we were still just at the appeal process i would tell the OP to put the legal arguments across to the council such as the breach of contract in his letter of appeal. But the appeal process has been completed already, so we can not do that and have to wait for the formal representation.

Off course he could send a letter before action to the council right now, though i believe it would be much clearer, and stronger message, to hand them a letter before action during the formal representation itself.

As for why i did not report your posts, well I do not need to report posts just to win an argument Micheal, especially when neither of us were wrong.

[alistairdale]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Hello again....
Could I ask how to now deal with the NTO when I receive it? I've put something together but not sure if it suitable.

[michael]

Re: PCN appeal help.

On the NTO tick 'the contravention did not occur.'

In the details box put 'See attached sheets marked pages 1-3'

I suggest you keep it simple:

Page 1 of 3

Leeds City Council: PCN: XXXXXXXXXX
Formal Challenge to Notice to Owner

I make this appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

On xx/xx/2012 I parked in Cherry Place. I displayed a valid business permit (No. xxxxxx)

The relevant Traffic Regulation Order No W40 (see enclosed copy marked page 2) restricts parking in Cherry Place to holders of residents permits only.

However the restriction signs in Cherry Place say 'Permit Holders Only'. (see enclosed photo marked page 3). They do not restrict parking to a particular class of permit holder

There are no other visible signs or road markings. There are no single or double yellow lines or marked parking bays.

It is the duty of councils that signage and road markings must accurately reflect the restrictions set out in the TRO in order that motorists can easily understand what parking restrictions apply to that road.

The signage is at odds with the TRO and therefore this PCN is unenforceable.

I was displaying a permit, therefore the contravention as alleged on the PCN (12 Parking in a residents or shared used parking place without clearly displaying a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket for that place'. ) did not occur.

I request that my appeal be allowed and that the PCN be cancelled.



(signature)
A.Dale.
Date xx/xx/xx

[alistairdale]

Re: PCN appeal help.

Thanks for that..... To the point. I was expecting it to be an in-depth letter outlining the steps taken and evidence to support the appeal.