I agree that this is the approach to take now, and osiibly also at NTO stage. If it goes to the adjudicator then my view is that you need to pursue all angles. What I don't know is whether you can raise with the adjudicator a matter you have not previously raised with the council.

Did you commit the contravention? Was the signage adequate? What is on the reverse of the PCN? There may be a number of reasons to mount the challenge.

Sorry, I was using the technique of understatement to make the point just in case it was being considered. Clearly it didn't work. Just to be clear. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

So keep the envelope. Or deny that you ever receive it and claim it was lost in the mail strike but as that would be a lie is not to be recommended.

Can you type it out. All of it I'm afraid. It may be worthwhile. If you do try and do it line by line and indicate what is on the back or front.

You don't say which council. Sadly in London there has been a ruling that there is no grace period for getting change. However, all may not be lost. If you can post the ticket here (both sides) then we may be able to identify reasons for challenging the validity of the ticket. To do so will involve an element of risk on your part as you will lose, should the appeal not be successful the right to pay at the discounted rate.

But not it seems for darceyp

Here's what I would do. Get a copy of the letter and keep it. Take the original down to your local police station and repot it as a crime. Explain that it has caused you and your family serious distress and sleepless nights. That you are concerned for your own safety whan you go out as you are fearful that these bully-boys will seek to intimidate you physically. Do not respond to the letter.

This sounds like a private company parking ticket in which case I would do absolutely nothing at the moment. If you write to them now you may not help yourself in arguments later. Let them do the running. If it is a local authority parking ticket that is a different matter but from what you have said it doesn't sound like it.

That's OK. There's plent of time yet!

Firstly, is this a town with decriminalised parking? You will be able to tell from the ticket or if you don't know how, attache the ticket or type it out here and we can help. I would suggest he documents, signs and dates the events of tonight and he sends a copy to the police station as a complaint. In this way he will be able to produce it as contemporaneous evidence of the discussion. When we know what the ticket says we can help further.

I did read your post properly. In my view what you are suggesting is fabricating evidence. The permit that you suggest could be submitted would have been obtained after the even and backdated. The only purpose for obtaining it would be to attempt to deceive the council into thinking it had been obtained at the time.

Perjury, schmerjury. The intention is to represent the voucher as having existed and been displayed at the time of the alleged contravention and that is wrong, pure and simple!

So when it says by the declaration on the PCN: You don't think that what you are suggesting is a false declaration. I would suggest that it would be foolish in the extreme to say anything to the council that cannot be backed up to the adjudicator and that is a judicial process and false statements there do render you liable to prosecution.

Yours.

Which would be perjury in this case.

But can you get a witness statement to say that you called to try and get a visitor's permit but they had none. If so, I would say that is the equivalent of parking, going to pay and finding the machine out of order and returning to your vehicle to move. Personally I would appeal. There may be a number of other grounds to appeal. Perhaps including incorrectly drafted PCN and/or NTO. But then I always appeal, I always find reasons and I reckon it saves me money in the long run.

It is always possible that UKPC will not "join the dots" and will ultimately write to your mother in which case you simply ask them for evidence of who the driver was.

'Fraid that the best suggestion I have is to get yourself ASAP down to a CAB with the letter you have received with you.

And posted it back to them?

Seen this? Anyone any experience of this bunch?

This is why local authorities are allowed to enforce them. What they are not permitted to do is to levy a penalty on people who have either not committed a contravention or where they have no proof. I too have no sympathy for those who are caught fare and square (whatever the contravention). But I have less sympathy for authorities who rely on the motorists ignorance or their not wanting the bother to levy penalties they are not entitled to.

Sorry again. It will show a vehicle that appears to be stationary. For example, traditional film of a moving vehicle is in fact a series of still photographs, individually they will show a vehicle that appears to be stationary but which neverthe less is moving. They may also contain elements that depict movement such as blurring. Shown in sequence they will create an illusion of movement that looks real to the naked eye. They may also show no movement and therefore support the view that the vehicle was in fact stationary. I suspect that the cameras used by TFL are, however, video cameras which work differently. I suspect that what TFL have done is to "grab" an image from the video showing a vehicle that appears to be stationary. But that is not conclusive, what is needed is a video that shows the vehicle (and its projected exit) from its point of entry into the box junction to becoming stationary and the reasons why it became stationary. If TFL have not kept this evidence but are seeking to rely on the single still image then I rather suspect that they are stuffed but it will come down to the balance of probabilities.

Bribri, I understand what you are saying. The old rule (I don't have my highway code to hand to look it up) was to the effect of "don't enter unless your exit is clear". There was always the exemption for turning right. I think that what has happened is that the wordsmiths have tried to be more definitive but have created the potential for confusion. Consider the scenario: you are in a line of "nose to tail" moving traffic and you enter a box junction, the car in front of you stops causing you to stop before you have exited the junction. I believe there is a case to say that you have committed a contravention. That is not to say that I wouldn't be prepared to argue along the lines that Pat suggests I just feel it's touch and go as to whether or not you would get away with it. Bear in mind also that unless the adjudicator is bound by a higher decision, they will decide each case on its own merits. Previous cases are persuasive only.

Correct, it is a contravention rather than an offence! I think that if your point was worded "stopping in a box junction is not necessarily a contravention" we would be in total agreement. What is clear to me is that TFL have a track record of misapplying this contravention and no doubt many, many motorists have needlessly paid a PCN because of this misapplication. De-criminalised enforcement generally reverses the burden of proof onto the motorist. The Authority issues a PCN based on prima facie evidence of a contravention and it is up to the motorist to provide evidence to the contrary. In the ordinary course of events I can see how an Authority may take a still photo that appears (by virtue of context and vehicle positions etc) to show a stationary vehicle in a box junction as prima facie evidence of a contravention. However, the adjudicators judgment in the Place Invaders case is clear. That it is insufficient. TFL know this and it is for this reason that I believe that there is a good case to say that where TFL are issuing PCNs based solely on such evidence they are acting unreasonably if they fail to cancel them at appeal and a request for an award of costs by the adjudicator is entirely reasonable and appropriate.