I received a penalty charge notice in the post on 16 Oct 2021 from Waltham Forest council for allegedly failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone on 2 Oct 2021. When I reviewed the CCTV footage there was no sign just the polls that will hold it which demonstrated the absence of this sign yet the council responded to my appeal that I sent in 18 Oct 2021 pointing this fact out by stating that I should have been aware of what the restrictions were regardless of what my reasons. I have a rejection letter attached. They’ve given me only two options available to me in light of the fact that they have already issued a charge certificate. My options are:- 1. pay within 14 days of 20 Oct 2021 or 2. to not to pay within the 14 days and be served with a CCJ to which I can lodge a stat declaration closing one of the standard 4 reasons why the court should cancel it. Are these really the only two options I have? Waltham Forest appeal reply oct 21_compressed.pdf

Unfortunately, due to both my parents who reside in Cyprus being unwell I wasn’t in the country from 18 July - 12 September 2021 which is the period when the notices were issued, I’ll submit the TE7/9 forms as advised. If as you say the enforcement order stands is is the level of the fee that jumps from £203 to £513 from the 7-20 September 2021 correct? The sudden step up isn’t broken down to explain the nature of this addition.

OK THANK YOU

I received a visit yesterday from Newlyn and handed a letter of intent on taking goods Stating that a notice of enforcement for £513 was issued 16/9/21 and were representing Camden council. This was for a parking offence on the 8 March 2021 at 08:36. The contravention was code 21 which is namely that my car was parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay. I’m parking the car I did notice there was some placards on the picture signpost I noticed that one head stated that the suspension was lifted at the end of the 5th of March 2021. I have parked the night before, a Sunday night around 10pm In my attention was yours focused on what was immediately in front of me rather than what was all around me down the street as the counsellor pointed out in his response to my appeal. So much so that I was conscious that the parking charges will recommence on the Monday morning and indeed paid via the Ringo app £17.34 for a parking session commencing 8 March 2021 08:05 a.m. and completed at 12:30 pm - the ticket was issued on the 8 March 2021 at 08:36. My appeal was sent on the 19th of March 2021 and I received a response on the 31st of March 2021 attach a copy of the redacted version. The truth is I had thought I referred the matter to the London Tribunal within 28 days of the rejection but I can’t find any record of it. I have submitted a TE9 to the TEC and held off Newlyn for a day or two. Of note however is the climb of the demand of money from them. At the stage of the order For recovery of unpaid penalty charge the amount was for £203 pounds dated 10th of August 2021 and then on the 7th of September 2021 notice from Newlands races the amount owed to £278 with a £75 compliant stage fee. A hand delivered letter on 30 September 2021 from Newlyn states the outstanding amount to be £513. LBC_PCN858A 08-03-21 REDACTED_compressed.pdf

Title Unauthorised Parking in Boardwalk Place E14 entry time 04:33 Exit time 09:36 Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 28/08/20 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 03/09/20 [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please do not put JPG Picture files into your post 3 Date received 08/09/20 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] NO 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed No Have you had a response? n/a Give answer here 7 Who is the parking company? Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd until 4/11/20 Debt Recovery Plus until 26/1/21 CST Law issue a reminder notice 11/3/21 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Boardwalk Place E14 For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPACode of Practice There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE Boardwalk place e14 parking charges(REDA.pdf

dear cag i 'm standing for the recovery of the parking charge and i would like your help in getting this sorted. you'll see from the images that the roads in canary wharf are all restricted and the signage doesnt indicate where you can park. i also think its a money making racket especially when in that area there is harcly traffic jams and very few cars around. at 04:30 there is practically not a car in sight. so what is the reason for these over the top parking restrictions? i havent responded to these letters at all. Boardwalk Place e14 parking charge.pdf

Dear CAG I am pleased to say that following on from your advice to contact the chief executive officer of the Marriot hotel group the letter of which can be seen in the attached document I received a letter from Parking Eye, again loaded in the batch of documents you requested be made into one file, stating that they have cancelled the parking charge. Thank you for your help and assistance in resolving this matter. CAG PARKING EYE MARRIOT PCN_compressed_1.pdf

Apologies for the delay: An ANPR camera did indeed capture the ‘OVERSTAY’ as stated on the initial notice as the reason for the penalty (the allowance for which is 0 mins and the only way you are eligible to ‘park’ is to obtain a ticket from the machine or register your registration which is in the lobby of the hotel which I was not given access to due to COVID-19). 1 Date of the infringement: 4/7/2020 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]:11/8/2020 3 Date received: 13/7/2020 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] Appeal initially sent to Marriott Hotel. Manager filed the letter and left the company. In April 2021 via Twitter I was told this and referred to the company Parking Eye to deal with it as it was out of their hands. Copy of original appeal letter sent to them but Parking eye didn’t consider the appeal as it was with the bailiffs. Have you had a response? [Y/N?]. YES 7 Who is the parking company? PARKING EYE 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Courtyard by Marriott Luton Airport For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. YES BSA I called dcbl 2 days ago as I received a 'final reminder' 4/7/2021 and asked them if there was a CCJ on this and they said no. DBCL Marriott PCN CAG.pdf Marriot PCN CAG copy.pdf

Occurrence: Courtyard by Marriott Airport Way, Luton I have received such a huge penalty of £100 for a legitimate enquiry about room availability. I was given by post a PARKING CHARGE NOTICE for parking at the front of the hotel car park last year (07/2020). It was just after 3 am that I was at Luton airport looking for a place to stay as I had unexpectedly been recalled to be on standby for potential work at a hospital in the area. I was unable to book anything online for that night because of the time and so therefore I drove up to the reception area of the hotel and attempted to speak to the receptionist who would not incidentally speak via the intercom or come to the door. Eventually, I got his attention and I was not allowed into the building as it was during lockdown. Trying try to communicate through the glass door obviously took a lot longer than it would’ve done normally had he let me in. I was turned away and I was in the drop off area with my partner present in the car the entire time for no more than a period of 20 minutes. The parking lot was fairly empty which is understandable given that this was due in lockdown and even in central London on a red route there is an allowance of 20 minutes and nationally parking fees were suspended let alone the issuing of fines. Firstly, at a time when the country was coming together where councils across the country was the suspending parking charges and assisting key workers in facilitating the ease of movement to work the Marriott Hotel group ignore this fact in their response to my complaint. They have referred me to the sub-contractor Parking Eye, who refused to consider my letter of appeal saying it’s too late. In fact, my appeal was sent to the Marriott who have acknowledged receipt but failed to respond as the manager of the hotel had left soon after it was received. On chasing this up with the Marriott group they yet again refer to Parking Eye. They in turn have referred it to the Enforcement Officers who have sent me a text to say they will be visiting me at home. Is there anything that I can do?

As advised I called the court it transpired after being told why the amount was so high that my change of plea from not guilty to guilty wasn't considered I have written to them to ask that the case be reviewed in light of this omission. I have not yet paid the fine and I have since received a further steps notice so hopefully will get a reply before the end of the month. Thanks for the advice

@Man in the middle: Can you please let me know what you would advise me to do as I didn’t attend the hearing and I’m not currently working and not claiming benefits. Furthermore, I was told to pay a fine initially but decided that I would appeal.

I was the owner of the car, at the time, it was registered in my name. It has since been transferred into my fathers name as he uses this car 95% of the time and I had only borrowed it for that journey. The appeal decision was taken after the adjudicator adjourned the hearing for 14 days so that it gave Newham Council chance to state their case against my appeal. They failed to respond and do the decision was made on the basis that they had no arguement against my appeal and therefore my appeal was upheld. As for the additional costs, the adjudicator felt that the council didn’t act vexatiously and thus thought the impoundment was done unlawfully.

I parked in a shared residents bay and received a PCN as my stay exceeded by 10 minutes what I had paid. Twenty minutes after the PCN was issued the car was towed away. It wasn’t causing any obstruction or preventing other residents from paring as there was 65% remaining capacity when I returned to the scene 40 minutes after the parking ticket expired. Once at the pound (£15 cab), I had to pay the fine to release the car (£200 pound + £65 PCN). However, I was driving as Third Party cover from my insurance taken out on my car. The pound refused to let me drive the car 50yards to pounds boundary stating I wasn’t covered. I asked if the person who drove it/parked it could bring it to the gate but they refused to help. It cost £225 insurance to drive it 50 yards. in my appeal, the London Tribunal adjudicator upheld the PCN, refunded me the pound fee £200 on the basis the council didn’t respond to my challenge but didn’t feel the council acted vexatiously so didn’t instruct them to refund my mitigating losses, namely the insurance £225 plus cab fare to the pound £15. If I wo the appeal, surely by refactor these should be reimbursed because I don’t believe I should have even towed in the first pace. If this was conceded, it would follow these are expenses that I wouldn’t have incurred? I don’t know of any other council that tows cars not for at of the reasons which authorises the towing after 30minutes. The council must have authorised its removal minutes after the PCN was issued. This I consider vexatious as well as refusing to bring it 50yds to the gate. Is there anything more that can be done to retrieve these funds?

Thank you for your comments. I appealed to the DVLA twice and they rejected them on both occasions. I don’t recall being offered a fixed penalty but I’ll need to check that. This was the content of a covering letter I sent to the court: I have appealed to the DVLA twice that the car was purchased from an online auction for salvage cars and that it was not roadworthy nor driveable as evidenced by the pre-inspection purchase report by an independent mechanic that was submitted to the DVLA and was received from the merchant with an MOT though no insurance or SORN. It was in effect in-trade and was recovered by the mechanic for inspection and then a couple of weeks later to my address and remained on the drive and thus off the public road. Since the Court Order has been received I have sought legal advice whereupon I was I was informed, having not known at the time, of the change in the law that the car had to be insured even though it wasn’t on a public highway and was not in any condition to be driven. This is essentially the basis of my plea change. When pleading not guilty, there were several mitigating factors that existed that led me to believe that the car could only be insured once the repairs were completed. I had in fact checked with my current broker what the cost of insuring the car was before purchasing the car to calculate its running cost. In its current state there wasn’t a single insurance company willing to insure the car and he had said that it would be more difficult once repaired but certainly not impossible but at a higher premium. Therefore, it wasn’t an option as far as I was concerned. Furthermore, given that the damages to the car rendered it immobile I again thought that the necessity for insuring the car would be at the time the car was brought back to road-worthy condition. Arrangements were made for the car to be inspected by two body repair shops and at the time the notice was served it was indeed with a mechanic. I have informed the DVLA of this fact and provided them with the name and address of the mechanics who had the car in their possession. Unfortunately, to verify with which mechanic the car was with the DVLA have not provided me with the exact date and time and address of the alleged offence despite requesting it two times. The DVLA were invited to contact the mechanics to verify my claim that it wasn’t in my possession and that the car had been recovered from my address to the mechanics as it is in a non=driveable condition. I have pointed out that I always wish to avoid breaking the law and as a precautionary measure I renewed the road tax as I was concerned that whilst out of my possession the car might be placed on a public highway and to avoid breaking any law I put this in place. Therefore, there was no intention of circumventing any law or attempting to save money. I do acknowledge that I was regrettably unaware of any change in the law stating that a car must be insured regardless of whether it is driven or not unless a SORN is in place. Once I did become aware of this fact, I immediately declared the car off road and a SORN was put in place. After receiving legal advice and informed of the facts I am now changing my plea to guilty and I accept full responsibility for failing to comply with the law and I am very sorry for not seeking advice and/or not having reviewed current laws. This is my first such offence and my first purchase of a salvage car from an online site. I am a Medical Oncologist by profession and therefore have no experience in the world of motor trading and repairs. Since the incident occurred I've have a SORN in place and have received a quote for its repair. It will of course be registered for road tax and insurance once these are completed and this offense will never happen again. I have been off work for 3 years due to mental health and now have fully recovered. I have volunteered to return to the NHS to assist in the current medical crisis but until I do return to work I have no income nor am I receiving any benefits. I am currently living in the parental home in order to save money and all of my savings are accounted for in daily living expenses, contribution for my stay and towards continuous professional education and subscriptions/registration fees. Please take this into consideration when reviewing my case such that you kindly reduce my fine or any additional penalties under these mitigating circumstances. I’m sure I filled in an expenditure / income chart showing the costs of daily living exceeds my income. regards

January 2019 I purchased from an online car auction a car written off category NS. I was unaware that the car had to be classified as being on a SORN once the TAX had ran out and it remained on my drive until I had the funds to repair it which was done last year in August 2020. Unfortunately, whilst the car was with a Mechanic for a quotation which required it to be towed to a couple of them for the estimates to be obtained, it must've been picked up by a police ANPR camera. I say this as I have never received an answer to my question of where it was and at what time as it definitely wasn't with me when the alleged contravention occurred. I had a statement written and sent to the DVLA to say this and the mechanic was happy to verify this was the case. Nevertheless, whilst I pleaded guilty to the fact that I wasn't aware you needed insurance as formerly it was acceptable to not do so if the car was on private property and it wasn't fit to drive. I challenged the penalty on the basis that this was my first offence, I was unaware and the car couldn't have been driven even in my absence and would have been on private property of the mechanic. The hearing got posponed several times due to COVID-19 and then on the 30 April 2021 the magistrate court decided the sun fine was 220 + 20 for victim support + 200 court costs. I have explained that I am out of work though not claiming Universal Credit at the moment as I am using personal savings. Nevertheless, I think this amount is unfair and want to know if this could be appealed? No information is provided to say that I can.

I did get a good outcome by appealing the Newham fine but only in regards to the removal of the vehicle to the pound. This was because the court didn’t hear back from Newham when notified of my appeal for this case. The court ordered the repayment for the equivalents mount the removal and impounding.

I woke up this morning to find that an enforcement officer has clamped my car that’s parked on the street leaving a voicemail and text to that effect. I had hoped that the Lockdown would have given me extra time to resolve the dispute I have and get my TE9/10 forms signed once this lockdown has been lifted. isn’t it unlawful to take this sort of action during a lockdown? What advice would you give me now? The bailiff is sat outside waiting for my return call Thanking you in advance

The car is registered in my name but it’s for my father to use and he has the car insured in his name. I am not a named driver. I have fully comprehensive insurance on another car that gives me Third a Party cover on other cars. This is the situation I explained to the staff at the pound. They insisted verbally that I needed to have my father come and drive it out or I need insurance on this car that covers driving within a car pound. I thought by virtue of the broker stating that they still Specialise in these circumstances I didn’t question it anymore. They certainly didn’t suggest driving it to the gate/kerbside. The contravention states on the PCN was 12. Obtaining information on the removal was more difficult as a Enfield only show you pictures of the car and the PCN. I Couldn’t get details on the time authorisation was granted, the time of physically removing the car. I have no written proof regarding the inform given to me verbally by the Pound staff. They provided me with information on how to appeal.

Thanks for the advice but I did have fully comp on my car that allows me to drive any car. I have no proof of the assertion but the broker I told him what they said and he told me that its true and that they did specialised insurance to drive the car out of the pound boundary which seems ridiculous given that it was a few yards. The bay was the usual white road markings designating the area of road for shared use. Its not an off-road bay. It just seems that the 'authorisation' for code 12 criteria of it still being present 30mins after issuing a PCN seems harsh when there was just occupancy rather than obstruction. I will look up as mentioned.

I parked my car in a residents and shared use parking bay which permitted residence as well as those who pay a fee. I hadn’t noticed the time started at 8 o’clock and paid online at 9:44 for an hour and at 10:56 for 2 hours costing £5.60. there was an observation of five minutes from 08:17 and at 08 22 at which time the PCN was issued and attached to the car. despite it being in an appropriate bay and not causing any obstruction or displacing any residences as there were many vacant places when I parked I went to collect the car, the vehicle was also authorised for removal. This occurred at 9:37am after obtaining authorisation for its removal. The council states this occurs 30minutes after the PCN has been issued. Once I had discovered it had been taken to the pound and got a cab had to pay for the PCN £65 and an additional £200 for the release of the car. Furthermore, in order to drive the car out of the pound I had to take out additional insurance of £250 as I had borrowed the car and was driving under my own insurance policy which the pound claimed wasn’t sufficient. I submitted an appeal which was rejected on the 5th of May stating that under the traffic management 2004 I received a PCN because I didn’t have a permit on display in the city and the Civil Enforcement Officer officer checked his computer and did not see any payments made by the PayByPhone method. I noted at the time I returned to collect the car there were many spaces and they were at the time apart during the night. It’s unlikely that a member of the local residents complained about the lack of parking space therefore causing an obstruction. I am not aware of any other council that acts so soon after issuing a PCN for the removal of the car. almost simultaneously to issuing a PCN. On what grounds can this be appealed again?

Is this falling outside the Skills base Of this forum?

Apologies For not being clearer in my attempt at being concise. The ABS Fault code wasn’t declared at the auction, indeed the pictorial evidence of the dashboard didn’t reveal this alert. On collection, we were told the car had to be recovered as they wouldn’t allow an inspection to assess roadworthyness as there was evidence of a collision again undisclosed. Once inspected the fault code identified a problem of the ABS Hydraulic pump and suggested that this and the ECU be replaced at my cost. It was only when the unit was sent for the replacement of the hydraulic pump that the new code shown isolated the ECU and this was identified by the specialist engineer as being the same fault code the recall was based on. AUDI haven’t said that it isn’t the same and inherently acknowledge it is by stating the recall campaign is closed now so they no longer will honour its repair. Gick quite rightly points out, my issue is that a manufacturer admits liability to a particular fault code and states it’s a safety issue stating a software design fault and covers the cost. However, it appears that the manufacturer is the entity that decides how long this recall is valid for. Trading Standards informed me that they have no enforceable jurisdiction on the timeframe siting this was a legal issue best left with the Motor Ombudsman. The latter has stated they don’t deal with recalls as this falls outside the contractual consideration they normally deal with. One opinion from a lawyer suggested this is negligence on the part of AUDI UK for not addressing the exact same issue albeit they fixed it once before. The fix was temporary and has recurred. Therefore, the same safety considerations exist as a result of a self-proclaimed design fault. I have checked AUDI Forums and I am not the only person to have had this problem. Everyone is forced to foot the bill. This is unfair and criminal that no agency exists to put them in check. And the wider question is, does this principle of a manufacturer determining the timeframe on a safety recall and allowed to absolve themselves of any responsibility once it’s closed? Is this not the remit of the Trading Standard?

I bought a car from an auction in Jan 2019 and the car engine fault light indicated there was a problem with the ABS. It went to an Audi Dealership for a diagnostic scan to identifying exactly the problems with this car. One of them was a faulty ABS system which had the component, namely the ABS hydraulic pump identified as being faulty. Since then, this has been independently addressed by a non-Audi dealership but now a new fault code was recorded that hadn’t been formerly discussed. The code 01130 ‘Operation: Implausible signal’ declared itself and is related to the 45F2 ABS AUDI UK recall over a year ago. If put this to the dealership who did the diagnostic scan that previous campaigns that have now closed are looked at they will find that this is in fact an Audi recall fault and as such needs to be addressed courtesy of AUDI. In fact, the same recall fault was listed as an item of charge. When I asked why the ECU had to be changed as well and told it was ‘because the ‘ECU is one and the same unit as the hydraulic pump and the two are replaced because of the way it is constructed’. The matter has been raised with AUDI UK who tell me that having originally fixed the fault at the time of the initial recall on this car, the campaign open for 6 months was now closed and they wouldn’t be honouring the recall. As AUDI pointed out when this fault was first identified, this was a serious safety issue and as such I informed the Trading Standards. They were satisfied that the safety issue had been addressed but had no redress as the campaign was now closed. I was informed the 6 months was not set impartially but at the company’s discretion. They believed the Motor Ombudsman would resolve the issue. This advice and the state of deadlock lead me onto reporting it to the Motor Ombudsman but they flatly said they didn’t deal with recalls and ask Citizens Advice. I feel that a safety recall on a fault is an issue indefinitely if it exists as the fault lies in the design and construction which is implied as the manufacturer foots the bill. How is it that after 6 months they are absolved of accountability? Is this negligence on behalf of Audi? I am not sure why the Trading Standards don’t see this as an issue apart from it being a ‘legal matter’. What advice would you give me on going forward?

Unfortunately I had a nervous breakdown and signed off work. Placed on heavy medication and had to deal with a repossession order and other debts therefore this wasn’t a priority at the time and there’s only so much you can expect others to do on your behalf. I am not quite sure how to proceed other than point out the points we’ve discussed with the creditor and if they refuse to cooperate instruct a solicitor though I gave to keep that cost to the minimum. I appreciate your assistance.

I became unwell to the point of not being able to work for two years. I could only cope with this issue now.