Illegible PCN

[Toobbloke]

A friend of mine (really!) has got this for parking his scooter on the pavement. He's in the wrong there, and the ticket would initially be justified.

 

 

Now, he went into the parking shop, with the intention of paying. they couldn't find it on the system.

 

He got a reminder, went back, they still couldn't find it.

 

Got another letter (which stops him from paying the initial £50 - time has passed). he went back and the member of staff now signed the ticket to say it's not on the system.

 

It's hardly surprising - the quality of information is appaling. Can you say definitively what dates are involved? Are those zeros or have they been crossed out? Or are they ones? Or fours? Or nines?

 

Is that a nine or a G on the registration number?

 

This surely can't be acceptable?

 

Suggestions please!

 

Thanks

 

TB

Edited November 14, 2008 by Toobbloke
Typo

[Guest Ting]

Ooooohhhhh! My favourite council!

 

It's tosh mate - in various ways.

 

Need to see the rest - probably more rubbish.

 

will check back tomorrow or soonish. Don't do anything!

-

[patdavies]

It's hardly surprising - the quality of information is appaling. Can you say definitively what dates are involved? Are those zeros or have they been crossed out? Or are they ones? Or fours? Or nines?

 

It is a 0; it is not at all uncommon for 0 to be written like this with a line through it, to distinguish from O

Is that a nine or a G on the restiration number?

 

It can't be a 9 as the VRM model (two letters, three numbers, three letters) wouldn't support that - it can only be a G

 

This surely can't be acceptable?

I'm afraid, I don't see why not.

 

Suggestions please!

 

Despite all that, post a scan of the other side as Ting has requested and await his advice. This particular Council seem to have problems complying with the legislation relevant to DPE

[Al27]

I can't see how much the PCN is for. £60 is there, but the figure next to it is circled - badly. It says you owe £0 to me.

[crem]

 

It can't be a 9 as the VRM model (two letters, three numbers, three letters) wouldn't support that - it can only be a G

 

Whilst I agree with your logical deduction of what it is supposed to be pat, I would say the character in that box is clearly a "9" to any "man in the street". I was not aware they could rely on common sense and logic been applied to the interpretation of the PCN to understand what it is saying, therefore it is a 9.

 

Also agree with Al that he hasn't been told the value of the fine because it is obliterated. Once again, you could try and do some maths, (if you're good at maths) to work out what is missing based on the other numbers, but that can't be right either.

[Toobbloke]

It is a 0; it is not at all uncommon for 0 to be written like this with a line through it, to distinguish from O

 

I know what it actually is, and that sometimes zeros get lined through to distinguish fro O. However, it has always been that case with any official form I have encountered that this practice is not allowed simply because it can be construed as 'crossing out'. This particular example takes it to new levels by resembling other figures.

 

It can't be a 9 as the VRM model (two letters, three numbers, three letters) wouldn't support that - it can only be a G

 

I do know that too (although there are variants which could give a remote possibility of it NOT being a G), but the point is that it isn't clear.

 

I'm afraid, I don't see why not.

 

I would say it's not acceptable as three visits to the council's parking shop ended in their inability to find the PCN in the system. Not everyone has the wit or knowledge that we have to be able to work out what these figures are, which is why such ambiguity should not be acceptable. With the best will in the world, my friend is one of these people, with some reading difficulties. It would appear that the staff in the parking shop are not that far removed either.

 

As it appears that this has been the cause of being unable to pay until it reached the higher figure, does it not seem reasonable that the charge should revert to the lower figure? There is no suggestion of getting out of paying.

 

Despite all that, post a scan of the other side as Ting has requested and await his advice. This particular Council seem to have problems complying with the legislation relevant to DPE

 

And here is the requested information.

 

Cheers

 

TB

 

 

 

[Guest Ting]

They actually appear to have got the back right!!!

 

Doesn't matter.

 

Serious errors in relation to it being a dual purpose form - for both higher and lower level contraventions.

 

See the two different amounts for each payment period. one has been circled partially obscuring it and the other left with both amounts.

I believe that makes it invalid. They have not informed you of your true position.

 

On the matter of it not being 'on the system' - no surprise for a hand written one - but their problem not yours.

 

Did you say payment had been refused? That clearly prejudices you if you tried to pay early - or at all for that matter.

Got records of days/times/names?

-

[Guest Ting]

@ crem - the figure partly obscured is £100- - and the fact you had to ask or work it out kinda proves what rubbish the PCN is.

 

for the 14 day period they don't explain that this is a 50% reduction so the amount itself has to be clear - NOT TWO amounts!

If he were to pay £30 he'd later be stuffed.

[Guest Ting]

Hang on IMPORTANT

 

i've just noticed the dates - this is quite old. You need to phone them and ask the current state of play.

 

Has he received a Notice to Owner yet?

[Toobbloke]

Yes, he had a notice to owner about a week ago (dated 17th October), and he went again to try and pay it.

 

He's also had a reminder on the 11th November (dated 4th November) when he went for the third time to try and pay. THey couldn't find it again on the system, and signed the ticket to that effect on that date.

 

Thanks for all your advice so far

 

TB

[Michael Browne]

He's also had a reminder on the 11th November (dated 4th November) when he went for the third time to try and pay. THey couldn't find it again on the system, and signed the ticket to that effect on that date.

Yet on the ticket 'Came in shop, not on system' is dated 11/08/08

[Guest Ting]

Yes, he had a notice to owner about a week ago (dated 17th October), and he went again to try and pay it.

 

He's also had a reminder on the 11th November (dated 4th November) when he went for the third time to try and pay. THey couldn't find it again on the system, and signed the ticket to that effect on that date.

 

Thanks for all your advice so far

 

TB

 

Ahhhhh. Now you're telling me something. 'Reminder' LOL. No such thing provided for in Statute. They were having to send that because they had been ballsing up the previous documents! - and as proof - they've since changed them!!!!!!

 

Got the envelopes still? they seem to be very slow in the post - they use the Royal Mail 'Advance mail' service but it can't be that bad when they are supposed to be first class.

 

You are potentially a bit short of time now. PM coming (for a very good reason Mods).

-

[crem]

@ crem - the figure partly obscured is £100- - and the fact you had to ask or work it out kinda proves what rubbish the PCN is.

 

Yes Ting, I had figured out that the missing figure was £100 by seeing that 30 is 1/2 of 60 therefore 50 must be 1/2 of ....... 100 (but that's only coz I'm a dead smart little boy ) PCNs should not really on us been smart like that coz some of us aren't

[Guest Ting]

Yes Ting, I had figured out that the missing figure was £100 by seeing that 30 is 1/2 of 60 therefore 50 must be 1/2 of ....... 100 (but that's only coz I'm a dead smart little boy ) PCNs should not really on us been smart like that coz some of us aren't

 

What did you think I meant?

 

i knew you had got it! I was just emphasising that the point you made was very significant - PCN is rubbish!

-

Seems they've made more mistakes since. I'll keep you informed when I know.

-

[Toobbloke]

Yet on the ticket 'Came in shop, not on system' is dated 11/08/08

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay, but I've been reading through the thread and missed this comment.

 

What's your point here?

 

TB

[Toobbloke]

Anyway, just to update you. I took advantage of an offer from Ting to look at this off the main forum, as there are specific confidential issues to consider. Suffice to say that Newham council got both barrels both from him in writing and over the telephone pointing out just where they went wrong.

 

He has said that he will update with some of the more technical detail at a later date for people to learn from.

 

At his request, I'll be making a donation to CAG funds.

[Toobbloke]

Since posting the update early this morning, it appears that Ting has been banned from this site. I would very much hope that this hasn't been because of me.

 

If this is the case it would be entirely unwarranted. It was at my request that this was taken off site, and Ting did actually only deal with this on the basis that a donation was made to CAG and that all the information (as much as it could be) be posted to explain what had occurred.

 

It would be entirely counter-productive to impose a ban, as it would restrict the ability to pass on what would be very beneficial information to others.

 

I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me.

[green_and_mean]

Since posting the update early this morning, it appears that Ting has been banned from this site. I would very much hope that this hasn't been because of me.

 

 

If he has it's a shame since he has such kind words to say about this forum on Pepipooh....

 

'Most of you know i post on CAG as well - but under protest cos it is pretty useless too.'

 

[Toobbloke]

I can't comment on his view of this or any other forum - I don't know what experiences he has had or not had. Even if he does express that view, he was still on CAG despite it giving sterling assistance to me (and for all I know others), and asking for any donations to go to CAG as he was advising a CAGer.

 

Ultimately, I thought that the purpose of these forums (all of them) was to provide assistance to those in need. It seems a bit churlish to ban someone for doing just that.

[green_and_mean]

I can't comment on his view of this or any other forum - I don't know what experiences he has had or not had. Even if he does express that view, he was still on CAG despite it giving sterling assistance to me (and for all I know others), and asking for any donations to go to CAG as he was advising a CAGer.

 

Ultimately, I thought that the purpose of these forums (all of them) was to provide assistance to those in need. It seems a bit churlish to ban someone for doing just that.

 

The purpose of this board is to provide a 'public' forum and a source of information that anyone can access. Unfortunately if cases are dealt with in PM the information maybe wrong and also cannot be used or seen by anyone outside the PM. Ting has had several warnings about this before which may have lead to the current situation. I don't think it is helped by his constant practice of diverting posters offsite to other boards for advice.

[Toobbloke]

The purpose of this board is to provide a 'public' forum and a source of information that anyone can access. Unfortunately if cases are dealt with in PM the information maybe wrong and also cannot be used or seen by anyone outside the PM. Ting has had several warnings about this before which may have lead to the current situation. I don't think it is helped by his constant practice of diverting posters offsite to other boards for advice.

 

I take your point, and regarding previous episodes I again can't comment as I have no knowledge of them. However, at the risk of going entirely off thread I feel I have to point out that the only tangible advice I actually got was from Ting. One experienced poster in this thread said that they could not see why the PCN was not acceptable. Should I have taken this advice and just let the council win? Ultimately, not many people on the forum are legally trained and there is as much risk in open forum as outside it. Additionally, diversion to other boards for advice if it's not available in this (or any other) seems merely sensible in obtaining as much information as possible. People may not even be aware of other boards, and it may be that a particular expert in one area is available there and not here. Unless I am under a spectacular misapprehension, this isn't a competition for best forum, but a genuine desire to provide accurate information to people in need.

 

As I said, the plan was for Ting to post what had happened after the event due to a number of issues. He was quite clear that this should happen to ensure that others can benefit from this experience. However, he is now not in a position to do so.

 

I would still hate to be the 'straw that broke the camel's back' as far as any ban is concerned. I understand the need for the rules of the forum, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps we could utilise some flexibility where it is appropriate. It should perhaps be remembered that this was a 'win', and that even if Ting is all that has been inferred, that would include that he is effective in dealing with these situations.

 

It's an old and crude saying, but sometimes 'it's better to have people inside the tent ****ing out, than outside the tent ****ing in'. Especially if they are particularly good at urination.

[HSBCrusher]

I am very happy you have had a win TB, good for you. Thanks for the donation too, we need every penny to keep the forum going.

 

Concerning Ting, please see the forum rules in my signature, if users break these rules they will get banned.

[electron99]

As I said, the plan was for Ting to post what had happened after the event due to a number of issues. He was quite clear that this should happen to ensure that others can benefit from this experience. However, he is now not in a position to do so.

This seems very reasonable, especially where confidential information is concerned. We all know PPC's read these forums, and to post this information before a win is like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

I am now absolutely convinced that at least one moderator on CAG is pro PPC, if not actively working for them.

[HSBCrusher]

 

I am now absolutely convinced that at least one moderator on CAG is pro PPC, if not actively working for them.

This is absolute tosh. No-one from the site team has any links to any parking company,

[Tony P]

I am a little mystified over Tings demise.

 

He broke rules? Which one, may I ask?

 

If it was about communicating with the OP off thread this raises 3 points-

 

1. The OP stated all was going to be posted, once resolved.

2. If direct communicating via PM is not allowed why have the facility?

3. The facility of direct communication must inevitable invite further other contact be it by Email, letter, phone etc.

 

I guess Moderators can access PMs but not direct Emails and that is the crime here - doing something beyond the sight of the censors.

 

Ting has provided some useful assistance to a number of threads - and promoted lively discussion on others, although may have trodden on a few toes too many this time. For me, his input will be missed.

 

 

Surely the way forward would be for the OP or Ting (or both) to publish all the direct communications, be it via PM or Email then all can see if someone was being a naughty boy (or girl). If there are points of confidentiality these could have the odd word XXXXXed through to protect identification, or repeating a libel, or whatever.

 

Or if not publish them on a thread at least let the Moderator and perhaps also an unconnected person, read through them and report back here afterwards.

 

The difficulty now could be how to climb down, yet retain credibility, if that is really what should happen.