Ultimate punishment for refusal to pay parking fine

[green_and_mean]

Another question I'd like some help on is whether bay markings should continue over dropped kerbs.

I would have thought that the bays should be stopped where a dropped kerb occurs and then continued after them.

Most people know not to park in front of a dropped kerb.

However is it a requirement that the bays should be marked out to show where you can actually park?

Is it possible that the bays are illegal as a result of this?

Here are some examples from the bays outside my house.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

The bays are legally allowed to cross a drop kerb and anyone can park across the drop kerb within the bay.

[Jamberson]

I agree with the Council person who phoned you up. The deviation on the markings is not serious enough to introduce ambiguity and I think this is a weak argument for you to pursue. "The law doesn't deal in trifles", and all that.

 

Where I live, you can use a permit bay to load/unload, the same as you can on yellow lines. Try and find out if this is the case where you live too. If it is, then you can make a representation on that basis. (after you receive the NTO that is - they won't consider it before.)

 

You were only given one minute observation. If you are entitled to load there, you are entitled to longer observation time. You were - of course - going to get the vaccuum cleaner from your house in order to LOAD it into the car, and then drive away, and are therefore entitled to probably 5 minutes obseravtion before the PCN is issued. So if this loading rule applies, it might be your get-out clause. Try and find out.

 

If you do decide to pursue this line of argument through a representation, try not to contradict your first letter - just clarify it. You were loading the vaccuum and also a sack of rubbish, but when you saw the parking attendant you forgot the rubbish sack for a moment and went outside to speak to her...

Edited May 20, 2009 by Jamberson

[patdavies]

I agree with the Council person who phoned you up. The deviation on the markings is not serious enough to introduce ambiguity and I think this is a weak argument for you to pursue. "The law doesn't deal in trifles", and all that.

 

I disagree, there is case law to the effect that if the lines are not as prescribed, they have no meaning - even if they appear clear to a reasonable man (Davies v Heatley). IF the lines are significantly wrong - as these are - then de minimis simply doesn't apply. The Council (and you) are simply wrong on this point - there does not need to be ambiguity - it is enough that the lines are non-prescribed.

 

You were only given one minute observation. If you are entitled to load there, you are entitled to longer observation time. You were - of course - going to get the vaccuum cleaner from your house in order to LOAD it into the car, and then drive away, and are therefore entitled to probably 5 minutes obseravtion before the PCN is issued. So if this loading rule applies, it might be your get-out clause. Try and find out.

The law allows loading to take as long as it takes (unless specifically limited in TRO and signage) and is not confined to the vehicle being attended and physically loaded. See the JANE PACKER FLOWERS case for an adjudicators viewpoint.

 

If you do decide to pursue this line of argument through a representation, try not to contradict your first letter - just clarify it. You were loading the vaccuum and also a sack of rubbish, but when you saw the parking attendant you forgot the rubbish sack for a moment and went outside to speak to her...

This site does not condone or advise lying to get out of penalties.

[spellboy]

When I first received the PCN I wrote to my MP advising him that it appeared that our local authority were being over zealous in enforcing parking contraventions.

Here is the letter he got back from the group director.

 

 

Her letter states that I was ‘washing my car in the street’.

This would appear to be a defamatory statement.

Admittedly I was intending to use a vacuum cleaner to remove dirt from the back seat.

However the CEO pounced before I got started.

So how does the Group Director get information that I was actually ‘washing’ my car?

Maybe I can recoup any money I might lose in fighting this PCN by suing the Group Director for libel.

Anyone out there think I have a chance?

Edited May 30, 2009 by spellboy

[crem]

It would be interesting to see at adjudication whether the CEOs notes agree with the letter from the Director regarding whether you were washing the car or not.

 

At the very least, this has got to start casting doubt over the accuracy of their evidence. Also, it is quite apparent they are fully aware that this incident took place directly outside yoru own house. Where is the "discretion" in this case that to me (as a sensible person) would have been to wrap you on the knuckles and tell you "well you may live here, but you must get a residents permit to put your car out here on the road. Naughty boy, don't do it again please."

[spellboy]

Where I live, you can use a permit bay to load/unload, the same as you can on yellow lines. Try and find out if this is the case where you live too. If it is, then you can make a representation on that basis. (after you receive the NTO that is - they won't consider it before.)

 

You were only given one minute observation. If you are entitled to load there, you are entitled to longer observation time.

 

Do you live in a London Borough?

 

Does this sign indicate that loading/unloading is allowed?

 

 

 

I am not going to lie on my formal representation however it would be useful to know whether loading/unloading is allowed in residents bays.

Opinion on this site seems to be divided.

Can anyone tell me what the RO3 in the bottom left corner means?

Edited May 30, 2009 by spellboy
changed words

[Jamberson]

Hi.

 

No I don't live in London. Although the sign doesn't indicate loading is allowed, it still might be. One way to find out would be to call the parking department in the council and innocently enquire. Say you are helping someone move or something and would like to know whether you may use a residents bay in that street for loading or unloading.

 

If they say yes, then I think you have something to defend the charge with. You could also enquire where this is written down, so you can cite it.

[Michael Browne]

 

Her letter states that I was ‘washing my car in the street’.

This would appear to be a defamatory statement.

Admittedly I was intending to use a vacuum cleaner to remove dirt from the back seat.

However the CEO pounced before I got started.

So how does the Group Director get information that I was actually ‘washing’ my car?

Maybe I can recoup any money I might lose in fighting this PCN by suing the Group Director for libel.

Anyone out there think I have a chance?

I thought you were a pensioner on limited income? Do you know how much a libel case would cost? It would pale into insignificance compared to any amount the PCN will cost you.

 

In post #21 you told the CEO you were cleaning the car, ok this has morphed into 'washing', but I really don't think by any stretch of the imagination that this is grounds for libel.

[green_and_mean]

It would be interesting to see at adjudication whether the CEOs notes agree with the letter from the Director regarding whether you were washing the car or not.

 

At the very least, this has got to start casting doubt over the accuracy of their evidence. Also, it is quite apparent they are fully aware that this incident took place directly outside yoru own house. Where is the "discretion" in this case that to me (as a sensible person) would have been to wrap you on the knuckles and tell you "well you may live here, but you must get a residents permit to put your car out here on the road. Naughty boy, don't do it again please."

 

As a resident he should have been fully aware of the restrictions since it was outside his house. What is the point of a residents permit scheme if you get let off for not buying one because you are a resident?? I agree totally with the letter he knew full well it was a permit bay and gambled on getting away without having a permit which has now backfired as he got caught. He admits he was parking to hoover out the car despite knowing full well that it was a permit bay so he has only himself to blame.

[crem]

As usual the council loose sight of the purpose of the restriction they put in (or were asked to put in ) for/by the residents. The purpose of the scheme was to allow residents only to park in that street and not "all and sundry".

 

The permit serves only one purpose; to allow a CEO to identify an authorised resident's car. The fee for the permit of around £13/py, even I would agree, is only to cover the cost and not to make a profit.

 

Therefore, in conclusion, spellboy is only guilty of failing to help identify his vehicle as "authorised" to park there to the CEOs and in no way could be deemed to be unlawfully parked because it is quite apparent he simply has to ask for a permit (pay his £13) and he would be entitled to one.

 

I maintain I would consider this a clear case that should have had "discretion" applied.

[green_and_mean]

As usual the council loose sight of the purpose of the restriction they put in (or were asked to put in ) for/by the residents. The purpose of the scheme was to allow residents only to park in that street and not "all and sundry".

 

The permit serves only one purpose; to allow a CEO to identify an authorised resident's car. The fee for the permit of around £13/py, even I would agree, is only to cover the cost and not to make a profit.

 

Therefore, in conclusion, spellboy is only guilty of failing to help identify his vehicle as "authorised" to park there to the CEOs and in no way could be deemed to be unlawfully parked because it is quite apparent he simply has to ask for a permit (pay his £13) and he would be entitled to one.

 

I maintain I would consider this a clear case that should have had "discretion" applied.

 

Yes that is the purpose but there is a nominal charge which the OP decided he didn't want to pay. What he has done is no different from getting on a bus/train without a ticket or not paying in a car park. Regadless of the reason for the charge it exists and it would be unfair on those who pay to allow others to avoid paying when they have done so deliberately. Discretion should be used if a permit had fallen off display or the driver had some other mitigating circumstances not just because he lived in the street and decided to risk parking without payment.

[Michael Browne]

 

Therefore, in conclusion, spellboy is only guilty of failing to help identify his vehicle as "authorised" to park there to the CEOs and in no way could be deemed to be unlawfully parked because it is quite apparent he simply has to ask for a permit (pay his £13) and he would be entitled to one.

 

He has lived there for some years, knew exactly what the situation was and made a conscious decision to save £13 a year by using his drive and not the road to park

 

 

 

I maintain I would consider this a clear case that should have had "discretion" applied.

They could have, if they were feeling particularly charitable. But I really don't feel there is any 'should have' about it

[spellboy]

Details for bay markings and dimensions here Diagram (b)

 

Those (1028.4) are the only lines allowed for parking that goes across the verge or footway.

 

It would appear that the lines you have are incorrect, but you will need to take this to a formal challenge to NtO or the adjudicator. You should be aware that at this point, should you lose (you shouldn't), there will no longer be a discount.

 

It will be worth checking the line dimensions (in mm) as well as just relying on the misplaced 'L'

 

Many thanks for the assistance from you. It is much appreciated.

I am just about to submit my formal appeal to the Local Authority.

Should I go into detail regarding how much each line and space varies from the diagram?

Or is it enough to state that none of the lines and only half of the spaces conform.

It seems likely that the LA will reject my appeal out of hand and I wondered whether I should save the detailed info for the adjudication.

[crem]

Stating the bay marking do not comply should be enough. How much/ how often they deviate is not really the issue, simply the fact that they do should be enough.

[spellboy]

Hi.

 

No I don't live in London. Although the sign doesn't indicate loading is allowed, it still might be. One way to find out would be to call the parking department in the council and innocently enquire. Say you are helping someone move or something and would like to know whether you may use a residents bay in that street for loading or unloading.

 

If they say yes, then I think you have something to defend the charge with. You could also enquire where this is written down, so you can cite it.

I phoned the LA. The woman who answered said that loading/unloading is not allowed in residents only bays.

With no signage telling you it's forbidden you wonder how anyone is supposed to know.

[the_freedom_trail]

Hi Spellboy,

 

Just a quick message to say how brilliant I think it is that you are marching on with this and standing your ground against this petty minded local governement - I think it is so refreshing to see an individual with a bit of spirit and can only hope that the rest of the country follows your example. Keep up the good fight and all the very best - I am confident you will win.

 

TFT

[royal-marine]

typical of ritain im afraid mate. everythings stacked on the blaggers conmen and criminals side. im getting out to canada with my gf as soon as poss. this countrys grim

[spellboy]

Hi Spellboy,

 

Just a quick message to say how brilliant I think it is that you are marching on with this and standing your ground against this petty minded local governement - I think it is so refreshing to see an individual with a bit of spirit and can only hope that the rest of the country follows your example. Keep up the good fight and all the very best - I am confident you will win.

 

TFT

Thanks for that.

However the credit should go to Pat Davies for giving me the info to help fight back. Without that I would not have had the confidence to even consider an appeal.

It could be 56 days before I hear any more from Parking Services.

I will let you know if I am successful.

If not you will see on the TV News some demented old pensioner holding the Head of Parking Services for ransom!!!

Edited June 4, 2009 by spellboy
added words

[spellboy]

For those who are still interested.

Following some much appreciated advice I sent the following formal appeal to my LA.

 

 

I enclosed the following report giving all measurements of lines and spaces.

N.B.I have only included the first two and last 2 pages as there were 19 positions to report on.

 

 

I have been away for a couple of weeks and the following rejection came from the LA.

 

 

I am surprised that the LA actually admit that the markings do not comply.

However it’s clear that they mean to pursue the enforcement all the way.

 

I will pursue the matter and would be grateful for any advice on how best to present my case to the adjudicator.

[5printst]

I've been following this with interest, and I'm still confused as to how a council can use the pavement for parking on ! AND how they can create parking bays across dropped driveways ?

 

If I was legally parked in my driveway (accessed via a dropped kerb) and someone paid the council a fee to park in a bay across my access thus restricting my freedom and ability to use my vehicle I would be bloody fuming !! .....Also , in other parts of the country ( and in particular in London) if you so much as think about putting a wheel on the kerb you wil have the gestapo crawling all over you.

 

As a commuter parker, I am often at odds with unfair restrictions, but in this case it would appear the residents wanted rid of commuter parking, the council have obliged at the nominal cost of £13 p.a. , the OP has decided not to buy a permit as he has a driveway ( I presume without a bay painted in front of it ?) and has been caught by a jobsworth with no common sense or latitude for discreton.

 

Good luck with it by the way, I think the fees and fines are out of proportion ( and that last extra 50% to make it £180 pounds is an absolutely ridiculous and bullying tactic)

 

Best wishes

[pin1onu]

AIUI On kerb parking is not permitted in London but is allowed outside of London.

[patdavies]

AIUI On kerb parking is not permitted in London but is allowed outside of London.

Unless signed otherwise

[spellboy]

I've been following this with interest, and I'm still confused as to how a council can use the pavement for parking on ! AND how they can create parking bays across dropped driveways ?

 

If I was legally parked in my driveway (accessed via a dropped kerb) and someone paid the council a fee to park in a bay across my access thus restricting my freedom and ability to use my vehicle I would be bloody fuming !!

 

As a commuter parker, I am often at odds with unfair restrictions, but in this case it would appear the residents wanted rid of commuter parking, the council have obliged at the nominal cost of £13 p.a. , the OP has decided not to buy a permit as he has a driveway ( I presume without a bay painted in front of it ?) and has been caught by a jobsworth with no common sense or latitude for discreton.

 

Good luck with it by the way, I think the fees and fines are out of proportion ( and that last extra 50% to make it £180 pounds is an absolutely ridiculous and bullying tactic)

 

Best wishes

 

Thank you for your good wishes. Fortunately I have a single yellow line outside my drive, although that has not stopped people parking there sometimes.

Funny thing is that I have never seen a CEO issue a ticket to anyone who has parked across my drive. However I don't worry if they do park as long as it's only for a short time. It's a case of using one's common sense.

 

The letter of rejection, to my interpretation states that the LA decided it is entitled to fine me because in their view I broke the rules (if only for 60 seconds). Rules are rules and there is no discretion applied for the short period of my alleged contravention.

 

However when I point out that, with regard to the sign, markings and spaces, they have not complied with the Statutory requirements in 15 out of 19 situations they seem to suggest that it's OK to ignore the rules.

 

Isn't this a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it?

Edited July 31, 2009 by spellboy

[spellboy]

I obtained the following information from another source

 

Rejection of representations against notice to owner

 

 

6.—(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall—

(a)

state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)

the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)

the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;

 

(b)

indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs; and

 

©

describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.

 

In the third paragrah of the LA’s rejection letter they state this

 

 

To summarise it states that a Charge certificate will be served 28 days from the date of service of the rejection letter unless I appeal within that 28 day period.

Am I correct in thinking that they should have stated “Remember you have 28 days beginning with the date of service of this letter

 

 

However in the next paragraph they state

 

 

Which states if I do not appeal then I have to pay the Penalty Charge within 21 days from date of service. Then it states they may serve a Charge Certificate to increase the fine by 50% However they do not give a time period for that.

 

To my understanding the statement that “you must pay the Penalty Charge……………..within 21 days from date of service” is wrong and it should be “ before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service”

 

Also the letter failed to mention the Adjudicator's power to award costs.

 

I am thinking that maybe I should write to the LA making these observations. I could state that I will be adding a representation of ‘procedural impropriety’ with regard to the fact that the errors in the rejection letter render it invalid.

 

Hopefully they will cancel the charge and the adjudication will not be necessary.

Edited August 6, 2009 by spellboy

[spellboy]

My adjudication hearing is set for 12/12/2009.

In September I left to visit relatives in Australia returning on 28/11/2009.

I found the following letter in the post when I got back along with copies of TMO and photos of my car parked in the bay.

 

 

As I have stated previously their position appears to be that they admit the bay isn’t marked out correctly. However that does not matter, in their opinion, because it’s clear that it’s a parking bay.

 

 

From Pat Davies’ earlier comments the “Case law removes any test of reasonableness for road signage (which includes lines). The case is Davies v Heatley; if the signs are not as prescribed then they cease to have effect.”

 

That and the fact that the LA incorrectly worded their rejection letter may help me.

 

Any other suggestions would be most welcome.