Parking Tickets

[chrismc]

That's the question, what DO you do? In Blackpool's case, Neil Herron MP is fighting this council amongst others (all the details are in the other "Your parking ticket may be unlawful" thread), when I get chance I am going to find out at what stage NPAS get involved because none of the correspondence I have had from Blackpool Council even mentioins the NPAS service - surely we have a right to know that such a service exists?

 

Blackpool's method is to reject the appeal, double the fine to £60, ignore further letters, send it to Northampton Magistrates Court and register it as a debt (at which point it goes up to £90) then send in the bailiffs. As yet I don't know where this is going because the bailiffs can't get in my house and can't (legally) take my car so they're certainly not getting paid.

So if they send it to Northampton and register it as a debt do they also take it as far as a CCJ.....there is nothing they can do if you won't pay the bailiffs, but if they also affect your credit (no matter whether it was good/bad before) then there has to be a way of getting back at them. They deserve everything they get back in return.

 

Its a disgrace they are getting away with these Dick Turpin style actions.

[Evington]

Used the Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145 in court today 16/01/07.

 

Prosecution a little taken back. They do not like nobodies throwing case law at them.

 

Double yellow lines with no loading restriction had a gap of 11" 6' where road had been repaired and yellow lines not replaced.

 

I had photos and copies of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The outcome was prosecution offered no evidence, I asked for and got £130 compo as it was the third time in court.

If you use photographs as evidence you must take the negitives to court to show you have not messed with the photos.

Evington

[seylectric]

Well done, Evington.

 

Interesting point there, you mentioned "negatives" in relation to photos. It has always been my understanding that digital photos were not admissable as evidence in court because they could be easily tampered with (this is correct, you can get software cheaply or easily, probably got some with your digital camera) which you can use to alter photographs, enhance them or enrich the colours for example, or change your car restistration number!

 

Traffic Wardens began taking photos, usually with a digital camera, to prove the contravention had taken place after thousands of defeats in the courts because they offered no evidence if you disputed the case.

 

But if digital photos are non-admissable as evidence surely the same rule still applies? Same applies to speed camera pics, early cameras had standard rolls of film but newer ones have digital cameras. If they are using digital cameras surely these are inadmissible as eveidence in which case they have no proof that the "event" ever happened? Are we being "had over" again here or has the law changed regarding the admission of digital pics in court?

[patdavies]

You have a good point about PAs taking digital pictures. However parking adjudicators are not a court of law, so the same rules of evidence do not apply.

 

As to digital speed cameras, these do not merely record but immediately transmit the image to the scamerati to issue the NIP. The whole process is automated and type-approved as a system. The type-approval is a strong argument as to the validity of the digital photographs and provides that the system is tamper-proof.

 

IOW, digital photographs are not normally admissible (although the Magistrates may rule on this by individual case). However, presenting evidence to the Court (by way of a S20 certificate) that the system is type-approved by the Home Office as being tamper-proof makes such photographs admissible.

[patdavies]

That's the question, what DO you do? In Blackpool's case, Neil Herron MP is fighting this council amongst others (all the details are in the other "Your parking ticket may be unlawful" thread), when I get chance I am going to find out at what stage NPAS get involved because none of the correspondence I have had from Blackpool Council even mentioins the NPAS service - surely we have a right to know that such a service exists?

 

Blackpool's method is to reject the appeal, double the fine to £60, ignore further letters, send it to Northampton Magistrates Court and register it as a debt (at which point it goes up to £90) then send in the bailiffs. As yet I don't know where this is going because the bailiffs can't get in my house and can't (legally) take my car so they're certainly not getting paid.

 

The sequence of events is as follows:

1. PCN issued
   
2. Informal appeal to council
   
3. Informal appeal rejected (almost invariably)
   
4. Notice to Owner, which should give details of PATAS/NPAS for formal appeal
   
5. If no formal appeal then Charge Certificate

The council are supposed* to provide details and appeal forms with the NTO for a fromal appeal to the adjudicator service (PATAS for London, NPAS elsewhere)

 

(*I will check elsewhere and post back as to whether this is stronger than 'supposed' ie required.)

[Evington]

went to court 16/01/07, double yellow lines were not continuous as they had a break in them of 11" 6'. Quoted "The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002" & Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145.

Case won. Asked for and got £130 costs

One up for the little man

Evington

 

 

 

[JonCris]

You have a good point about PAs taking digital pictures. However parking adjudicators are not a court of law, so the same rules of evidence do not apply.

 

As to digital speed cameras, these do not merely record but immediately transmit the image to the scamerati to issue the NIP. The whole process is automated and type-approved as a system. The type-approval is a strong argument as to the validity of the digital photographs and provides that the system is tamper-proof.

 

IOW, digital photographs are not normally admissible (although the Magistrates may rule on this by individual case). However, presenting evidence to the Court (by way of a S20 certificate) that the system is type-approved by the Home Office as being tamper-proof makes such photographs admissible.

 

I think someone in Bury, Lancs would disagree with that statement

[patdavies]

I think someone in Bury, Lancs would disagree with that statement

 

Sorry, I don't follow your somewhat cryptic comment???

[JonCris]

Sorry, I don't follow your somewhat cryptic comment???

 

I'm referring to the recent case when an NCP 'employee' who act for Bury, Lancs submitted doctored photos.. It was spotted because in the two supposedly taken hours apart the clouds hadn't moved or even changed shape.

 

It made all the national press

[patdavies]

In that case, AFAIK, the pictures were from a standard digital camera and there was no claim of type approval.

 

Thus an illustration as to why Courts are very reluctant to accept evidence from digital cameras

[Cheesefreek]

I've just joined - so I'm sure similar has been posted before. I sent the email below to the Parking Services on behalf of my husband when he was issued with a ticket:

 

"With regard to the above numbered parking ticket, issued on 20 December 2006, on St Mathias Park (St Judes) Bristol, I would like to officially appeal against this.

 

This is a blocked off one way street, and can only be entered the wrong way to approach a building site, where I was working.

 

The double yellow lines are broken and therefore invalid. (I took a picture

of said lines on my mobile phone).

 

Because of the above, could you please revoke my ticket as soon as possible."

 

Their reply was:

 

"I refer to the representations, recently made by you, in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

Having had the opportunity to consider the facts surrounding this case I am of the opinion that the notice was issued correctly as your vehicle was observed parked on a double yellow line during its hours of operation. The purpose of a double yellow line is to inform a driver that a vehicle has not to be parked in this position, during its hours of operation. The hours of operation for a double yellow line are 24 hours a day 7 days a week and do not require any time plate to be present, unless the hours of operation are different from the above.

 

Although you say the yellow lines are broken, if there is any indication of

yellow lines, then you must not park in this location.

 

In view of the above, I can see no justification to withdraw this penalty charge notice and would advise that payment of the penalty charge is made, as detailed on the attached payment slip

 

If your payment is received within 14 days from the date of this letter the

discounted penalty charge of £30 will still be accepted. Failure to pay within 14 days from the date of this letter, will result in the withdrawal of the discounted penalty charge offer and the issue of a Notice to Owner (NTO) to the registered keeper of the vehicle, on which the Penalty Charge Notice was served, requiring payment of the full charge of £60.

 

Alternatively, you may return the appropriate section of the NTO with your formal Representations against the PCN."

 

Do you think we still have an appeal against this? Thanks for advice.

[Evington]

They always turn you down when you first write.

You need to go back to the location that the ticket was issued and take photos with a normal camera (not digital). Have two copies made send they a copy with a further letter stating.

With regards to the above PCN issued to my vehicle I would like to remind you that you have a statutory obligation to maintain the lines and signs under section 18(1)(b) of the regulations 1996 and DPE maintained by local Councils.

Where my vehicle was parked the double yellow lines are broken. (Picture enclosed.)

Therefore the relevant TMO is invalid, as you have failed in your statutory obligation to maintain the lines/signs.

 

May I respectfully remind you in numerous other cases even though a reasonable man may see the lines to be valid any part of DPE that does not comply with the RTA is void and unenforceable.

 

I now respectfully request that you cancel the above-alleged contravention by the way of letter of confirmation.

 

As you are fully aware of your statutory duty to maintain the lines for the TMO to be valid any further demands for money from you will be considered to be harassment and as such a complaint will be made to the local Police.

If this case escalates I will of course claim both costs and also for the undue stress you have caused me.

With reference to the Harassment Act 1997 as you are aware of your statutory duty which you have not fulfilled, any further demand also for money will be construed as demanding money with menace and will be treated as such.

Yours

There has been case law on this matter. The one that covers this is;

Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 QBD 4th Feb 1971

 

 

Hope this is of some help

 

 

Evington

 

[Cheesefreek]

Thanks so much Evington. I'll give this a try and keep fingers crossed. I'll post the outcome on this site.

[patdavies]

They always turn you down when you first write.

 

You need to go back to the location that the ticket was issued and take photos with a normal camera (not digital). Have two copies made send they a copy with a further letter stating.

 

With regards to the above PCN issued to my vehicle I would like to remind you that you have a statutory obligation to maintain the lines and signs under section 18(1)(b) of the regulations 1996 and DPE maintained by local Councils.

Where my vehicle was alleged to be parked the double yellow lines are broken. (Picture enclosed.) The TSRGD (2002) specifically states that the lines must be unbroken and that no variations are allowed

Therefore the relevant lines are invalid.

 

May I respectfully remind you in the case of Davies v Heatley(1971), which sets binding precedent, it was held that even though a reasonable man may recognise the lines, if they failed to comply with the regulations then no offence was committed.

I now respectfully request that you cancel the above-alleged contravention by the way of letter of confirmation.

 

If this case escalates I will of course claim both costs and also for the undue stress you have caused me.

With reference to the Harassment Act 1997 as you are aware of your statutory duty which you have not fulfilled, any further demand also for money will be construed as demanding money with menace and will be treated as such.

 

Yours

 

There has been case law on this matter. The one that covers this is;

Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 QBD 4th Feb 1971

 

 

 

Hope this is of some help

 

 

 

Evington

 

 

Evingtom,

 

I have taken the liberty of re-styling your answer. I felt yours rambled a bit and was not concise regarding the facts of the requirement for the lines ot be compliant

[Evington]

The T-Bar has to be at the end of a restriction. However if the one restriction is immediately followed by another no T-Bar is required. Example of double yellow lines being immediately followed by a pay and display parking bays, no T-Bar is required. There has been a case about this and the appeal was turned down.

The regulation that covers the road markings is;

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

The contravention did not occur; specifically that the restriction is not signed as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the TSRGDs). References in this representation to Road Markings refer to that statutory instrument (2002/3113).

 

 

 

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145

Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

 

 

2) Why the signing/road marking is non - prescribed

Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS. The road markings numbered 1017/1018.1 are a continuous line terminating with T Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous and do not have the required T Bar endings, therefore Varying from the prescribed regulation.

Quote from CPS website

The expression `traffic sign' is defined in section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the colour, size and type of signs are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.

Evington

[Cheesefreek]

Wonderful news - with your help, I got this reply to the letter you suggested I sent patdavies and evington.

 

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF REPRESENTATION

 

I refer to the representations, recently made by you, in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

After careful consideration of your comments and the facts surrounding this contravention, I am willing, on this occasion, to accept your representation for the withdrawal of this Penalty Charge Notice.

 

In view of this decision, I have arranged for the cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice.

 

Thanks folks - much appreciated

[less2303]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group