Long question about trivial matter I?m afraid. Conference in Bath last Friday, parked in Cattle Market, £4 in meter to pay from 9.16 to 13.16. Went out at 13.04 and put in another £3 to take me to 16.04. Unfortunately didn?t realise that the meter had rejected (though I didn?t hear or see it in reject tray) my final 20p. Therefore paid £2.80 but was only credited with 2 hours (meter must only credit complete £s). I just saw the 04 on the ticket (thinks, must be in car by 4 mins past the hour) and assumed it was 16.04 but it was 15.04. Got to car at 15.30, thinking I was half hour early to find parking attendant writing ticket. Explained situation and she said I should appeal on the basis that I had paid for 2.8 hours in the afternoon (ticket says I paid £2.80) but used less that 2.5 hours.
I appealed; turned down, told it was my responsibility to check ticket (yes I know, but I made a mistake, but I did pay for more than the time used, I wasn?t trying to rob you of your fees).
Now, I can either cough up £30 and get it over with or wait for a Notice To Owner (that?s me again) and appeal again to Council, if turned down I can appeal then to the Independent Parking Adjudicator Service. Of course, since I have not paid up within 28 days the discounted rate of £30 no longer applies, and the charge (don?t they mean fine??) is £60.
At last the questions
a) is it worth all the hassle to appeal?
b) Do I stand any chance of the appeal succeeding?
c) Should I just say, sod it and pay up? (And of course, send a Mr Angry letter with the cheque questioning the parentage of the Bath Parking Services representations Officer!)
If I do appeal, it?s not so much the £30, it?s a matter of principle ? I paid for 2.8 hours but only used 2.5 yet they want to fine me.
Your opinions please (if you can be bothered!!!)
Phil
|
You're going to lose.
Just pay up and put it down to experience.
Sorry.
|
|
|
I have recently appealed against a parking fine, so have some experience of the system.
It seems that the council will always reject your appeal however valid (they did with mine) it is only once the appeal goes to the adjudicator that your appeal is seriously considered. When the council were presented with my evidence from the adjudicator they dropped the fine immediately, probably didn't want to be proved cheats and liars.
The more letters you write to the council the more evidence they will supply you with in their replies, often contradicting themselves. The council will write allsorts of drivel in the hope that you will just cave-in and pay, but if you take it to the adjudicator and have a reasonable case (which you do) you will probably win (60% or more are successful).
Here are couple of websites you may find useful:
www.parkingticket.co.uk/
www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/
www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~wjk/parking.html
I found this section on key cases particularly useful in gauging chances of success
www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/key_cases.asp#...h
Good luck
|
|
|
Phil,
The adjudicators are a fair and genuinly independent. But they can only decide appeals in accordance with the law, there's not much latitude/discretion in hard luck cases. Have good look at the NPAS website and that of their London counterparts.
If you've a good case and particularly if you attend a hearing rather than ask for it on the apapers you've got a pretty good chance. You don't need to go back to Bath, they may hear an appeal in the East Midlands if it suits you and they have a hearing venue there for local cases.
HTH
|
Phil
Take on board the posts above, but I would look at it like this.
If you can afford the £30 and are not really concerned about the principle of the matter and just want to close the case, the pay it.
However, if you feel you want to make the point and avoid paying the £30 if you can, which would probably be how I would feel, then by all means go to the adjudicator. After all are you really going to set out to deprive them of 20pence parking?
Several years ago I parked in Coventry whilst my g/f, best mate and his sister went to see a film. When I came out I found a ticket on the car. I phoned them up and explained that Leicester City Council (where I lived) didn't charge for parking after hours, I failed to see the sign, and having spent the best part of £30 for cinema tickets and a bite to eat for all of us, I wasn't really concerned about saving a few pence on parking.
They waived the fine!
|
Can't better Hugo's advice.
Appeal court case reported in this BBC link news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4447020.stm exemplifies the areas where adjudicators cannot accept hard luck stories.
|
|
|
Thanks for your well considered replies (yes, even Doc's "You'll lose" qualifies!)
Letter from parking Representations Office says "no telephoning" and "further unsolicited correspondence will be filed pending the issue of the NTO"
I will now have a look at the sites recommended and then ponder.
Mr Angry letters composed but "filed pending a decision on what to do"!
Thanks again
Phil
|
Contact the local newspaper - they love these sort of stories, especially as readers get equally angry over parking fines and the publicity doesn't do the council the slightest favour; even more so in the case of visitors to the town who spread the word about the fact they will never pay a visit again.
Main local paper is the Bath Chronicle:
www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163053...e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I do appeal, it?s not so much the £30, it?s a matter of principle
Forget about principles, think money. If it will cost more than £30 to appeal, then don't. And remember that if there's a chance that your appeal will be unsuccessful then you could end up throwing good money after bad. There's no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Phil
You tried your best to conform.
You should consider taking it all along the line to the Adjudicator. It should cost you nothing but a bit of your time and postage. The Penalty charge will be put on hold until such time as matters are resolved.
It has been reported that a fair proportion of those that take this route are successful.
dvd
|
Whoops.
One thing I failed to mention is that you should confirm that 'feeding the meter' is allowed. Some areas having paid for a parking session then no return allowed within 2 hours kicks in. Did the Attendant say anything about this?
dvd
|
A couple of years ago I was 20p short of the £2 needed and tried £1.80 hoping that was close enough but the machine wouldn't accept it. I asked an attendant if they could provide change and they said pay the 50p motorbike fee, they said that would be Ok and it was.
Its nice when that sort of thing happens.
|
The case of: Robin Decrittenden v Worcester City Council was heard at the Fownes Hotel in Worcester on Friday 18th November 2005 by Mr. Prickett of the National Parking Adjudication Service, the 'Independent' Tribunal that receive 60p from every Penalty Charge Notice issued.
The hearing in Worcester was the first public airing of the use of the Bill of Rights Defence against a Penalty Charge Notice issued, in this instance, under Worcester City Council's decriminalised parking enforcement regime.
Two hundred members of the public packed the venue.
The potential of the case is that it could expose the fact that the Government, and Local Authorities operating decriminalised parking enforcement regimes, are acting unlawfully. The consequence could be that they have no legal authority to impose 'fines' thereby threatening a massive source of revenue which is now approaching £1,000,000,000 per annum!
The Tribunal heard evidence that the Bill of Rights 1689 is a constitutional statute that has not been 'expressly' repealed by the 'ordinary' statute, the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
This requirement for ordinary Acts of Parliament was confirmed in the judgment of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council heard in the High Court in February 2002 and commonly referred to as 'The Metric Martyrs Judgment.'
Fundamental to the case against Decriminalised Parking Fines was that the Bill of Rights states:
"that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement does not allow access to a Court of Law.
The Tribunal heard evidence of many instances of failures by the NPAS to request evidence from Local Authorities and failing to inspect evidence, yet still they still against many motorists.
Evidence also was cited, which included cases in Sunderland where £35,000 has had to be repaid to motorists with another £2.5m pending. Rochdale Council has issued over 28,000 Penalty Charge Notices with unlawful wording and the sum which will have to be paid back is over £660,000. In many instances NPAS had wrongly adjudicated.
Evidence was submitted to the Tribunal which exposed the Chief Adjudicator making prejudicial remarks about the Bill of Rights defence exposing a bias against ANY appellant.
The Tribunal also heard of manipulation and altering of NPAS and Government websites to remove the word 'fine' and replace it with 'charge' and it appears that Mr. Prickett, when making reference to the Bill of Rights, conveniently omits the 'and forfeitures' in a further attempt at obfuscation (if a PCN is not a fine then it is most certainly a forfeiture).
Mr. Prickett allowed the appeal but on a technicality...that Worcester Council had conveniently failed to supply any evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order. If that was the case then the hearing should have taken two minutes and not four hours.
It is therefore the intention to appeal the successful appeal to the High Court on a point of law in order to expose the fact that ALL decriminalised parking fines are unlawful and ALL motorists are being unlawfully persecuted by local authorities operating decriminalised parking schemes.
Robin Decrittenden states,"They are running away because they know the law is bigger than they are hence the situation in Worcester where the Adjudicator admitted that he had failed to inspect Council documentation in the past but is now saying that Councils have the job of proving their case."
People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "This is the first head on conflict exposing the highly suspect Metric Martyrs Judgment. If the Judgment is correct then decriminalised parking fines cannot be levied. Alternatively, the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted. It is our intention to put an end to the unacceptable and unaccountable governance and this decriminalised parking is simply an unlawful stealth tax on the motorist."
|
A google on Mr Decrittenden is rather interesting. Quite honest and open that he's using DPE as a trojan horse for his wider, mostly anti EU, political objectives.
|
|
|
Mr Decrittenden won his appeal. I cannot see how he can appeal against his own success, even if he won on grounds he did not expect, or want.
Worcester City Council could appeal but I rather suspect they might not.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for input DVD (and others below). Yes I did check that feeding was allowed by reading the regulations carefully - there was nothing to say "max 4 hours, no return within.....etc" As I was reading this, there was a parking attendant (not the one that booked me) checking cars and I asked if it was allowed - he said yes.
Also having seen that cars were checked made me realise that I mustn't exceed time or I could get done. Unfortunately, I was not careful enough in checking that money and time had registered correctly!!
Phil
|
|
I had a parking problem in Kensington and Chelsea who have the most draconian and unforgiving parking regulations in the world. I appealed to the council who rejected my appeal - as they will. However, within a week of my appealing to the panel of adjudicators the council withdrew the penalty, presumably on the basis that it would cost them money to fight it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
