Mrs B was in Leeds during the week attending a conference. Her car was left on Woodhouse Lane multi-storey car park for the duration and she used busses/taxis between hotel and venue. Paid daily using paperless on-line/app systems and has the receipts etc to confirm this.
Only after arriving home did she find a PCN issued by Leeds City Council at 20:18 on 14-09-16 for 'failure to display'. The 'lingo's wipers sit below the bonnet line so it wasn't visible from the driving seat.
Needless to say it will be contested.
This stuff comes up frequently at CAB and the last Civil Service job covered some aspects of civil parking enforcement - mostly the adjudication process. It's a bit of a specialised subject for me and am quite keen to 'user test' the Traffic Penalty Tribunal!!
Representations will go to the Council today and I'll update this thread with progress.
If it all goes breasts up I might be sharing a cell with Iffy........
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Sep 16 at 09:15
|
|
He must be out by now. You'd think anyway.😉
|
|
He was released but stopped off at Motorway Services on his way home from jail and overstayed the free 2 hours. They threw the book at him I'm afraid. Now in maximum security wing.
|
|
That caravan must be covered in leaves by now.
|
>> This stuff comes up frequently at CAB and the last Civil Service job covered some
>> aspects of civil parking enforcement - mostly the adjudication process. It's a bit of a
>> specialised subject for me and am quite keen to 'user test' the Traffic Penalty Tribunal!!
I hope you don't "tell them who you are".
Just go through the procedure as a normal punter.
|
>> I hope you don't "tell them who you are".
I wouldn't dream of it.
Minor issue if it goes to the Tribunal as I've met the Chief Adjudicator and several of her colleagues in the business of my Civil Service job. Might need to mention it to the admin before attending a hearing.
But that's about avoiding embarrassment or professional conflict not 'who I am'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Sep 16 at 11:45
|
Looking more carefully at the app confirmation of the booking it's apparent her registration on their parkmobile app is wrong. Personal plate LOV21 has shown as LOVE21.Must be auto correct that changed it. The number has been in her family since 1951, originally her Mother's - she couldn't have got it wrong
Will have to see how Council react.
|
Appeal sent to council via their website.
Will post outcome in due course.
|
|
Can't now recall what programme it was, maybe BBC's Inside Out, but it was a piece on paying at meters where you have to enter the vehicle registration number. The display on these machines are often difficult to read either because the display is faint, scratched, has the sun shining on it, or just that the users eyesight isn't 100%. The operator was a private company, so maybe different to council, but the their take was tough, you should know your registration number and check you have entered it correctly.
|
|
I'm half expecting a 'tough' response on this one.
|
|
Assuming it was a result of your wife's auto-correct, the fact they issued a parking ticket for an invalid plate might be another tack. Happy enough to take the money for parking, despite an error might be an angle to pursue.
|
|
If you put in the wring number plate I think the company should view it sympathetically, but at the end of the day it's user error. I wouldn't say that it's "totally inequitable" (taking it that you mean unfair...)
|
>> If you put in the wring number plate
>>
I can see your problem, smokie.
|
>>If you put in the wring number plate I think the company should view it sympathetically, >>but at the end of the day it's user error. I wouldn't say that it's "totally inequitable" ???>>(taking it that you mean unfair...)
It is far from a perfect world, but in both Bromp's and the reported incident the fee had actually been paid.
If the fine had been levied because a fee had not been paid then I could understand the holding up the fine. Perhaps a middle ground would be a £15 admin fee but not the £100 penalty.
|
>> Perhaps a middle ground would be a £15 admin fee but not the £100 penalty.
From the BBC article...
"They initially offered to reduce the fine to £20, which they said was needed to cover their administrative costs"
|
Why dont these robbers start start putting other requirements on their terms and conditions like
"All cars parked will have tyres fitted with a minimum of 4mm of tread depth" etc etc. ?
|
It all seems a bit ridiculous to me.
If someone charges for people to park on their land then there should be a limit both to how much that they can charge per hour, and how much they can charge for infringement.
If someone simply parks on your land which is not ever used as a car park, you should be able to clamp them and charge them £1000 just so long as there is a very visible sign saying "don't park here".
But this idea that you can be happy for someone to park on your land for £2.00 per hour, but a 30minute overstay suddenly warrants a charge of £100 just simply shouldn't be allowed.
|
E mail from Leeds Council today to say PCN upheld. We should now either pay up or await Notice to Owner and go down formal appeal route.
Refusal nothing to do with number plate confusion. They've identified the payments she made by phone for days one and three of her visit but assert no payment on day two.
Days one and three were paid using and automated telephone service but day two used an 'app' on her tablet while sitting in a lecture. She ended up with two accounts with 'Park Mobile' who provide the payment service for the Council. Looks as though parking services have not done their checking properly and only found one.
Written them a polite e-mail pointing out the omission and supplying a reference number for the second account.
Suspect though they'll say I've had my bite at the informal cherry and will have to go to next stage.
|
Success!
Email from Leeds City Council this morning:
I note your comments and after checking with park mobile I can see that parking was indeed activated.
I have considered everything in your letter and I am prepared to cancel the PCN on this occasion. You should hear no more about this matter but the Parking Services department may not be able to cancel future PCNs issued in similar situations.
Bridle slightly, given the circumstances, at the bit about future PCNs but as I've used template letters and snipquotes myself in various jobs I can see how it comes to be there.
|
Nothing wrong with using standard paragraphs in letter, if they fit. Far too many repliers though leave something in that strongly implies they've not fully read the original letter, thus breaking rule one of customer service letter writing.
(I wrote a booklet on this, and offer it for free if appropriate).
|
Wrongly Issued PCN - Runfer D'Hills
