Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Parking tribunal - Appeal granted in my favour.

8
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 3:59pm Angry Lewes Worker wrote:
I started a couple of threads about being given a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) one day when my ticket slipped out of view behind my dashboard whilst parked in the Pinwell Road car park.

I contested the PCN and elected to attend a tribunal with an independent adjudicator held in Rottingdean.

The adjudicator upheld my appeal, but not for the reasons I had expected. It seems that due to the way that the rotten Tories at East Sussex Country Council (or possibly the administrators of the evil Lewes parking scheme, NSL) have worded the terms and conditions it is enough to have displayed the ticket in the first place. Whether it stays in view or not does not matter!

Much fun could be had with that by the unscrupulous. :-)

Here's what the adjudicator wrote:

"The Council says The Appellant should have checked before leaving the vehicle. Hindsight will no doubt dictate such future conduct. It seeks a strict
interpretation of the requirement to display a ticket. It is of course entitled to so do. However in providing such a close examination it is evident that there is simply on the wording selected and used only a requirement to ‚??display‚?Ě.

Having satisfied that requirement there is nothing within the Article cited (or to which I am referred) that imposes a continuing obligation for the ticket to remain clearly displayed through out the period of parking. In deed the definition for ‚??relevant position‚?Ě is silent both as to such an obligation as well as the way in which the ticket should be displayed for example so that the ticket‚??s particulars are readily visible.

In seeking to interpret the TRO it is not appropriate that I insert words that have been omitted or considered unnecessary in order to prosecute the Council‚??s position.

I am satisfied and find that The Appellant displayed a ticket. Having fulfilled that condition it was immaterial that the ticket slipped behind the black strip at the apex of the windscreen and dash board. I find the requirements for parking in place were not contravened."

Link to one of the original threads below.

Check it out here »
 
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 4:10pm Southover Queen wrote:
Haha! Brilliant, ALW!

I suspect that in practice the adjudicator decided he believed you had paid and displayed honestly as you could show you had done many times before and found a way of letting you off. Fantastic two fingers up to this rotten council too.
2
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 4:26pm Merlin Milner wrote:
Well done. A printer must be getting a larger order for new parking ticket blanks as we talk!
6
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 4:28pm Dave wrote:
So to be clear, it seems there is no legal requirement to display the ticket the right way up either.
Oh goody
1
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 4:36pm Southover Queen wrote:
Can the ESCC appeal the decision? Does anyone know? As Merlin says it could be very expensive, since they'll have to change all the signage etc etc as well. It's their own fault for being so boorish in the first place.
6
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 4:38pm Angry Lewes Worker wrote:
I am certain you are right SQ. I presented the ticket in question as evidence and took along a 'very' large number of tickets bought at the same time on other days.
1
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 5:32pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Brilliant! Well done.
I'm going to save that wording for next time it happens to me.
I don't see how they could require you to ensure that your ticket remained clearly visible, tbh. You'd have to hang around your parked car and watch just in case it fell off.
I wonder if it's possible to find out how many appeals to the parking office are subsequnetly allowed at the tribunal, and how much it costs per case? And who bears that cost?
1
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:02pm Pete wrote:
Fantastic news ALW !! I see they've replaced the ticket machine in the car park behind the castle bowling green....rats !
2
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:07pm hooray wrote:
what this ajudicator is apparently saying, is what we all keep saying to our stinking, rotten greedy l parking dictatorship, that is that you have to be reasonable. Accidents happen, you bought a ticket, you could prove it, and any fair moral, and ethical person would simply just cancel the PCN (it was fair to issue it as the ticket had slipped off so was not visible). ESCC can't have it both ways, Rely on the crappiest thinest tickets that even a passing fly could blow off a dashboard, and also issue refuse to cancel tickets when these inadequate tickets float off. When are our Councillors going to start telling Officers that they need to run this crappy scheme fairly. This is our town, our County, and we pay for this scheme to be run on our terms. Instead we are still being bullied, 7 years after this flawed mess was introduced. Fairness is not happening, and it is only our Councillors who can do something about the behaviour of their own contractors, and officers. It should not be up to individuals to have to challenge tickets like this.
1
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:23pm Southover Queen wrote:
ACT, I think the overall statistics for successful appeals are very high. I have certainly successfully appealed a parking ticket in London, although if I recall correctly the council refunded the fine rather than allowing it to go to the adjudicator, presumably to avoid precisely this kind of outcome. It certainly does look as if the very best way of making sure that ESCC actually do review (rather than issuing absurd and meaningless "consultations") is to challenge each and every dodgy or mean ticket they issue. We will not be druv. Indeed: hear that, ESCC?
 
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:28pm hooray wrote:
i agree that wee may not be drug, but our Councillors are!
 
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:29pm hooray wrote:
i agree that wee may not be drug, but our Councillors are!
 
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:29pm hooray wrote:
i agree that wee may not be druv, but our Councillors are!
1
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:29pm hooray wrote:
i agree that we may not be druv, but our Councillors are!
 
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 6:30pm hooray wrote:
Webbo, feel free to delate the two failed attempts I had at posting that!
2
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 7:31pm basher wrote:
Either ESCC or the Parking Gestapo thought they had a money making trick by removing the adhesive strip from the ticket years ago. No doubt it meant the tickets were cheaper and they had another method of fleecing us. Thank goodness someone had seen through their low. life tricks.
3
 
On 17 Sep 2012 at 10:04pm Deelite wrote:
These people do not work for us
1
 
On 18 Sep 2012 at 7:30am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
No wonder the town doesn't see any of the profits from this scheme. There propbably aren't any because of the number of cases won before the adjudicator.
If it costs less than £100 in staff time etc for a case to go to the adjudicator, I'd be surprised.
1
 
On 18 Sep 2012 at 9:56am Boomtown rats wrote:
Its a rat trap Steve and youve been caught !
1
 
On 18 Sep 2012 at 12:42pm Dave wrote:
And so it stands to reason that anyone who has paid a fine for their ticket blowing off their dashboard can now claim the money back.

Why not pop in to the parking shop and ask them or write to
parkingpenalties@eastsussex.gov.uk
 
 
On 19 Sep 2012 at 10:37am JP wrote:
There is the chance of a ticket becoming obscured by snow, hail, falling leaves etc. so the requirement to display must be unsafe in prosecution.
 
 
On 19 Sep 2012 at 3:24pm Barbara wrote:
I had a friend (over 80 and ill with flu for three days in winter) and his parking permit slipped off - the window had steamed up, then got cold and the permit didn't stay on - and he was given a parking ticket for two days. As all permits are registered and logged etc it was easy to prove he had a permit but no, they tried to fine him. However, he refused to pay - this thing of paying straight away or the fine doubling is designed to make people pay without complaining. Anyway, he stuck it out and said he would go to a tribunal, but they eventually waived the fine. They must have known they would not win a tribunal hearing.


15 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter 26:132
Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter

Talk about misappropriation! The Rockefeller report that TP referenced is available for all to read. It envisages future... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams