3 March 2015

Not so smart in the City of London


The City of London must be getting a bit short of cash as they sent a PCN in the post for parking as above, for one minute, whilst the driver went to find someone to open the gates. The entrance is just before the end of Old Fleet Lane as below.

Now this isn't the sort of place you would park on a Thursday afternoon hoping that you wouldn't inconvenience anybody when the entrance is also the exit to this car park.

The £130 PCN is, and this may surprise you, for code 62 "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any other part of a road other than a carriageway" and Mr Mustard can't be certain of convincing an adjudicator that the area where the car is to be found is carriageway although it clearly is for vehicles to pass over, rather than pedestrians, for the simple reason that the back of the car might have poked out over the natural line of the pavement. You can be ticketed anywhere between the two building lines for being on the pavement if you aren't clearly on the carriageway.

In this case the PCN has been sent in the post because the vehicle was driven off before the traffic warden had finished preparing the PCN. The City want proof from building security that this was into the car park but as their traffic warden hadn't finished preparing the PCN then presumably he/she knows which way the car went as they were standing next to it.

For postal PCN you get just the one chance to make representations. In response a council should then either accept or reject them. What the City have done is ask my client to provide evidence from building security that he did indeed enter the building on that day:
as if they will be able to remember who visited them by car a month ago
as if the same security guard will be on duty and 
as if my client has nothing better to do with his time than revisit the City from N3. 

Perhaps the City are trying to be helpful in offering my client the chance to provide further evidence or pay 50% in the 14 days since the date of the letter (which customarily should be 14 days from the date of service of the letter) but it is an unusual offer and outside of the legislation. What the rules state are that within 56 days of receipt the council must either accept or reject the representations and that they have not done so Mr Mustard thinks that the City have dropped a clanger.

What they should have done was to send a Notice of Rejection if they did not believe my client or cancel the PCN if either they did believe him or were going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr Mustard has to go now and email the City of London.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

No comments:

Post a Comment

I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.