Car towed away whilst on holiday

[Planner1]

The idea that "more than 3 days notice" simply isn't possible is ridiculous.

Amey would argue that they do give more notice.

 

There are advance roadshows in each area, there are letters to each property advising when the works will be done, which usually arrive 2 weeks before. Then there are notices on street giving dates of works.

 

Unless they are going to give more than 2 weeks notice using the on-street notices, they will always catch out some people who are going on holiday and vehicles are always going to get towed because people forget or don't see the notices.

 

---------- Post added 18-12-2016 at 08:18 ----------

 

What we are objecting to is the system that forces individuals, that are entitled to non-payment, having to stump up a large fee to get back what is rightfully theirs and then having to jump through hoops to get that fee back.

That is simply wrong and should be changed.

 

The aren't "entitled" to non payment.

 

Their vehicle is in contravention of a legally enforceable traffic regulation order so they can legitimately be issued with a PCN and be towed.

 

They may have a mitigation that the council could accept and use their discretion to cancel the penalty, but it is just that, discretion.

 

Because the process involves a PCN, any appeal has to go through a regulated process.

 

The real problem is that the Council have a backlog of PCN appeals which they deal with in order of receipt. It can therefore take a couple of months for a tow away appeal to be dealt with.

 

The only way the council could improve that process is to employ more people to deal with the appeals, so there is less of a backlog, which costs money.

[Guest sibon]

A couple of years ago, I had a PCN cancelled on the spot. No appeal, no need to pay up front. The real reason was that the machine had wrongly stamped the time on my ticket. The reason I was given in writing was that two tickets had been issued in the same number, so mine was being cancelled. A bizarre bit of council double speak, but proof that PCNs aren't necessarily enforced.

 

I see no reason why they can't work out a way of dealing with parked cars in a civilised manner, rather than hiding behind some arcane rules.

[Cyclone]

Amey would argue that they do give more notice.

 

There are advance roadshows in each area, there are letters to each property advising when the works will be done, which usually arrive 2 weeks before. Then there are notices on street giving dates of works.

 

Unless they are going to give more than 2 weeks notice using the on-street notices, they will always catch out some people who are going on holiday and vehicles are always going to get towed because people forget or don't see the notices.

 

So Amey would actually be lying wouldn't they.

 

A leaflet warning that "some time in the future" is useless. You can't avoid going on holiday or to London for a week "some time in the future".

We've already established that not everyone is receiving a letter.

And we've established that street notices are being put up at short notice and routinely altered after being put up.

[Klondike Kid]

Amey would argue that they do give more notice.

 

 

 

There are advance roadshows in each area, there are letters to each property advising when the works will be done, which usually arrive 2 weeks before. Then there are notices on street giving dates of works.

 

Unless they are going to give more than 2 weeks notice using the on-street notices, they will always catch out some people who are going on holiday and vehicles are always going to get towed because people forget or don't see the notices.

 

---------- Post added 18-12-2016 at 08:18 ----------

 

 

The aren't "entitled" to non payment.

 

Their vehicle is in contravention of a legally enforceable traffic regulation order so they can legitimately be issued with a PCN and be towed.

 

They may have a mitigation that the council could accept and use their discretion to cancel the penalty, but it is just that, discretion.

 

Because the process involves a PCN, any appeal has to go through a regulated process.

 

The real problem is that the Council have a backlog of PCN appeals which they deal with in order of receipt. It can therefore take a couple of months for a tow away appeal to be dealt with.

 

The only way the council could improve that process is to employ more people to deal with the appeals, so there is less of a backlog, which costs money.

 

What else would you expect them to say?

[Planner1]

A couple of years ago, I had a PCN cancelled on the spot. No appeal, no need to pay up front. The real reason was that the machine had wrongly stamped the time on my ticket. The reason I was given in writing was that two tickets had been issued in the same number, so mine was being cancelled. A bizarre bit of council double speak, but proof that PCNs aren't necessarily enforced.

 

I see no reason why they can't work out a way of dealing with parked cars in a civilised manner, rather than hiding behind some arcane rules.

 

Where was that? In Sheffield?

 

They have to abide by the law and after taking appropriate advice, this is the way that's felt best to deal with it. It isn't perfect. Nothing could be.

 

---------- Post added 18-12-2016 at 13:04 ----------

 

So Amey would actually be lying wouldn't they.

 

A leaflet warning that "some time in the future" is useless. You can't avoid going on holiday or to London for a week "some time in the future".

We've already established that not everyone is receiving a letter.

And we've established that street notices are being put up at short notice and routinely altered after being put up.

 

As I understand it, the normal practice is to send out a letter to all affected properties two weeks before planned commencement.

 

There's nothing wrong with changing the dates on the street signs if they give the right length of notice before commencing work.

 

In any letter drop, it's possible someone is missed. But how does anyone prove that?

 

I have had experience where people swore blind that they had not received a letter, when I knew they had, because I put it in their letterbox and noted that I had. The sad truth is that some people will lie because they think it will help their case.

[Cyclone]

And "the right length of notice" should be defined as more than 3 days. 2 weeks seems reasonable, 7 days is borderline, anything less is not acceptable.

[Planner1]

And "the right length of notice" should be defined as more than 3 days. 2 weeks seems reasonable, 7 days is borderline, anything less is not acceptable.

 

Even using those timescales, people would still get towed.

 

Those timescales may be acceptable to you. They aren't currently to Amey or the Council.

 

I'd suggest contacting your councillors if you want anything to change.

 

And, don't forget, if a longer notice period meant Amey incurred extra costs, no doubt it would need to be paid for by the council with YOUR money.

[Penistone999]

The only way the council could improve that process is to employ more people to deal with the appeals, so there is less of a backlog, which costs money.

 

Stop targeting motorists with tickets and there wouldnt be a backlog of appeals.

 

Its hardly rocket science is it ?

 

---------- Post added 18-12-2016 at 14:25 ----------

 

Even using those timescales, people would still get towed.

 

Those timescales may be acceptable to you. They aren't currently to Amey or the Council.

 

I'd suggest contacting your councillors if you want anything to change.

 

And, don't forget, if a longer notice period meant Amey incurred extra costs, no doubt it would need to be paid for by the council with YOUR money.

 

The council are Amey`s lap dog and do as they are told

[andyofborg]

Stop targeting motorists with tickets and there wouldnt be a backlog of appeals.

 

If motorists behaved in a manner consistent with the law then they wouldn't get tickets

 

Its hardly rocket science is it ?

 

but as you believe you are above the law i guess it is

[Mr Bloke]

As I understand it, the normal practice is to send out a letter to all affected properties two weeks before planned commencement.

 

There's nothing wrong with changing the dates on the street signs if they give the right length of notice before commencing work.

 

In any letter drop, it's possible someone is missed. But how does anyone prove that?

 

I have had experience where people swore blind that they had not received a letter, when I knew they had, because I put it in their letterbox and noted that I had. The sad truth is that some people will lie because they think it will help their case.

Hmmm...

 

... I've got a bit of an issue with this!

 

Either we're all wasting our time by discussing this with someone who appears to be no more than a lowly council admin person, or the council are paying highly qualified people to do menial tasks like wandering the streets to personally post parking fines through our doors!

 

Does anyone have any idea which one it might be?