Trees being chopped right now on Crawford Road!

[Planner1 428]

Would you have the right to any damages caused by the illegal towing of your vehicle? Seems that unless people start hitting the council in the pocket they will do as they please.

No automatic right to any compensation.

 

For cases which go to the independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the adjudicator can award some costs if the driver wins, but this is rare and tends to be the modest, like to cover the cost of transport to the hearing (if the driver opts for a personal hearing - it can be done by phone or in writing)

 

For damages to be owed, you have to demonstrate you have suffered losses. How much would your losses be? Taxi fare to the pound to pick up the vehicle and interest on your £130, which wouldn't be much at the current 1% per annum interest rate on savings. Your time? You can pick the vehicle up anytime, so you can do that in your leisure time as soon as you realise it's gone.

 

I've never heard of anyone successfully claiming damages for a tow-away.

 

In this particular case, the Council wouldn't tow unless the notices have been up on street for the required five days before commencement of work. Police might tow under their powers which are different to the Councils.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2017 at 12:58 ----------

 

Case and point being the non road marked tram gate.

If you are referring to the Hillsborough bus gate adjudication decision, in that case the Council decided to refund drivers on request because they felt it was the right thing to do, rather than there being any compulsion on them to do so.

 

If a penalty is appealed via the regulated process, the driver does not pay until the appeal is concluded, so, if the driver wins, there isn't any refund as such. They just don't have to pay.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2017 at 13:00 ----------

 

So I suspect if the car was damaged and you inspected it on site, the company might be ok about it and fix it. But it could be in their contract that SCC and/or Amey has to sort any damage. I'm sure they would go out of there way to deny everything and make it as hard as they can to get any recompense.

The towing contractor take a lot of photos of the vehicle before they tow it so that they can respond to any accusations of damage caused. They are responsible for any such claims.

[mafya 238]

Can they still tow the car away if someone's sat in it?

[Berberis 10]

 

I've never heard of anyone successfully claiming damages for a tow-away.

 

Maybe because they were legally towed. The question is about these vehicles that are being towed illegally. Im sure a good solicitor or barrister could bring a whole world of pain to the SCC if they were tasked with taking the council to court for damages.

 

If you are referring to the Hillsborough bus gate adjudication decision, in that case the Council decided to refund drivers on request because they felt it was the right thing to do, rather than there being any compulsion on them to do so.

 

If a penalty is appealed via the regulated process, the driver does not pay until the appeal is concluded, so, if the driver wins, there isn't any refund as such. They just don't have to pay.

 

The council refunded due to media pressure and an adjudicator ruled signs were inadequate. It was not a benevolent gesture. If they had not, they would have been taken to court and lost costing them even more money.

[Planner1 428]

The council refunded due to media pressure and an adjudicator ruled signs were inadequate. It was not a benevolent gesture. If they had not, they would have been taken to court and lost costing them even more money.

Wrong.

 

The adjudication decision relates only to that case.

 

If drivers who had already paid their penalties submitted a further appeal under the regulated process, the Council would be duty bound to consider new evidence.

 

I've never heard of anyone going to court under such circumstances. Costs would be huge. The penalty is £30 for early payment.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2017 at 13:26 ----------

 

Maybe because they were legally towed. The question is about these vehicles that are being towed illegally. Im sure a good solicitor or barrister could bring a whole world of pain to the SCC if they were tasked with taking the council to court for damages.

The vehicles the Council tows are legally towed under the powers they have.

 

If a driver subsequently appeals the penalty and wins, they get it refunded (as they have to pay to get the vehicle back). That doesn't mean the tow was illegal. The civil enforcement process allows for the fact that there may be a number of reasons why the penalty might have been incorrectly applied. The penalty is cancelled and costs can be applied in the right circumstances.

 

The fact that as far as anyone knows, no-one has ever successfully sued any Council for damages under such circumstances should tell you that a good lawyer might well advise a client not to do so as the chances of success would be very poor.

[Berberis 10]

Wrong.

 

The adjudication decision relates only to that case.

 

Im sorry but you are making no sense here. We are discussing that case and it wasn't until the adjudicator ruled in favour of the drivers that they u-turned and paid everyone back. This is unprecedented and was even reported on the BBC. The council refused to refund people until a 3rd party told them they were in the wrong, all the while claiming they were right.

 

Similarities with the current situation? A bully council taking action beyond their powers as they are required to notify people if a vehicle needs to be removed a number of days in advance. The council DOES NOT have the right to turn up outside your home and take away your car.

 

I say the ONLY reason people are receiving a refund is to try and stave off another tabloid embarrassment and the possibility of court action they know they will lose.

[SheffBloke 10]

I live on a road in Hillsborough and I can't descibe the relief in knowing that the 4 large trees at the top of my road are being chopped down and replaced.

 

They maybe healthy but they are far too large for a small street and in the autumn and winter the road is like a ploughed farmers field with leaves and muck.

 

Thank you SCC and Amey for seeing sense and chopping them down.

 

And to the huggers that turned up on the street to demonstrate, of which not one lived on it, we don't want your interference thanks, please stay away.

[nightrider 13]

Im sorry but you are making no sense here. We are discussing that case and it wasn't until the adjudicator ruled in favour of the drivers that they u-turned and paid everyone back. This is unprecedented and was even reported on the BBC. The council refused to refund people until a 3rd party told them they were in the wrong, all the while claiming they were right.

 

Similarities with the current situation? A bully council taking action beyond their powers as they are required to notify people if a vehicle needs to be removed a number of days in advance. The council DOES NOT have the right to turn up outside your home and take away your car.

 

 

In my case the council accepted the PCN should be cancelled because they did not give sufficient notice that cars would be towed. They did not explicitly admit it though - but it turns out after 56 days if they have not responded they are legally deemed to have accepted the reasons for the appeal. Which I pointed out, and then was refunded the same day.

[WestTinsley 11]

Any idea when the trees on Sheldon road netheredge will get uprooted.. and also the rare elm on union rd netheredge/brincliffe ... part of the road near the tree still hasn't been resurfaced and is a hazard .

Edited July 11, 2017 by WestTinsley

[Dannyno 19]

Im sorry but you are making no sense here. We are discussing that case and it wasn't until the adjudicator ruled in favour of the drivers that they u-turned and paid everyone back. This is unprecedented and was even reported on the BBC. The council refused to refund people until a 3rd party told them they were in the wrong, all the while claiming they were right.

 

Planner1 is right that the adjudicator did not say the council had to pay everyone back, after reviewing 7 cases (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7447327.stm).

 

So in that sense you can say the Council did the right thing rather than being compelled to do the right thing.

 

However, had they not done the right thing, in response to the adjudicator's decision on those particular cases, then they might have ended up being forced to do it anyway.

 

So in that sense Berberis is right.

[willman 10]

OK right. Can someone from Amey or SCC please come on here and answer this?

 

Why on Crawford Road did two Amey employees come and lay new tarmac around the base of several of the trees that line the road? Yes, the same trees that are now being chopped down right now just several days after putting tarmac at the base around them!

 

A resident told the two tarmac layers at the time that the trees were being removed and pointed to the notice on each tree. The tarmac layer just said "Oh we don't know anything about the trees coming down, I think the tree stuff is all under consultation, we're just carry out orders to fill in holes where they have been marked with the yellow paint." Then they just carried on with the job.

 

So I assume that the worker who previously marked the holes and cracks with the paint, & the 2 tarmac layers, were completely unaware that the trees were due to be removed and the tarmac laying was a complete waste of time and money!

 

Could someone from Amey or SCC please explain why this work was carried out, as it appears it was totally unnecessary? If it was done for some good reason unknown to me then fine. I look forward to your response and detailed explanation.

 

If its the same as our council - yellow markings indicate a risk/hazard. Once its sprayed yellow any claims for damages by litigious individuals is usually disregarded HOWEVER once its sprayed yellow it has to be made good.

[rudds1 102]

Can they still tow the car away if someone's sat in it?

 

I'm sure they can't

[Adi- 10]

You should all really take your words of wisdom and complaints away from this forum and directly to the council, where they'll actually hear your words of contempt. I sincerely doubt the council trawl through this forum looking for complaints. They'll have a specific complaints procedure to go through, which will most likely be located on their own website.

 

Meanwhile, the workers cutting down the trees are doing nothing more than the job they've been asked to do. They're not involved in the strategic planning or decision making of it. Their job is to fell trees. They've been told by their employer to fell trees, so they're there to fell trees.

 

Stop giving the workers such a hard time and obstructing them from doing their jobs. How would you feel trying to do your job and loads of people doing absolutely anything they can to interfere with it.

 

If you didn't have enough time to appeal the decision making that led them to be there cutting the trees down, and they got cut down; then take the council to court for the wrongdoing you're suggesting they're guilty of. If they're guilty of anything, it'll get dealt with and rectifications made.

 

Why the hell you are all punishing the workers is beyond me. They're doing a job to pay their bills and enjoy their personal life, just like the rest of us do. The workers are not there to do one over on you. Deal with things the right way. Seriously.