PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Newham-PCN & Tow Lower rate
Enceladus
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Any ideas what to do with this?
Resident permit applied and paid for 14th Sep.
Permit posted on 17th effective from the 14th.
Car was parked on Devonshire Road, E16 on the 20th.
An all zone visitor permit was displayed. Arrival time "8" and completed for 20 Sep 2018
Zone hours are 8:00am to 18:30pm, Mon-Sat.
09:38 PCN issued, code 19.
Car towed shortly after and then retrieved at pound 13:15 20/09/2018.

It's unclear why the PCN was issued? It says "8" as opposed to 8am etc as per other recent cases on this forum.
However there is also a scratch on the visitor permit on the number 19.

So reps will ask why the PCN was issued and we will request photos etc. However the CEO must have accepted that the permit was valid at some point since it's contravention 19 as opposed to the usual 16 used in Newham. Can that be used?

Disproportionate to tow a car from a resident bay for a lower rate contravention.

There is also the chargeable fax number on the rear of the PCN and on the appeal form from the pound.

To add insult to injury the permanent permit arrived in the post whilst the driver was at the pound.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:01) *
However there is also a scratch on the visitor permit on the number 19.

It appears used 15th and 18th too, just from first look.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:30


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I have no sympathy as this re-use cheating seems a widespread local disease.

But I'm equally miffed with the way Newham are fighting it.
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:01) *
An all zone visitor permit was displayed. Arrival time "8" and completed for 20 Sep 2018
Zone hours are 8:00am to 18:30pm, Mon-Sat.
09:38 PCN issued, code 19.

The 24 hours could start at 8am or 8pm, hence their secondary reasoning.
But they rely on a presumption of future contravention, i.e. that the user will attempt to park
for 36 hours.
But at the time PCN was issued, that had not yet happend: The vehicle cannot be in contravention at 9.38am on that score.

It could only be in contravention at 8.01am on 21st and only if noted present before 8pm 20th.

Newham should not be penalising for something someone might do.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



2180122884--Newham

The Appellant accepts that he made a mistake in failing to complete the residents permit as he was new to the area and new to the system. However he objects to the fact that his car was removed which penalty he cannot afford and which he consider to be excessive in the circumstances.

Bearing in mind that this PCN has been issued for a code 19 contravention which is recognised to be a less serious contravention attracting a lower penalty, I fail to see the traffic management purpose in removing the vehicle in these circumstances and in the absence of any aggravating features.

I find the removal of the vehicle to be contradictory to the purpose of providing a lower differential penalty, and excessive and unnecessary in this context.

I therefore allow this appeal in relation to the removal charges

--------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:56
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Why Newham believe the permit was invalid needs to be ascertained. From the photo you present I would say it has been altered . It was valid on the first day of use


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 16:28
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



There is a perforating gouge across 18 & 19, so it is arguably defaced or at least damaged. I'll get it back and have a closer look. But I agree we need confirmation as to why it was issued in the first place, so that will be part of the representations. If the allegation is that the permit has been reused and/or defaced then surely code 16 should have been used?

Also it's an 'All Day' as opposed to a '24 Hour' permit. Valid until midnight on the marked date. So it shouldn't matter what time it says. It must always have been within the time.

Of course since this is a tow there are no photos on Newham's website. We'll ask for those as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:28) *
Also it's an 'All Day' as opposed to a '24 Hour' permit. Valid until midnight on the marked date. So it shouldn't matter what time it says. It must always have been within the time.

I can see most of us would think so but, in response to enquiries made by a local Councillor, Newham confirmed they covered 24 hours.

That said, I've always been dubious about it myself and wonder if it's written anywhere in TMOs or other
relevant document?

---
Having said I have no sympathy for the apparent 'cheating', we mustn't lose sight of the fact a valid res permit
was also in play, just not displayed.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:22
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:43) *
Having said I have no sympathy for the apparent 'cheating', we mustn't lose sight of the fact a valid res permit
was also in play, just not displayed.



If Newham make a persuasive case that the permit was doctored I can't see much hope for retrieving the PCN or tow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 19:22) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:43) *
Having said I have no sympathy for the apparent 'cheating', we mustn't lose sight of the fact a valid res permit
was also in play, just not displayed.



If Newham make a persuasive case that the permit was doctored I can't see much hope for retrieving the PCN or tow.

+1


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 19:08
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:43) *
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:28) *
Also it's an 'All Day' as opposed to a '24 Hour' permit. Valid until midnight on the marked date. So it shouldn't matter what time it says. It must always have been within the time.

I can see most of us would think so but, in response to enquiries made by a local Councillor, Newham confirmed they covered 24 hours.

That said, I've always been dubious about it myself and wonder if it's written anywhere in TMOs or other
relevant document?

---
Having said I have no sympathy for the apparent 'cheating', we mustn't lose sight of the fact a valid res permit
was also in play, just not displayed.


The 8 rather than 8 am has been adjudicated on before and won, just not sure that would be Newham's case


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 19:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:08) *
The 8 rather than 8 am has been adjudicated on before and won, just not sure that would be Newham's case

I think the real problem is that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, the adjudicator is going to see a dodgy permit and refuse the appeal.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:37
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:09) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:08) *
The 8 rather than 8 am has been adjudicated on before and won, just not sure that would be Newham's case

I think the real problem is that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, the adjudicator is going to see a dodgy permit and refuse the appeal.


Agreed with caveat. One the delay in the valid permit being delivered and two if the 8 is the reason given for the PCN and of course the clarity of the council photos.


I'm with Neil and no doubt you re the misuse of permits but the council need to make the case. A PCN, pay the discount but a tow????


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:55
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:09) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 20:08) *
The 8 rather than 8 am has been adjudicated on before and won, just not sure that would be Newham's case

I think the real problem is that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, the adjudicator is going to see a dodgy permit and refuse the appeal.

There have been some peculiar adjudications and failures by Newham to present appropriate evidence.
One case on forum, clearly a re-used vp, made it past the adjudicator.

Newham shout " 'tis so!" and some adjudicators have said 'well I can't see it'. All Newham had to do was show an
appropriately adjusted image (that's what I do for all of them and it takes 30 seconds)
Albeit, in this case, that's hardly necessary -- ah, but what pics do they have - unlikely as clear as the one posted.

I gurss it's possible that an adjudicator, unimpressed with the draconian tow (Mick & PMB), might choose to blink at the wrong moment?
Or even decide the greater of two evils?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 21:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 21:55) *
I gurss it's possible that an adjudicator, unimpressed with the draconian tow (Mick & PMB), might choose to blink at the wrong moment?
Or even decide the greater of two evils?



No issue about the draconian tow but if asked if the permit was altered or not then that could be a sticky moment. In this case it may be better not to have a personal hearing and focus on the tow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 05:46
Post #15


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The appellant lost in the case I posted --the contravention, a Code 19, was sustained. The key feature is that the adjudicator ordered the tow fees to be reimbursed anyway.

My advice is to admit that the permit looked dubious and that the CEO might have been justified in believing that a contravention had occurred but appeal on the basis of excessive "penalty" due to the tow.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 17:41
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



This could also be used: https://dochub.com/cp8759-cp8759/Jr3w1g/int...response-e31241
Basically Newham have admitted that they charge a surcharge for fax representations, which is arguably unlawful.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here