PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Islington wrong bay Ringo PCN
haso182
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 21:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,811



Hi,
I unfortunately received a parking ticket for parking using Ringo and apparently using the wrong location code, the 2 locations are next to each other and this is a genuine mistake on my part. I realise I was at fault but paying £130 for a small error that hasn't caused any financial loss to the council seems a bit unfair.
I have already appealed the ticket at the initial stage and the appeal has been rejected.

I have tried to upload all the correspondence I have had with the council so far.

I would appreciate it if someone could advise on how I should go about appealing the PCN, also I'm curious as to how sympathetic the adjudicator would be if it got to that stage.

Thanks.



Location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5632645,-0....6384!8i8192



PCN:



Original Appeal Email:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal PCN XXXXX issued to vehicle XXXXX on 10/11/2018 14:32-14:38.
A payment was made at that location from 14:10-16:10 using ringo for vehicle XXXXX
I have attached a VAT receipt for the transaction as proof.

I would therefore appreciate it if you can cancel the PCN and confirm it in writing when it is done.

Kind Regards.


Email rejection to first appeal:
Dear Mr X


Penalty Charge Notice No. XXXXXXXXX Date of Issue 10/11/2018 at 14:38
Location of Contravention St Thomas`s Road [Zone H]


Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office.

The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place or without payment of the parking charge.



I have reviewed the information you have provided along with the details held on our systems and note that whilst payment for parking was made, it was made to an incorrect parking bay location. You used location 61684 whereas the vehicle was parked in location 61685, which is a different parking bay.

There are often several different types of parking bay and restrictions in place on the same street. It is your responsibility as a driver to ensure that you have checked and understand the time plate and restrictions in place within the confines of the bay in which you are parked before you leave your vehicle unattended. The time plate for the bay in which you have parked may not necessarily be the one closest to you or the first one you see.

Whilst I appreciate that this may have been a genuine error, it is a council directive that in order to ensure vehicles are correctly parked and do not stay for longer than permitted in time any payments made to an incorrect vehicle registration or location number do not present grounds for a correctly issued PCN to be cancelled.

I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the Civil Enforcement Officer was correct to issue the ticket, therefore the PCN has been upheld.

As the PCN was issued correctly, payment is now due. I have decided that we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 22 December 2018. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will increase to £130.00.

If you wish to continue to contest the matter, the next stage is that a Notice to Owner will be sent to the person responsible for the penalty charge. This is a necessary legal step and further correspondence will only delay this process.

I am afraid you are unlikely to get a further opportunity to make discounted payment. However, the Notice to Owner will establish liability for the Penalty Charge Notice and the grounds under which representations may be made. If representations are made at this stage and they are rejected, there will be the right of appeal to an independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.

You can make a credit or debit card payment on our automated payment line on 020 7527 8000 at any time or speak to an advisor on 020 7527 2000 – between 09:00 to 17:00. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number).


Yours sincerely



Martin Thorpe
Correspondence and Appeals Officer
Islington Parking Services
PO Box 2019, Pershore, WR10 9BN
Contact Islington: 0207 527 2000
Email: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Web: www.islington.gov.uk



Photos provided by islington on first appeal:










This post has been edited by haso182: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 21:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 14:57
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



Is stating "I will formally reject your representations" failure to consider?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 22:05
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE
Whilst I appreciate that this may have been a genuine error, it is a council directive that in order to ensure vehicles are correctly parked and do not stay for longer than permitted in time any payments made to an incorrect vehicle registration or location number do not present grounds for a correctly issued PCN to be cancelled.

When considering whether to fight on, keep in mind the fettered discretion argument raised earlier in respect of the potentially unfair council directive, but see what others say.

It troubles me that Islington Parking Services (IPS) seem to have followed “a council directive” that any payments made to an incorrect location number do not present grounds for a correctly issued PCN to be cancelled. Whist IPS appreciated that “this may have been a genuine error”, it appears that their power of discretion in the matter of a genuine error has been powered off by the council directive because it seems to me, as it might to the ordinary person on the street, that having incorrectly entered a ‘4’ in the location number and not a ‘5’, you need not have bothered to go to the trouble of applying to IPS for consideration of the matter of mitigation because IPS rely on a pre-determined outcome decided long before you had considered putting pen to paper.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 23:13
Post #23


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 22:05) *
QUOTE
Whilst I appreciate that this may have been a genuine error, it is a council directive that in order to ensure vehicles are correctly parked and do not stay for longer than permitted in time any payments made to an incorrect vehicle registration or location number do not present grounds for a correctly issued PCN to be cancelled.

When considering whether to fight on, keep in mind the fettered discretion argument raised earlier in respect of the potentially unfair council directive, but see what others say.

It troubles me that Islington Parking Services (IPS) seem to have followed “a council directive” that any payments made to an incorrect location number do not present grounds for a correctly issued PCN to be cancelled.

The council's own Penalty Charge Notice Cancellation Guidance (see http://bit.ly/2GAXugq) makes no mention of this directive. The council policy is clear and self-explanatory, and as per Joseph Coen v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2180251537), if the council has a set policy then that policy must be followed. While it is true that a policy is not absolutely binding and it can be departed from in exceptional circumstances, there is no evidence of this case being in any way exceptional.

I would definitely take this all the way at this point.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 23:13


--------------------
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
haso182
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 15:54
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,811



To be honest I am also tempted to pay £65 to make this go away, after having to worry about it for 3 months now.
However it just doesn't seem fair to me to pay so much for such a trivial mistake and I think I will now appeal and see what the adjudicator makes of it.

Just wondering if there is anything else I can add to my initial appeal, I doubt it would be accepted anyway but at least I may be able to argue Islington council had no intention of fairly considering my appeal based on their rejection email.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 19:54
Post #25


Member


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



QUOTE (haso182 @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 15:54) *
To be honest I am also tempted to pay £65 to make this go away, after having to worry about it for 3 months now.
However it just doesn't seem fair to me to pay so much for such a trivial mistake and I think I will now appeal and see what the adjudicator makes of it.

Just wondering if there is anything else I can add to my initial appeal, I doubt it would be accepted anyway but at least I may be able to argue Islington council had no intention of fairly considering my appeal based on their rejection email.

The council is under a legal duty to consider the representations and apply their policy. This can win on its own even where the contravention is indefensible:

Joseph Coen v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2180251537):
The Appellant appeals against the issue of this Penalty Charge Notice which arises from having parked his vehicle in a residents bay without clearly displaying a permit to park. He appeals on the ground that his permit was valid but was partially obscured by a National Trust permit which had slipped. He refers to the Enforcement Authority's Exemption and Waiver policy, criterion 6 which states that
""Where a motorist is a resident of the Borough and has parked in a permit bay, displaying a permit which is partially obscured ie not all the details on the permit are readily visible to the Civil Enforcement Officer:
(a) The first contravention only is waived
(b) The resident is displaying a permit which has not expired an dis valid for the bay in which the car is parked""
The EA has declined to waive the Appellant's admitted contravention. It has noted that the Appellant previously received a PCN when he displayed an expired permit, which the Adjudicator allowed. It notes that the permit in issue contains two vehicle registration numbers.
I have considered all of the evidence.
Where a policy exists - in this case the Exemption and Waiver policy - the EA is required to follow it. It should have waived this PCN. I also consider that it has taken irrelevant matters into account. This was the Appellant's first contravention and can be distinguished from previously displaying an expired permit.
The appeal is allowed.


The adjudicator cannot allow an appeal on the basis that your mistake was trivial, but he can allow the appeal on the basis that the council didn't give your representations due consideration and didn't follow its own policy, because that is a procedural impropriety. I would carry on.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 19:55


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:23
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The council directive cited by the council response is an unlawful fettering of council discretion in dealing with representations against a PCN, and in my view would be a certain win at adjudication. However, we can't say what an adjudicator will decide, it's down to him/her.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:42
Post #27


Member


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



I still can't get my head around this:

"we have to ensure that vehicles have not been parked in another bay before relocating to this bay and using the same session. The only way we can do this is by ensuring drivers use the correct code."

when the two bays are a metre apart and in any case why would you move to another bay with the wrong code?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 17:19
Post #28


Member


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



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:23) *
The council directive cited by the council response is an unlawful fettering of council discretion in dealing with representations against a PCN, and in my view would be a certain win at adjudication.

To be honest I have some doubts this directive even exists.


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 19:58
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 17:19) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:23) *
The council directive cited by the council response is an unlawful fettering of council discretion in dealing with representations against a PCN, and in my view would be a certain win at adjudication.

To be honest I have some doubts this directive even exists.

Well, it may not, but does it even need to exist ? As far as the appellant is concerned, an officer of the council has said there is a council directive that all reps involving entry of the wrong Ringo code for the bay must be declined. So even if there is no actual directive, the officer has fettered his discretion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:05
Post #30


Member


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



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 19:58) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 17:19) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:23) *
The council directive cited by the council response is an unlawful fettering of council discretion in dealing with representations against a PCN, and in my view would be a certain win at adjudication.

To be honest I have some doubts this directive even exists.

Well, it may not, but does it even need to exist ? As far as the appellant is concerned, an officer of the council has said there is a council directive that all reps involving entry of the wrong Ringo code for the bay must be declined. So even if there is no actual directive, the officer has fettered his discretion.

I totally agree, hence the argument to the tribunal will be that there is no directive, but even if there is, the decision is still 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
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 23:58
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



This case, Susan Cook and Trafford Borough Council, contains an example of “a rigid and unlawful policy”


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
haso182
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 23:42
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,811



Just an update...
Islington council have finally seen sense and accepted my appeal.
Thanks for all your help guys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 09:47
Post #33


Member


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



Good - they clearly tied themselves in knots over this one. Did they say why?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 11:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
haso182
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 14:20
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6 May 2017
Member No.: 91,811



This was the email I received:
Acceptance of Representations

Thank you for your email dated 8 March 2019 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office.

The PCN was issued because your vehicle was parked in a shared use parking space without clearly displaying either a permit, voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place or without payment having been made of the parking charge.

I note the comments you have made and have also considered information on the RingGo account to which the vehicle is registered. I am satisfied the PCN was correctly, issued as the parking session held at 2.38pm on 10 November 2019 was for the bay which uses RingGo location code 61684 rather than 61685 in which the vehicle was actually parked. I also note that a session was later purchased for location code 61685 which commenced before the parking session for location 61684 had expired.

However I appreciate your comment that this was a mistake and that the tariff for the 2 bays is the same. I also note this is the first PCN issued to this vehicle. In the circumstances I have decided to cancel the PCN on this occasion.

I would however like to advise that it is not acceptable for drivers to purchase a parking session with an incorrect location code so that a vehicle may stay parked in the same location after the maximum time allowed for the bay. Any future PCNs issued in similar circumstances may be upheld.

I will therefore formally accept your representation and as the ticket has now been cancelled, there is no need for you to take any further action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 15:47
Post #35


Member


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



QUOTE (haso182 @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 14:20) *
I would however like to advise that it is not acceptable for drivers to purchase a parking session with an incorrect location code so that a vehicle may stay parked in the same location after the maximum time allowed for the bay. Any future PCNs issued in similar circumstances may be upheld.



I still don't know what they're on about here but a win's a win.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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 - 23:53
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