PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Contradictory disabled parking signage
Executive trifle
post Tue, 26 May 2020 - 18:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 May 2020
Member No.: 108,755



Hi

Posting for first time and apologies for the lengthy post.

I received a parking ticket in December 2019 for contravention 83 'Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock.
I was visiting the area so double checked the nearest signage in the council car park which stated that 'Disabled Parking is free for all authorised users when correctly displaying a valid disabled persons badge and clock in accordance with the Blue Badge Parking Scheme, and in designated bays only, for a maximum of 3 hours and no return on same calendar date'.
I duly parked in a normal bay & displayed both badge & clock & did not purchase a ticket as i would be less than 3 hours.

On my return there was a PCN with a separate piece of paper enclosed listing the reasons for issuing a PCN to a Blue Badge Holder, with a cross in the box 'Not parked in a designated Disabled Bay' and the hand written words 'Payment required if not in a disabled bay'.

Obviously this was confusing as the signage by my 'normal' parking bay did not specify I had to park in a designated disabled pay to get free parking however the car park had other signs dotted around & having walked around the whole car park I came across signage with different wording. This one stated that 'Disabled parking is free for all users when correctly displaying a current disabled badge and its clock in accordance with the Blue Badge Parking Scheme, in designated disabled bays only, for a maximum of 3 hours'.

I challenged the PCN on 1/1/2020 enclosing the photo of the signage by my car which clearly does not state that disabled parking is only in designated disabled bays but this was rejected and the email received on 12/3/2020 advised that " The PCN was correctly issued due to the vehicle being parked in a pay and display bay within a car park without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
I have noted your comments regarding you displaying your Blue badge but can confirm that a Blue badge only provides free parking if the vehicle is located in a designated disabled bay.
It is the driver’s obligation to read the signage when entering a car park to ensure that the restrictions in place can be adhered to.
The signage clearly states “Disabled parking is free for all authorised users when correctly displaying a current permit and its clock in accordance with the badge scheme, and in designated disabled bays only, for a maximum of 3 hours. This signage was located in front of your vehicle. As you had not parked in a designated disabled bay you were not entitled to park for free. I regret an honest misunderstanding of the restriction in place, does not negate the resulting contravention.
In summary to your appeal, as the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking restrictions in place your appeal has not been successful on this occasion"

The Notice To Owner was received on 20/5/2020 and I responded on 25/5/2020 where I explained that the signage by my car did not state that disabled parking is only in designated disabled bays and attached the relevant photo of the signage and queried why there was conflicting signage in a car park. This challenge has again been rejected and i have been advised that "Your vehicle was parked in the council car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket. Whilst you were displaying a disabled person’s badge and clock, you were required to pay and display as you were parked in a non-designated disabled bay.
I attach below a copy of the terms and conditions for the car park from the house sign which states “Disabled parking is free for all users when correctly displaying a current disabled badge and its clock in accordance with the Blue badge parking scheme, in designated disabled bays only, for a maximum of 3 hours.”

As your vehicle was not parked in a designated disabled bay, you were not entitled to free parking and should have paid and displayed. The disabled bays are marked out in yellow with the appropriate wheelchair symbol. "

I am clearly frustrated that there appears to be signage contained in the car park that has conflicting information and despite sending photo's of the nearest signage to the car showing very clearly that the word 'disabled' is missing from the designated bay wording, this has not been taken into account.

Any advice appreciated.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 31)
Advertisement
post Tue, 26 May 2020 - 18:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 29 May 2020 - 20:35
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,483
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Executive trifle @ Fri, 29 May 2020 - 21:30) *
Any advice about wording or other things to consider when appealing to tribunal?


Nah - we don't do that.

Of course we do... wait for others as this is still a fairly new case.

Edit your last post to get rid of the pics I posted as they mess up the flow. We only need to see them posted once.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 29 May 2020 - 20:56
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,836
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



I can't help thinking that an adjudicator will concentrate on the fact that free disabled parking was only available in a "designated bay" although a sign did say "designated disabled bay". The fact is that either way, the bay had to be designated. The OP parked in an unmarked bay for normal parking.
Having said this, I hope the OP wins, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk win.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Fri, 29 May 2020 - 20:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 29 May 2020 - 21:18
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,936
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



On the contravention it's a guaranteed lose IMO.

As the OP is a BB holder they would know exactly what a designated car park bay is and how it is marked and I do not think they're being totally frank when they suggest otherwise. Sorry. Why haven't we seen a photo of one of these bays, the authority are clear that they are clearly marked with the 'wheelchair' icon and if this is produced at adjudication then the OP is sunk. By all means say you were confused, if you were. But your confusion in the face of the noticeboard and prospectively clearly marked disabled bays is not a win IMO.

So they're left with technicalities which I suggest should be their focus.

In this respect:
Why was the NTO served 5 months after the PCN was issued? OP, any ideas e.g. maybe a lease car?
Have you posted every scrap of the NOR. The most important parts are at the end. At present it does not conform to mandatory requirements, but if there are pages missing?? We must see every page, including enclosures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Executive trifle
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 17:21
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 May 2020
Member No.: 108,755



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 29 May 2020 - 22:18) *
On the contravention it's a guaranteed lose IMO.

As the OP is a BB holder they would know exactly what a designated car park bay is and how it is marked and I do not think they're being totally frank when they suggest otherwise. Sorry. Why haven't we seen a photo of one of these bays, the authority are clear that they are clearly marked with the 'wheelchair' icon and if this is produced at adjudication then the OP is sunk. By all means say you were confused, if you were. But your confusion in the face of the noticeboard and prospectively clearly marked disabled bays is not a win IMO.

So they're left with technicalities which I suggest should be their focus.

In this respect:
Why was the NTO served 5 months after the PCN was issued? OP, any ideas e.g. maybe a lease car?
Have you posted every scrap of the NOR. The most important parts are at the end. At present it does not conform to mandatory requirements, but if there are pages missing?? We must see every page, including enclosures.



I'm sorry you feel that I am not being frank, the information I have given is genuine as it seems pointless requesting support then withholding specifics. In the county I live in, I have never come across any signage with the words 'designated disabled bay' as they all specify 'designated bay' instead and having struggled on many many occasions to find a disabled space that is free I have often parked in ordinary bays, displayed my blue badge & never recieved a ticket before. I questioned a CEO some years back about the rights to park in another bay if there are no disabled ones free and was told that the word 'designated' merely refers to a marked bay (as opposed to perhaps leaving your car ad hoc anywhere else in a car park because you cant find a space and think that because you are a BB holder then you are exempt e.g. - at the end of a row of cars when there are no more marked bays available) and that is was perfectly acceptable to park in any marked bay.
I have had no reason to doubt the technicalities of the meaning of a 'designated' bay and the advice I was given by that CEO having never received a ticket for doing exactly this.
My intention was never to knowingly take a risk with a parking fine as clearly the cost of a fine outweighs the cost of a parking ticket. If a 'designated disabled bay' means the same as a 'designated bay' why would the signs not say the same? This indicates there is a difference and this is the only area that confuses me.

I have looked again at the NTO and can see that the last page was missing and was an oversight on my part, please see below:-
https://ibb.co/tQ7fsQK

The car is leased.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 18:55
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,483
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Don't take too much notice of hcanderson's tone - he means well and is usually on point but like a lot of us I suspect lockdown heat is taking its toll.

To put this in perspective, it's the lowest possible penalty you can get for a PCN - £50 or £25 at discount. By taking it this far you only stand to lose £25.

The word 'designated' has a meaning in the parking world as in a 'designated parking place' although this is more an on-street term.

An adjudicator may well take your side in this on the signage and interpretation, but - and I think it's a strong possibility - Worthing may not contest this once you register the appeal.

There may be a technicality in the rejection but I can't see anything.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 19:28
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,749
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I have just finished writing an appeal for another case the points made here apply to yours and I suspect every TPT case at the moment


QUOTE
The notice of rejection is required to convey certain information these are found at s10(4) they are

(4) A notice of rejection shall—

(a) state the reasons for the authority’s decision;

(b) state that an appeal against the imposition of the penalty charge may be made to an adjudicator within the appeal period;

© specify the statutory grounds of appeal;

(d) describe in general terms the procedure for making an appeal;

(e) state that an adjudicator has power to make an award of costs;

(f) indicate the circumstances in which the power may be exercised; and

(g) state that unless, before the end of the appeal period—

(I) the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii) an appeal is made to an adjudicator against the imposition of the penalty charge,

the authority may increase the penalty charge by 50 per cent and take steps to enforce payment.


The notice of rejection in this case complies with (A)

It fails to comply with (B). The appeal period is set by regulation. It is 28 days beginning with the date of service of the NOR. In this case it states “Within 28 days of delivery of this notice of rejection

Service is a defined legal concept it is 2 working days after the date of posting by first class post. Unless the addressee can show that it was not so served. Delivery on the other hand is an entirely fluid thing it would be thought to be the date on which it was received regardless of when that is.

I ask the adjudicator to to consider the findings of adjudicator Rhys Williams in a case Heard on the 5th of June 2019 ( the tribunal redacted case number when supplying a copy I have attached this copy in evidence (paragraphs 12 on)

Further by using the term “Within 28 days of delivery of this notice of rejection” The authority add a day to the appeal period this again is a failure to convey the correct information

it fails to comply with C) The statutory grounds for appeal are not given. These are relegated to a third party website. Albeit that this is the tribunal website. The regulations require they be notified within the NOR, this gives a certainty that they are properly conveyed.

Conformity to the regulations cannot properly be ascribed to a third party, in this case one that must maintain its independence

it fails to comply with D) Once again this information is relegated to a third party website, the certainty that it is conveyed to the appellant as required by the regulations thus missing

The NOR does comply with (F) That costs can be awarded is present

it fails to comply with D) the reasons that costs may be awarded once again relegated to a third party in breech of the regulations

The NOR does comply with (G)

Four pieces of information that the regulations require are conveyed to an appellant are missing from the document completely and/or they are factually incorrect

It cannot be that parliament intended that the compliance with regulations can be passed to the judicial body tasked with determining conformance with these regulations. Responsibility for conformance must always lie with the authority, tasked with ensuring that an appellant is given all the information parliament decided they would need so as not to be prejudiced in exercising their rights in appealing


Edit this relates to the bus lane regulations the requirements of the appeals regs for parking are different, though the same principle applies. They have relegated required information to the third party

remind me on Tuesday and I will amend to suit your PCN if you intend to use it

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 30 May 2020 - 19:34


--------------------
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
Executive trifle
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 18:41
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 May 2020
Member No.: 108,755



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 30 May 2020 - 19:55) *
Don't take too much notice of hcanderson's tone - he means well and is usually on point but like a lot of us I suspect lockdown heat is taking its toll.

To put this in perspective, it's the lowest possible penalty you can get for a PCN - £50 or £25 at discount. By taking it this far you only stand to lose £25.

The word 'designated' has a meaning in the parking world as in a 'designated parking place' although this is more an on-street term.

An adjudicator may well take your side in this on the signage and interpretation, but - and I think it's a strong possibility - Worthing may not contest this once you register the appeal.

There may be a technicality in the rejection but I can't see anything.


Ok thank you - I really value your input and appreciate the time taken by both yourself and others in responding. If you feel its worth appealing then I will do this & even if I dont win I will certainly have learnt many things from this posting.


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 30 May 2020 - 20:28) *
I have just finished writing an appeal for another case the points made here apply to yours and I suspect every TPT case at the moment


QUOTE
The notice of rejection is required to convey certain information these are found at s10(4) they are

(4) A notice of rejection shall—

(a) state the reasons for the authority’s decision;

(b) state that an appeal against the imposition of the penalty charge may be made to an adjudicator within the appeal period;

© specify the statutory grounds of appeal;

(d) describe in general terms the procedure for making an appeal;

(e) state that an adjudicator has power to make an award of costs;

(f) indicate the circumstances in which the power may be exercised; and

(g) state that unless, before the end of the appeal period—

(I) the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii) an appeal is made to an adjudicator against the imposition of the penalty charge,

the authority may increase the penalty charge by 50 per cent and take steps to enforce payment.


The notice of rejection in this case complies with (A)

It fails to comply with (B). The appeal period is set by regulation. It is 28 days beginning with the date of service of the NOR. In this case it states “Within 28 days of delivery of this notice of rejection

Service is a defined legal concept it is 2 working days after the date of posting by first class post. Unless the addressee can show that it was not so served. Delivery on the other hand is an entirely fluid thing it would be thought to be the date on which it was received regardless of when that is.

I ask the adjudicator to to consider the findings of adjudicator Rhys Williams in a case Heard on the 5th of June 2019 ( the tribunal redacted case number when supplying a copy I have attached this copy in evidence (paragraphs 12 on)

Further by using the term “Within 28 days of delivery of this notice of rejection” The authority add a day to the appeal period this again is a failure to convey the correct information

it fails to comply with C) The statutory grounds for appeal are not given. These are relegated to a third party website. Albeit that this is the tribunal website. The regulations require they be notified within the NOR, this gives a certainty that they are properly conveyed.

Conformity to the regulations cannot properly be ascribed to a third party, in this case one that must maintain its independence

it fails to comply with D) Once again this information is relegated to a third party website, the certainty that it is conveyed to the appellant as required by the regulations thus missing

The NOR does comply with (F) That costs can be awarded is present

it fails to comply with D) the reasons that costs may be awarded once again relegated to a third party in breech of the regulations

The NOR does comply with (G)

Four pieces of information that the regulations require are conveyed to an appellant are missing from the document completely and/or they are factually incorrect

It cannot be that parliament intended that the compliance with regulations can be passed to the judicial body tasked with determining conformance with these regulations. Responsibility for conformance must always lie with the authority, tasked with ensuring that an appellant is given all the information parliament decided they would need so as not to be prejudiced in exercising their rights in appealing


Edit this relates to the bus lane regulations the requirements of the appeals regs for parking are different, though the same principle applies. They have relegated required information to the third party

remind me on Tuesday and I will amend to suit your PCN if you intend to use it


Pastmybest - that is a really kind offer and one I would like to take you up on - thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 09:44
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,936
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, my tone is often intended you shake people out of what appears to me to be a creeping consensus when IMO this is not supported by the evidence. Other times it's probably me being a curmudgeon!

As I said, if there are clearly marked bays in the car park...and GSV shows there are, the full panoply of markings i.e. different colour, wheelchair icon, chevrons around the perimeter etc!!

These are the contextual facts, alongside your lack of familiarity with terms.

I've no disagreement with the main defence being procedural - when will they learn - but I would start with the contravention. Accept that you might have been mistaken etc. for the reasons you've stated. But I would hate to find that you had to pass a row of marked bays for BB holders en route to your final parking place, and if you didn't then add this to your account i.e. nothing about the marking of any bays you passed to suggest the distinction which the council claim.

And remember, there are no prescribed signs or markings for car parks, and the BB booklet advises holders to check i.e. do not presume an entitlement, check.

Only you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 10:54
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,749
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 10:44) *
OP, my tone is often intended you shake people out of what appears to me to be a creeping consensus when IMO this is not supported by the evidence. Other times it's probably me being a curmudgeon!

As I said, if there are clearly marked bays in the car park...and GSV shows there are, the full panoply of markings i.e. different colour, wheelchair icon, chevrons around the perimeter etc!!

These are the contextual facts, alongside your lack of familiarity with terms.

I've no disagreement with the main defence being procedural - when will they learn - but I would start with the contravention. Accept that you might have been mistaken etc. for the reasons you've stated. But I would hate to find that you had to pass a row of marked bays for BB holders en route to your final parking place, and if you didn't then add this to your account i.e. nothing about the marking of any bays you passed to suggest the distinction which the council claim.

And remember, there are no prescribed signs or markings for car parks, and the BB booklet advises holders to check i.e. do not presume an entitlement, check.

Only you know.


I will do this later but for most of the day I am going to spend some time with my granddaughter at last


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 12:43
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,749
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



This is certainly one ground you can add to your appeal

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVzSMRwHi...Cqgw_p?e=LXdlLH


--------------------
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
Executive trifle
post Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 21:42
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 May 2020
Member No.: 108,755



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 13:43) *
This is certainly one ground you can add to your appeal

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVzSMRwHi...Cqgw_p?e=LXdlLH



PASTMYBEST - that's very kind of you, thank you. Hope you got to spend some valuable time with your granddaughter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 08:53
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,936
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, you need to sort the wheat from the chaff of this link.

Go to the end.

The appeal was allowed ONLY on the grounds of procedural impropriety which arose because the NOR failed to advise the owner in general terms of the form and manner......etc. by omitting reference to an adjudicator's powers to extend the period. The purpose of this vital but often overlooked provision could not have gained greater prominence and purpose than in the current national situation.
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: Wednesday, 15th July 2020 - 02:52
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.