PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Tower Hamlets PCN - residents parking
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Hi all,

hope you can help. wife visited her sister in east london (we live in the midlands) and parked in a residents bay as she was told she would be given a scratch card to put on which gives parking. When she got there and parked up, not only did she have two kids (1 and 5 years old), her sister upstairs had two kids as well so neither could leave the kids alone. So my wife went up with the kids (tower block), left them with her sister and got the scratch card down to display. by the time she got back down, there was a PCN on the car.
I have made an informal rep explaining exactly this which has been rejected. please see the PCN and letters below.

PCN and scratch card.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/yy646t0zb4d4trv/2...162519.jpg?dl=0

back

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukzq7qm8eddjhwd/2...162529.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nl8bqr1p7rqmz9a/2...162537.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhlh0c2jq2odnx0/2...162544.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdgmnoeytoynsl6/2...162557.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2wclpt2ef64kek/2...162607.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/usmrue44yjz4gbk/2...162630.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2hrcx800b1xj20s/2...162643.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6u6o200jmckrm3/2...162653.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/omx582ddez26lhh/M...285%29.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nczsqtn5k8fiw4g/M...284%29.jpg?dl=0


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image



Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image



Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 25)
Advertisement
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
d-evil
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:01
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Thank you so much.
I will give it some time before sending.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:16
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,634
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:19) *
QUOTE (d-evil @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:26) *
Thank you so much for your help. Please see initial draft.

I've tidied this up a bit, I'm sure others will chip in with any additional suggestions. If your wife is able to truthfully provide any details about inevitable delays (such as the lift stopped on however many floors) those details should be added under ground 1. By the way be prepared for the fact that there's a 99% chance the council will reject this (they want your money) and you'll have to appeal to the London Tribunals, but I'm as confident as I can be that this will get cancelled at that stage.

To Whom it may concern,

Please accept the below as my formal representations against the Notice to Owner issued on 6 February 2018 for PCN number XXXXXX

Ground 1: The Contravention did not occur:
My wife was driving her car from the midlands down to east London with my two young children. Upon arriving, she had to obtain a scratch parking permit from her sister, who lives on the 16th floor of a high rise building. Her sister also has young children who cannot be left unattended, so it was not possible for my wife's sister to bring a visitor's permit down to the car. My wife therefore secured the car and made her way to her sister's flat, together with her young children, in order to obtain a permit. Once there, she obtained the ticket, she ensured that it had been scratched according to the rules, and left the children with her sister. Unfortunately at this point the children were crying not to be left alone after they had been sleeping for an hour and 30 minute journey and had just woken up. Nonetheless, my wife made her way back to the car without any unnecessary delay, unfortunately by the time she had returned to the car a PCN had already been placed on the windscreen. I enclose a copy of the scratch card as evidence of the above.

The parking scheme in place requires visitors to obtain a visitor's parking permit and display it on the dashboard. Motorists obtain visitor permits from the premises they are visiting, there is no requirement that a stock of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. It is a necessary implication of the scheme that the motorist is allowed a reasonable amount of time to obtain a visitor's permit and return to the vehicle, where this is done without unnecessary delay, no contravention of the parking scheme occurs. I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in London Tribunals case 2160400146:

"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid residents' permit or voucher when in Wilberforce Road on 16 June 2016 at 12.37.
The Appellant's case is that he had gone to collect a visitor's permit from a customer's home, and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued before he could display the visitor's voucher. He has produced the visitor's voucher and a statement from the customer confirming his evidence.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that insufficient time was permitted for the Appellant driver Mr Cameron to collect, validate and display the visitor's voucher, which had been given to him, in his vehicle.
The appeal is allowed.
"

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:
In its letter dated 11 January 2018 the council has stated "Please be advised that it remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the scratch card is properly scratched off and displayed upon closing the doors of your vehicle", this statement evidences the council has misdirected itself in law and this amounts to a procedural impropriety.

I refer you to the decision in London Tribunals case 2050413235, where adjudicator Martin Wood stated, in so far as is relevant:
"In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the P it is expected that a supply of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source of them for motorists"

In this case, the council's assertion that a visitor permit must be displayed before the car doors are closed means, by necessary implication, that the council expects a supply of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. As in the above case, this expectation has no justification in law, the scheme in this instance is that visitor permits are obtained from the occupiers of the premises being visited, and that is the source of visitor permits for motorists. It thus follows that visiting motorists are allowed a short but reasonable amount of time to obtain a permit and return to the car to display it. The assertion that the permit must be displayed before the vehicle doors are closed has no basis in law. As the council has misdirected itself in law, the council has committed a procedural impropriety following which the penalty charge cannot be enforced.

In light of the above, I expect the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner to be cancelled.

Kind regards



QUOTE
Unfortunately at this point the children were crying not to be left alone after they had been sleeping for an hour and 30 minute journey and had just woken up. Nonetheless


I would leave out this bit. It could intimate or be used to by this shower to suggest that the wife spent some time soothing the children. Any normal person would expect this but not council money grabbers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:20
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,406
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



+1

Also:

"16th floor of a high rise building."

Say what building it is - xxxx Tower or whatever. Also, did you park outside the building - how close could you get?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 20:43
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Hi All,

After sending the reps, I received the following notice of rejection:

Attached Image


Attached Image


The two missing pages contains one blank page and one page with two pictures. One of the side of the car and one of the sign as attached in opening post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 20:55
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,406
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



So now you must take this to the tribunal. They say 5 mins is enough and that your circumstances outside that will not be tolerated. I say this is a gross failure to consider the circumstances in a well constructed appeal.

Ideally someone should represent you here - I wonder if Mr Mustard, although a busy man, might do this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 21:34
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,928
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well as they're not re-offering the discount, it's a no-brainier to appeal to the tribunal. I would lodge an appeal based on the following:

Ground 1: The Contravention did not occur:
My wife was driving her car from the midlands down to east London with my two young children. Upon arriving, she had to obtain a scratch parking permit from her sister, who lives on the 16th floor of a high rise building. Her sister also has young children who cannot be left unattended, so it was not possible for my wife's sister to bring a visitor's permit down to the car. My wife therefore secured the car and made her way to her sister's flat, together with her young children, in order to obtain a permit. Once there, she obtained the ticket, she ensured that it had been scratched according to the rules, and left the children with her sister. My wife then made her way back to the car without any unnecessary delay, unfortunately by the time she had returned to the car a PCN had already been placed on the windscreen. I enclose a copy of the scratch card as evidence of the above.

The parking scheme in place requires visitors to obtain a visitor's parking permit and display it on the dashboard. Motorists obtain visitor permits from the premises they are visiting, there is no requirement that a stock of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. It is a necessary implication of the scheme that the motorist is allowed a reasonable amount of time to obtain a visitor's permit and return to the vehicle, where this is done without unnecessary delay, no contravention of the parking scheme occurs. I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in London Tribunals case 2160400146:

"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid residents' permit or voucher when in Wilberforce Road on 16 June 2016 at 12.37.
The Appellant's case is that he had gone to collect a visitor's permit from a customer's home, and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued before he could display the visitor's voucher. He has produced the visitor's voucher and a statement from the customer confirming his evidence.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that insufficient time was permitted for the Appellant driver Mr Cameron to collect, validate and display the visitor's voucher, which had been given to him, in his vehicle.
The appeal is allowed.
"

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:
In its letter dated 11 January 2018 the council has stated "Please be advised that it remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the scratch card is properly scratched off and displayed upon closing the doors of your vehicle", this statement evidences the council has misdirected itself in law and this amounts to a procedural impropriety.

I refer you to the decision in London Tribunals case 2050413235, where adjudicator Martin Wood stated, in so far as is relevant:
"In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the P it is expected that a supply of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source of them for motorists"

In this case, the council's assertion that a visitor permit must be displayed before the car doors are closed means, by necessary implication, that the council expects a supply of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. As in the above case, this expectation has no justification in law, the scheme in this instance is that visitor permits are obtained from the occupiers of the premises being visited, and that is the source of visitor permits for motorists. It thus follows that visiting motorists are allowed a short but reasonable amount of time to obtain a permit and return to the car to display it. The assertion that the permit must be displayed before the vehicle doors are closed has no basis in law. As the council has misdirected itself in law, the council has committed a procedural impropriety following which the penalty charge cannot be enforced.

Ground 3: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:
In the notice of rejection, the enforcement authority has receded from its previous position that a permit must be displayed as soon as the car doors are closed, and instead states that CEOs will observe a car for five minutes before issuing a PCN. As a matter of law a contravention does not occur before the motorist has had a reasonable amount of time to obtain a scratch card and return to the vehicle, and it is not unreasonable for the council to instruct CEOs to allow an observation time of five minutes. However what will amount to a reasonable amount of time to obtain a scratch card and return to the vehicle without unnecessary delay will, by its very nature, be a highly case specific issue. Therefore whether the amount of time taken by a motorist to obtain a permit and return to a vehicle was reasonable will vary from case to case.

The notice of rejection implies that any appeal will be rejected if a motorists takes more than five minutes to return to his or her vehicle, no matter how expeditiously they endeavour to obtain a permit and return to their car. There is nothing in the Notice of Rejection to suggest that the council does not accept the account provided in the formal representations, the rejection seems instead to be based on a stance that once the five minute limit is exceeded, no circumstances can exist which make the time taken to return to the vehicle "reasonable" within the meaning of the relevant case law. This blanket approach is plainly unlawful, the council should have given proper consideration to the circumstances described in the formal representations, and if the account given was disbelieved, or if it did not, in the council's view, show that the driver had returned to her vehicle as soon as possible and without unnecessary delay, the Notice of Rejection should have stated as much.

The council has therefore failed to consider whether, notwithstanding the five minutes observation period, the representations submitted showed that the driver returned to her vehicle as soon as reasonably possible. This failure to consider the specific facts of the case amount to a procedural impropriety following which the penalty charge cannot be enforced.

Ground 4: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:
The formal representations made against the Notice to Owner included the procedural impropriety point raised at ground 2 above, but the Notice of Rejection is silent on the issue. While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in appeal number 2170256432 is relevant in this instance. In that decision, adjudicator Houghton stated, in so far as is relevant:

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”.

In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the alleged procedural impropriety was not made out, was not relevant or was not (for whatever reason) accepted by the council, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and this failure to consider amounts to a further procedural impropriety. It follows that even if the contravention had occurred, the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner should now be cancelled.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
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: Friday, 22nd June 2018 - 16:45
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.