Valid residents permit slightly obscured by a pay and display ticket tucked in the top |
Valid residents permit slightly obscured by a pay and display ticket tucked in the top |
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 15:17
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 11 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,823 |
Hi,
I received 2 PCN from Greenwich Council on 2 consecutive days after my wife tucked a random Pay and display ticket from a day trip into the top of the permit holder. My registration and the area were still visible. I have a photo. My permit was valid and on the council database, I did the informal appeal and received notificationof receipt on 25th November. I even chased it with them when I heard nothing 74 days later they rejected the informal appeal. Is that too long? I know with a formal appeal they have 56 days Their letter was date 7th Feb and received today 11th Feb meaning I have just 10 days to decide whether to pay or fight it. How can a letter sent 1 mile take 4 days? Clearly there is a technical issue with tucking or obsuring any part of the permit but it was absolutely clear the permit was for the car and in the right area. the council logo was obsured thats all and rejected on these grounds. I have the choice to go for it and risk an extra £130 in fine or pay it and take the lower price. Any advice gratefully received |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 15:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 13:13
Post
#21
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 11 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,823 |
Well looking at their policy if this is a first time this should be cancelled as you said. They have not said you've done this before so I would continue and again quote their policy at formal reps. or even send them this now as a query about their policy. I presume you did quote this? Its my first time getting a PCN, certianly on this car, in this street/zone for this offence anyway |
|
|
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 13:17
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
have you got your challenge to them?
|
|
|
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 14:22
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,072 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I can see the date of their letter in the narrative in your first post i.e. 7 Feb. But whether using this or the date it was delivered, 11th, you are still beyond the extended discount period.
However, on 12th you posted 'No just the informal appeal. I have 9 days left to decide what to do.', so I am lost. If you have missed the discount there is nothing for you to do until you receive the NTO, presuming you are the registered keeper and your details are current. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 14:24 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 08:18
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Greenwich has form for this kind of thing, see Joseph Coen v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2180251537, 25 July 2018)
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 12:51
Post
#25
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 11 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,823 |
And the date of their letter? 7th February received on 11th February though. Interesting this morning I received an email cancelling one of the tickets but not the other! I guess the guy who said that they should be considered a single offence has the key to my success now. They have referenced The emaill said as follows "Further to our previous email, we have exercised discretion on this occasion and waived case GR0720937A as this was the first contravention and no previous Notices have been incurred in similar circumstances. Case GR07607736 remains outstanding. There is no formal timescale for responding to informal representations, but the Notice to Owner document has to be issued within 6 months of service of the Penalty Charge Notice. The standard charge is £130.00, but a discount is offered if payment is received within 14 days of the date on the letter rejecting the representations. If you decide to appeal, the 14 day period will elapse therefore the standard charge will become payable. Although a permit was visible, details on the permit were obscured and both Notices were therefore correctly issued. Yours sincerely Parking Services Royal Borough of Greenwich" [b] However just before they send this version of the email then tried to recall it[/b] Further to your enquiry, we have exercised discretion on this occasion and waived case GR07607736 as no previous Notices have been incurred in similar circumstances. Case GR0720937A remains outstanding. There is no formal timescale for responding to informal representations, but the Notice to Owner document has to be issued within 6 months of service of the Penalty Charge Notice. The standard charge is £130.00, but a discount is offered if payment is received within 14 days of the date on the letter rejecting the representations. If you decide to appeal, the 14 day period will elapse therefore the standard charge will become payable. Although a permit was visible, details on the permit were obscured and both Notices were therefore correctly issued. Yours sincerely Parking Services Royal Borough of Greenwich And the date of their letter? 7th February received on 11th February though. Interesting this morning I received an email cancelling one of the tickets but not the other! I guess the guy who said that they should be considered a single offence has the key to my success now. They have referenced The emaill said as follows "Further to our previous email, we have exercised discretion on this occasion and waived case GR0720937A as this was the first contravention and no previous Notices have been incurred in similar circumstances. Case GR07607736 remains outstanding. There is no formal timescale for responding to informal representations, but the Notice to Owner document has to be issued within 6 months of service of the Penalty Charge Notice. The standard charge is £130.00, but a discount is offered if payment is received within 14 days of the date on the letter rejecting the representations. If you decide to appeal, the 14 day period will elapse therefore the standard charge will become payable. Although a permit was visible, details on the permit were obscured and both Notices were therefore correctly issued. Yours sincerely Parking Services Royal Borough of Greenwich" [b] However just before they send this version of the email then tried to recall it[/b] Further to your enquiry, we have exercised discretion on this occasion and waived case GR07607736 as no previous Notices have been incurred in similar circumstances. Case GR0720937A remains outstanding. There is no formal timescale for responding to informal representations, but the Notice to Owner document has to be issued within 6 months of service of the Penalty Charge Notice. The standard charge is £130.00, but a discount is offered if payment is received within 14 days of the date on the letter rejecting the representations. If you decide to appeal, the 14 day period will elapse therefore the standard charge will become payable. Although a permit was visible, details on the permit were obscured and both Notices were therefore correctly issued. Yours sincerely Parking Services Royal Borough of Greenwich IN the light of this should I go back to them now informally and say that these shuld be considered one offence?? or just iginore this and wait for their formal approach? |
|
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 14:13
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
I would raise another informal rep along these lines:
----------------- Thank you for email of the dd/mm/yyyy. I note you have used your discretion to waive PCN xxxx dated dd/mm/yyyy. Thank you for that. However you state that PCN xxxx dated dd/mm/yyyy remains outstanding. I note Greenwich council's waiver policy for partially obscured permits, suggests discretion for the first instance of this contravention. I would point out that the second PCN was issued one day after the first PCN and the car had not moved in the meantime. That is to say the second PCN was issued during the same parking instance. Hence the second PCN should also have been waived following policy, as this was also issued during the first instance of the contravention. The question of whether two successive PCNs can be regarded as being for the same parking instance has previously been considered at appeal. I bring your attention to London Tribunals case 2180251537 for a similar case in Greenwich where two successive PCNs were also raised for a partially obscured permit. The appeal was upheld: The Appellant appeals this PCN on the basis that being the second PCN in 24 hours when the car had not moved, it should be cancelled. I have considered all of the evidence. I consider that this was one incidence of parking taken in conjunction with the PCN issued less than 24 hours earlier. The vehicle had not been moved. The EA should have followed its Exemption and Waiver policy. The appeal is allowed. In light of this clear decision, I respectfully request that you waive the second PCN xxxx. Yours.... This post has been edited by rosturra: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 14:23 |
|
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 17:05
Post
#27
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 11 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,823 |
I would raise another informal rep along these lines: ----------------- Thank you for email of the dd/mm/yyyy. I note you have used your discretion to waive PCN xxxx dated dd/mm/yyyy. Thank you for that. However you state that PCN xxxx dated dd/mm/yyyy remains outstanding. I note Greenwich council's waiver policy for partially obscured permits, suggests discretion for the first instance of this contravention. I would point out that the second PCN was issued one day after the first PCN and the car had not moved in the meantime. That is to say the second PCN was issued during the same parking instance. Hence the second PCN should also have been waived following policy, as this was also issued during the first instance of the contravention. The question of whether two successive PCNs can be regarded as being for the same parking instance has previously been considered at appeal. I bring your attention to London Tribunals case 2180251537 for a similar case in Greenwich where two successive PCNs were also raised for a partially obscured permit. The appeal was upheld: The Appellant appeals this PCN on the basis that being the second PCN in 24 hours when the car had not moved, it should be cancelled. I have considered all of the evidence. I consider that this was one incidence of parking taken in conjunction with the PCN issued less than 24 hours earlier. The vehicle had not been moved. The EA should have followed its Exemption and Waiver policy. The appeal is allowed. In light of this clear decision, I respectfully request that you waive the second PCN xxxx. Yours.... Thanks very much I will do this. I'll email it to them |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:28 |