PCN - continuous contravention again. |
PCN - continuous contravention again. |
Tue, 1 May 2018 - 11:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Hi all;
I have a valid parking permit for Greenwich. In January I found I had two PCNs; which puzzled me. Then realised that the permit was obscured by a National Trust parking permit sticker - which had slipped into the pass holder. Bang to rights. But I was obviously annoyed with myself that I got two PCNs - when I had a valid permit! (It was bad enough last year - when I let the permit lapse! But that's another story). The second PCN was a day later - but within 24 hours of first one. The car had not moved in the interim. I immediately informally appealed; hoping for discretion only. On the basis that I had a valid permit. It was an unforeseen circumstance. I thought the permit was displayed correctly when I left the car. No benefit was gained (by not paying for parking). Apologies for inconvenience. I fully intend to be more careful in the future. yada yada. For the second one I repeated the same reps. but added the gvt advice that I shouldn't get two tickets for the same contravention within 24 hours. Some thoughts. I have seen other cases where the council give discretion when someone has failed to display an otherwise valid ticket correctly. Usually for car-parking tickets; and first time error only. However I can't find any notes on discretion for my error. Last year the council were very tardy in responding to my informal appeal. and it was this very tardiness which led to my success at tribunal, rather than my reps (which were dismissed). So it's definitely worth an appeal in the hope of similar inefficiency! Now in my previous tribunal, it was ruled that I could not use continuous contravention as a grounds for appeal. As the two parking restricted periods (09:00-05:00) were separated - so two distinct contraventions. In this instance - the two PCNs are on different days - but within 24 hours. I believe the advice is that councils should not pursue the second PCN if within 24 hours of another ticket for the same contravention. Now this seems a little ambiguous to me and gives me hope. The contravention is code 12. Could I argue that the "same contravention" refers generically to the code 12 contravention. So I have grounds for appeal (I had two tickets for the same type of contravention within 24 hours) . Or would it be argued that a "same contravention" could only be with another PCN in the same contravention period. Contravention A is for day 1 09:00-17:00. Contravention B is for day 2 09:00-17:00. I will post up PCN - for your perusal - in the next post. Thanks all I had an almost exact same issue last year. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 1 May 2018 - 11:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 15:46
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
how's this?
I have received the council's case summary, dated 12 July 2018, and I am concerned with several inaccuracies and obfuscations contained within. The summary states that the first PCN was issued on 18th Janurary 2018, the location was "71a Greenwich South Street", and the permit was obscured. It continues that the second PCN was issued on 19th Janurary 2018, the location was "outside medical centre" and there was NO permit displayed. The Medical Centre's address is 71a Greenwich South Street. So the locations are identical, but the unaware may assume that the car had moved between the two PCNs. This clarification is important as my informal representation, for the second PCN, requested discretion on the basis of "continuous contravention" given that it was issued less than 24 hours after the first. The second CEO noted there was no permit displayed. This is incorrect. The evidence for this is the statement given, and the photograph taken, by the first CEO! For this to be true, then it is implied that I would have noticed that I got a PCN on day 1; then rather than remove the obstruction to my permit, I removed the permit altogether! The photographs for the second PCN have no value as evidence on this matter, due to sun dazzle. The summary then moves onto my formal representations, that the PCNs should be waived following the council's own waiver policy. The council stated that I requested that one PCN should be cancelled. This is simply not true. I requested that both PCNs be cancelled. This inference seems to be leading the adjudicator into considering that I have accepted that one appeal has no merit. The council repeat that their policy was not applied in my case because my permit was for two cars. Casually disregarding their own policy and repeating their unfounded suggestion that I could be engaging in serious criminal activity, with no evidence whatsoever. Finally the council state "The appellant previously received a PCN for displaying an expired permit which he appealed at ETA, The case was allowed" I can see no reason whatsoever for the council to mention this unrelated matter. It has no bearing on, or relevance to, the current appeal and appears to be an attempt to fetter their discretion. If this was a hint that I am a casual or serial appellant, I wish to state that I have challenged one PCN in over 25 years of being a Greenwich Parking Permit owner, and this was successful. |
|
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:35
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Don't like "attempt to fetter their discretion" we must prove that they have fettered their discretion.
Something like this-----The Council was obliged to consider my case under its waiver policy but has advanced two reasons why it has not exercised its discretion in this regard:- 1. The Council has fettered its discretion in refusing a waiver by reference to a third party decision (a successful ETA appeal). Given that the Council has not previously given a waiver it must fetter its discretion in wilfully withholding such action in this instance; 2. It has added a hurdle which isn't in it's policy--a two car rule to prevent a waiver being given. The Council must demonstrate adherence to Code of Practice it issues e.g. Case 2130603428. If it cannot comply with its own protocols it has fettered its discretion. Mick |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 21:53
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Don't like "attempt to fetter their discretion" we must prove that they have fettered their discretion. Something like this-----The Council was obliged to consider my case under its waiver policy but has advanced two reasons why it has not exercised its discretion in this regard:- 1. The Council has fettered its discretion in refusing a waiver by reference to a third party decision (a successful ETA appeal). Given that the Council has not previously given a waiver it must fetter its discretion in wilfully withholding such action in this instance; 2. It has added a hurdle which isn't in it's policy--a two car rule to prevent a waiver being given. The Council must demonstrate adherence to Code of Practice it issues e.g. Case 2130603428. If it cannot comply with its own protocols it has fettered its discretion. Mick Thanks Mick. Apologies for not previously acknowledging this advice. Which I incorporated into my reply. Tribunal's is tomorrow. Will keep you all informed. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 07:43
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Feel a total idiot. I got my dates wrong. The tribunal was yesterday - so I didn't attend. Woke up to the decision emailed to me.
Anyway I won on both PCNs. So thanks to all (SM, Mad Mick, CP) for sympathy and advice in drafting my reps and appeal. So my absence was not detrimental to my case. In particular thanks to CP for retrieving the council's waiver policy with a freedom of information request, which was key. Happy to post up full decision. As cases are closed I guess I do not need to be coy about personal details etc. In summary: The first decision. 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 second decision. 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. Note on second. I believe that the adjudicator accepts that the second PCN arose from the same parking incidence as the first; so that the council should have regarded it as a "First Strike" waiver, when considering policy. Rather than being it struck out for a continuous contravention. ----------------------- As a follow up. I have not been happy with the council's attitude and performance during this whole episode. It is clear that the staff are overloaded [ it took four months to send out NTO, in a previous case 5 months ]. Informal reps are rejected with standard templates with no reference to the arguments in reps. Staff are evidently not trained to consider reps in light of waiver policy (Or worse instructed to disregard it). Waiver policy not published. In general Council actions not 'fair' or 'flexible'; which should be in their "Mission Statement" [Do council department's have these?]. Council tax payer regarded as criminal with no evidence. Reject , reject , reject despite well argued, and as it turned out legally correct, reps in the hope that the appellant will drop out of process before tribunal. It strikes me as the performance of a dodgy Private Parking set-up, not as public servants. Who should I write to in order to complain? I wrote to my councillor to ask who to complain to, and she didn't reply. I know she cannot get involved in individual cases , but I was at pains to state I was complaining about the process. This post has been edited by rosturra: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 08:32 |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 08:04
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Success, well done.
But to reinforce the points of law (parking and local government) on which the adj based their decision: Any guidance has effect through council policies. If there’s no policy as regards any matter contained within stat guidance then this is a PI on its own. And if there is: IT MUST BE FOLLOWED. So in effect, stat guidance is not the issue. It’s the existence or otherwise of policy. As I posted: It is not within their discretion whether to have clear policies to guide officers within the enforcement authority on the exercise of the council's power of discretion - they must. There is a wider context in these matters than just the minutiae of parking regs. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 08:18
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Very well done - shame you didn't get to see the adjudicator though and the workings of the tribunal.
I would write to your ward councillors (and also the transport/environment lead if you can find out) https://directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk/dir...ch/councillors/ and Director of Communities & Environment & Deputy Chief Executive https://directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk/dir...nwich/officers/ |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 21:37
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well done, could you give us the tribunal case reference please?
Now that the tribunal has concluded it's proceedings, I would ask for a meeting with the local councillor who previously didn't reply. Once the case is over, your complaint has a lot more credibility as it cannot be dismissed as a collateral attack on the PCN. This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 21:44 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 08:19
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
Well done, could you give us the tribunal case reference please? Case Reference: 2180251537 Link: Tribunal ruling Now that the tribunal has concluded it's proceedings, I would ask for a meeting with the local councillor who previously didn't reply. Once the case is over, your complaint has a lot more credibility as it cannot be dismissed as a collateral attack on the PCN. I will. I'll keep the forum updated in the flame pit. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:22 |