Merton. One box unscratched in ½ day Parking Permit = PCN. Options

[ZigZagZog]

My mate John was issued PCN by Merton Council. On the Half Day Parking Permit he used he omitted scratching clear the 'month' box.

Any chance of a succesful appeal against this PCN?

TIA











This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:50

[Advertisement]

[ZigZagZog]

Thanks Incandescent, I've shamelessly stolen your words & edited my last para. to include them.

Hope that's OK. Does it read all right?

[cp8759]

You should add at the bottom:

If however the tribunal is unable to allow the appeal, I ask that the tribunal consider making a recommendation to the enforcement authority to cancel the Notice to Owner, as provided for under appeal regulation 7(4).

[ZigZagZog]

Done, thanks cp.

Below is the latest version. In post 56 stamfordman alluded to the possibility the adjudicator would consider the permit substantially valid based on case reports which should be built into the appeal. Can someone direct me to these case reports?

I'm hopeful the adjudicator will consider the permit substantially valid given the case reports we've seen and which should be built into your appeal - but nothing to lose now.

I received the PCN XXXXXXXX with the parking contravention 19s on 00/00/00 at XX.XX. I would ask the Adjudicator to please consider my case, and using common sense see that it was always my intention to abide by and comply with Merton's parking rules & regulations, that I had nothing to gain, wasn't gaming the system and, considering that Merton have lost nothing, waive this PCN for the reasons outlined below.

I used a valid parking permit but forgot to scratch off the month part, in this case for 'July'. It was a minor, honest mistake – I was pushed for time as I was running late and in my haste simply omitted scratching off the last of the four sections, the month the permit was for. The car was otherwise parked properly, legally and safely as you can see from the evidence provided.

I'd like to point out that with the boxes I had scratched out on the parking permit I used, it could only have been used on 09/07/2018 in 2018 as there is not another Monday the 9th to come in any month remaining in 2018. I do not believe any fair minded person would agree that the month section of the permit was purposely left blank with the intention of reusing it on Monday the 9th of September, 2019, the next time the 9th day of any month falls on a Monday, some 14 months after the permit was used. I was working in Wimbledon at the Tennis Championships for a period of two weeks only, and will not be returning Wimbledon again.

Furthermore, I believe Merton's casual, haphazard & amateurish handling of my appeal to them, with mistakes made throughout the rejection of that appeal demonstrate a cynical and mercenary attitude that wilfully ignores common sense so that as many PCN fines can be collected as possible. Firstly, the first rejection letter completely failed to address the key point outlined in the paragraph above - this ticket could not be re-used for any month remaining in 2018 and not again for a further 14 months. Secondly, the first rejection letter was erroneous in stating ‘I note you have stated you work for Merton Council’ when I had never made such an assertion. Similarly, the rejection spoke of a Full Day Permit when I used a Half Day Permit (see CEO's photo evidence), showing systematic carelessness on the part of Merton’s PCN department. The kindest interpretation of this, I believe, is that the response Merton sent to me was a response intended for someone else. A more cynical person might interpret it as a systematic policy of casual, automatic rejection of any appeal with only the most cursory examination of the merits of that appeal in the hope the appellant will give up on their appeal and pay the PCN. Merton do not make any money by granting appeals.

Although the Council have since responded to these issues upon prompting, I believe their reply was both insufficient and dismissive, hence my decision to take this to independent adjudication. This whole process has been made difficult by the considerable laxity shown by the Council and the amateurish way in which my case has been dealt with. Rejected regardless of the content - evidenced by the fact that Merton did not even read my appeal and were apparently replying to someone else - the Council have demonstrated that they regard PCNs as simply an endless money making machine and that this is a numbers game they are playing, rejecting appeals unread and out of hand in the knowledge most people will give up and pay them.

I would also like to note that the Contravention Code notes ‘Code 19 should only be issued if a permit that is or was valid for that bay is used but is invalid at time of PCN due to:

· It has expired

· It is in the wrong vehicle

· Obscured date/VRM

This permit had not expired, was not in the wrong vehicle and the date and VRM were not obscured.

This was an honest, very minor mistake made on filling out a parking permit which was substantially compliant, arguably a de minimis mistake, with no intention on my part to game the system or parking regulations, with no gain to be made by me and no loss to be suffered by Merton. I would ask that the adjudicator allows the appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case being that the error in not scratching the month is of no consequence, and is so trivial as to be de minimis. Indeed, an argument could be made that the contravention did not occur.

If however the tribunal is unable to allow the appeal, I ask that the tribunal consider making a recommendation to the enforcement authority to cancel the Notice to Owner, as provided for under appeal regulation 7(4).

Yours sincerely,

[stamfordman]

PMB posted one in #26 - he may have more up his sleeve (you could PM him).

[ZigZagZog]

Thanks SM, I had forgotten about that.

I've PM'ed PMB but can't see it in my 'sent' folder. I'm posting in below in case it doesn't get delivered & in the hope he'll see it before this appeal is submitted on Saturday. He seems to be on this forum pretty regularly.

Hi,

On the thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1439773 I'm getting ready to submit John's appeal to Merton & wondered if you had a link to the appeal decision you posted back in July or some way of referencing it so the adjudicator can see it or link to it & take it into consideration - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1400027

Do you know of any other similar decisions?

Many thanks,

ZZZ.

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 12:56

[PASTMYBEST]

Thanks SM, I had forgotten about that.

I've PM'ed PMB but can't see it in my 'sent' folder. I'm posting in below in case it doesn't get delivered & in the hope he'll see it before this appeal is submitted on Saturday. He seems to be on this forum pretty regularly.

Hi,

On the thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1439773 I'm getting ready to submit John's appeal to Merton & wondered if you had a link to the appeal decision you posted back in July or some way of referencing it so the adjudicator can see it or link to it & take it into consideration - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1400027

Do you know of any other similar decisions?

Many thanks,

ZZZ.

Have replied to your PM. just copy post 26 including the case number. the adjudicator can reference from that. I have no other cases that apply to your case

[ZigZagZog]

Thanks pmb, I've added your case to the latest latest version.

I'm wide open to any suggestions or input to make this appeal stronger so if anyone has anything to offer please sing out.


I received the PCN XXXXXXXX with the parking contravention 19s on 00/00/00 at XX.XX. I would ask the Adjudicator to please consider my case, and using common sense see that it was always my intention to abide by and comply with Merton's parking rules & regulations, that I had nothing to gain, wasn't gaming the system and, considering that Merton have lost nothing, waive this PCN for the reasons outlined below.

I used a valid parking permit but forgot to scratch off the month part, in this case for 'July'. It was a minor, honest mistake – I was pushed for time as I was running late and in my haste simply omitted scratching off the last of the four sections, the month the permit was for. The car was otherwise parked properly, legally and safely as you can see from the evidence provided.

I'd like to point out that with the boxes I had scratched out on the parking permit I used, it could only have been used on 09/07/2018 in 2018 as there is not another Monday the 9th to come in any month remaining in 2018. I do not believe any fair minded person would agree that the month section of the permit was purposely left blank with the intention of reusing it on Monday the 9th of September, 2019, the next time the 9th day of any month falls on a Monday, some 14 months after the permit was used. I was working in Wimbledon at the Tennis Championships for a period of two weeks only, and will not be returning Wimbledon again.

Furthermore, I believe Merton's casual, haphazard & amateurish handling of my appeal to them, with mistakes made throughout the rejection of that appeal demonstrate a cynical and mercenary attitude that wilfully ignores common sense so that as many PCN fines can be collected as possible. Firstly, the first rejection letter completely failed to address the key point outlined in the paragraph above - this ticket could not be re-used for any month remaining in 2018 and not again for a further 14 months. Secondly, the first rejection letter was erroneous in stating ‘I note you have stated you work for Merton Council’ when I had never made such an assertion. Similarly, the rejection spoke of a Full Day Permit when I used a Half Day Permit (see CEO's photo evidence), showing systematic carelessness on the part of Merton’s PCN department. The kindest interpretation of this, I believe, is that the response Merton sent to me was a response intended for someone else. A more cynical person might interpret it as a systematic policy of casual, automatic rejection of any appeal with only the most cursory examination of the merits of that appeal in the hope the appellant will give up on their appeal and pay the PCN. Merton do not make any money by granting appeals.

Although the Council have since responded to these issues upon prompting, I believe their reply was both insufficient and dismissive, hence my decision to take this to independent adjudication. This whole process has been made difficult by the considerable laxity shown by the Council and the amateurish way in which my case has been dealt with. Rejected regardless of the content - evidenced by the fact that Merton did not even read my appeal and were apparently replying to someone else - the Council have demonstrated that they regard PCNs as simply an endless money making machine and that this is a numbers game they are playing, rejecting appeals unread and out of hand in the knowledge most people will give up and pay them.

I would also like to note that the Contravention Code notes ‘Code 19 should only be issued if a permit that is or was valid for that bay is used but is invalid at time of PCN due to:

· It has expired

· It is in the wrong vehicle

· Obscured date/VRM

This permit had not expired, was not in the wrong vehicle and the date and VRM were not obscured.

This was an honest, very minor mistake made on filling out a parking permit which was substantially compliant, arguably a de minimis mistake, with no intention on my part to game the system or parking regulations, with no gain to be made by me and no loss to be suffered by Merton. I would ask that the adjudicator allows the appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case being that the error in not scratching the month is of no consequence, and is so trivial as to be de minimis. Indeed, an argument could be made that the contravention did not occur. In support of this I cite case# 2160272793

"2160272793

Appeal decision: Appeal allowed

Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons: This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Pennyroyal Avenue at 2.38pm on 11 April 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.

I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Mr Overlingas' van was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the controlled hours of 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.

The images show that there was a visitor's permit displayed in the windscreen of the van which was clearly scratched for the date of 11 April 2016. I can see no alteration of the date.

The Council says that the permit was not valid because Mr Overlingas had not written in the time of arrival.

The sole purpose of having a field for the time of arrival is so that the CEO can see whether or not the motorist has overstayed the 6 hours of parking time permitted by the permit. It must have been very clear to the issuing CEO that the permitted 6 hours of parking had not been exceeded in this case. The controlled hours began at 9am and the PCN was issued at 2.38pm. I am satisfied that the permit displayed was valid for parking in the circumstances."

If however the tribunal is unable to allow the appeal, I ask that the tribunal consider making a recommendation to the enforcement authority to cancel the Notice to Owner, as provided for under appeal regulation 7(4).

Yours sincerely,

[PASTMYBEST]

Your paragraphs 4 and 5 need rewording. Make your points without having a go at the council and do not say they are rejecting challenges and reps as a revenue raising method. You want the adjudicator on your side not thinking you are just a disgruntled Mr nasty

[ZigZagZog]

Oh come on, that's my favourite bit!

I suppose though what happened between Merton & John after the PCN was issued is irrelevant from the eyes of the adjudicator. i imagine these are busy people who want to get to the nitty-gritty in these appeals tout de suite. With that in mind should he just delete those 2 paras completely or is there something to be gained in briefly summarising the mistakes Merton made (& leaving out the bit where he has a go at them)?

[ZigZagZog]

OK, new toned down paras 4 & 5 below in blue. They are actually from an earlier draft of this.

Will they do? Anything else need changing?

TIA.


I received the PCN XXXXXXXX with the parking contravention 19s on 00/00/00 at XX.XX. I would ask the Adjudicator to please consider my case, and using common sense see that it was always my intention to abide by and comply with Merton's parking rules & regulations, that I had nothing to gain, wasn't gaming the system and, considering that Merton have lost nothing, waive this PCN for the reasons outlined below.

I used a valid parking permit but forgot to scratch off the month part, in this case for 'July'. It was a minor, honest mistake – I was pushed for time as I was running late and in my haste simply omitted scratching off the last of the four sections, the month the permit was for. The car was otherwise parked properly, legally and safely as you can see from the evidence provided.

I'd like to point out that with the boxes I had scratched out on the parking permit I used, it could only have been used on 09/07/2018 in 2018 as there is not another Monday the 9th to come in any month remaining in 2018. I do not believe any fair minded person would agree that the month section of the permit was purposely left blank with the intention of reusing it on Monday the 9th of September, 2019, the next time the 9th day of any month falls on a Monday, some 14 months after the permit was used. I was working in Wimbledon at the Tennis Championships for a period of two weeks only, and will not be returning Wimbledon again.

Furthermore, I believe Merton has made mistakes in the rejection of my appeal and it is therefore due further consideration. Firstly, the rejection letter completely failed to address the key point outlined in the paragraph above - this ticket could not be re-used for any month remaining in 2018 and not again for a further 14 months.

Secondly, the rejection is erroneous in stating ‘I note you have stated you work for Merton Council’ when no such assertion was made in the appeal. Similarly, the rejection speaks of a full-day permit when I used a Half Day Permit (see CEO's photo evidence), suggesting that Merton's PCN department has made a mistake. The kindest interpretation of this, I believe, is that the response Merton sent to me was a response intended for another person.

I would also like to note that the Contravention Code notes ‘Code 19 should only be issued if a permit that is or was valid for that bay is used but is invalid at time of PCN due to:

· It has expired

· It is in the wrong vehicle

· Obscured date/VRM

This permit had not expired, was not in the wrong vehicle and the date and VRM were not obscured.

This was an honest, very minor mistake made on filling out a parking permit which was substantially compliant, arguably a de minimis mistake, with no intention on my part to game the system or parking regulations, with no gain to be made by me and no loss to be suffered by Merton. I would ask that the adjudicator allows the appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case being that the error in not scratching the month is of no consequence, and is so trivial as to be de minimis. Indeed, an argument could be made that the contravention did not occur. In support of this I cite case# 2160272793

"2160272793

Appeal decision: Appeal allowed

Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons: This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Pennyroyal Avenue at 2.38pm on 11 April 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.

I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Mr Overlingas' van was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the controlled hours of 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.

The images show that there was a visitor's permit displayed in the windscreen of the van which was clearly scratched for the date of 11 April 2016. I can see no alteration of the date.

The Council says that the permit was not valid because Mr Overlingas had not written in the time of arrival.

The sole purpose of having a field for the time of arrival is so that the CEO can see whether or not the motorist has overstayed the 6 hours of parking time permitted by the permit. It must have been very clear to the issuing CEO that the permitted 6 hours of parking had not been exceeded in this case. The controlled hours began at 9am and the PCN was issued at 2.38pm. I am satisfied that the permit displayed was valid for parking in the circumstances."

If however the tribunal is unable to allow the appeal, I ask that the tribunal consider making a recommendation to the enforcement authority to cancel the Notice to Owner, as provided for under appeal regulation 7(4).

Yours sincerely,

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 14:55

[ZigZagZog]

Well gang, are we there yet? Will that do?

No new advice or suggestions so am I correct in thinking this is good to go?

Deadline is tomorrow & unless anyone has anything to offer it'll go as is.

A big thanks once again to everyone who has helped John in this fight with the Merton parking weasels.

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 09:19

[ZigZagZog]

Down to the wire here & John's just told me his appeal is too long by 130 something words for the space provided on the (I guess) adjudicator's page. He says he cannot submit it as a pdf.

I can't see the page but that doesn't sound right to me. Does anyone know if pdf submission is OK?

[ZigZagZog]

For anyone else encountering difficulties in uploading a pdf to London Tribunals (0207 520 7200, option 1 then option 1 again to speak to a human) they suggest the following.

Sign in, filling in all the guff until you get to the submit appeal bit & there writing something to the effect 'appeal to be uploaded as a pdf', then sign out, sign back in, click on the 'update my appeal' button & then upload your pdf into that section.

HTH.

[ZigZagZog]

VICTORY!

A HUGE thank you to everyone who helped John & me put together this appeal.



Case Reference: 2180487500
Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.

The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.

The adjudicator directs London Borough of Merton to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and
the Notice to Owner.

If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement Authority.

Adjudicator's Reasons
The Appellant parked in some haste and inadvertently failed to scratch out the month on her otherwise correctly completed permit. However a result of this minor oversight the permit was not valid and a PCN was issued - as they routinely are by many Councils in this situation. Motorists are always required to ensure their vehicles are parked lawfully and this includes taking care to ensure any required documentation is in order. The vehicle was in contravention and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.

It seems clear, however, that the Appellant's representations were hardly considered at all and included a reference to her stating that she was employed by Merton Council something she had never stated at all. The Council later apologised for these errors, but has provided no explanation how they occurred. (Edit: ZZZ's favourite bit -->) There is something unattractive about a Council not being prepared to exercise discretion in the case of a motorist who has made a minor error yet expecting its own more serious errors to be overlooked. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered. This does not mean that every point the motorist choses to raise must be thoroughly canvassed but it does mean that - on the facts of the present case - the Council should describe the permit correctly and particularly not import non-existent facts. In my judgement the very unsatisfactory way the representations were dealt with amounted to a procedural impropriety and the Appeals allowed on this
ground alone.

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:09

[stamfordman]

Good result. We won't know if the voucher itself would have been deemed compliant enough as the council shot itself in the foot. So you may have been lucky here but it's a good example of proceeding in the hope that a council will mess things up - they often do.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:16

[TigerRob]

Good result. Could you share the case number?

[ZigZagZog]

Good result. Could you share the case number?

Case Reference: 2180487500

I've added it to the VICTORY! post & I will post the adjudicator's letter up later today.

[ZigZagZog]