PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Disabled Bay Parking Ticket - Badge Displayed, Havering Council issued ticket
LondonBloggs
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 08:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



Hi there,

My 75 year old Mum parked in a designated disabled bay at this location: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5776086,0...6384!8i8192 a couple of days ago.

She received this ticket: https://flic.kr/p/2mCZPf9

She said she was only there an hour or so and that the ticket and clock were on display clearly.

Please do you have any suggestions on best next steps. There seems to be no facility to view any photographic evidence on the council's webpage.

Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 08:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 14:48
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,971
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To be fair, the disagreement is between DD, cp and learned tribunal adjudicator Jill Yates on the one hand (see William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020) http://bit.ly/2wUH9QU, and hcandersen on the other.

It is noteworthy that that decision was made after a contested hearing where the adjudicator had the benefit of detailed submissions from both sides. I would go with the draft in post 18.


--------------------
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. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 15:18
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



Thanks for all your input folks. I've had a final re-draft and submitted the following. I'll keep you informed and be back in touch if we need a round 2:

Dear sirs,

I would like to appeal the issue of this penalty charge.
I parked in the designated disabled bays in Exchange Street and put my Blue Badge and time clock on display in the normal way. I then went off to M&S and returned within 1 hour - well within the 3 hour limit. I have enclosed a picture of my Blue Badge for your reference and verification as a valid Disabled Parking Badge.
I do struggle to reach over onto the dashboard to place my badge so I tend to reach in from outside the car. There was a heavy downpour at the time and I did take care to position the badge and time clock appropriately.
I am not sure what I did to receive this penalty and can only assume that your Enforcement Officer made an error but if I did anything wrong, I can only apologise and point to my disability and the weather conditions as mitigation and promise not to repeat the error.
Would you kindly explain and consider cancellation in light of the mitigating circumstances.
Many thanks

Yours faithfully
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 15:55
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,971
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I really would not mention the clock, it's counter-productive IMO. But it's your PCN so at the end of the day it's up to you whose advice you follow.


--------------------
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. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 16:04
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 16:55) *
I really would not mention the clock, it's counter-productive IMO. But it's your PCN so at the end of the day it's up to you whose advice you follow.



Thanks cp8759. Its gone off now as I'm going away tonight and don't have any more time to tinker.

You're probably all right in some way but unless you can get inside the mind of the recipient, it is hard to truly know what will land best.

I'm hoping to get a recipient with some common sense...

Thanks all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 16:06
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,102
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



TMO
https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk/data/sch...20No.%20111.pdf
Note that no mention of Parking Clock re relevant position and that Relevant Posisition relates to the 2000 regulations..says section 4 but not sure what that is about.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/68...ulation/12/made

The map based schedule adds nothing
https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk/data/msc.../AT17_rv0_1.pdf


No requirement for clock, no contravention, my story and I am sticking with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 16:12
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,971
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 17:06) *
No requirement for clock, no contravention, my story and I am sticking with it.

+1, between Michelle Dhillon v Leicester City Council and the William Watson decision, the council's position is hopeless.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 16:12


--------------------
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. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 13:54
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



Hi folks,

Thanks for your previous advice.

Disappointingly, our informal appeal was rejected: https://www.flickr.com/gp/159808924@N04/jyF5P6

We haven't yet received a notice to owner but in the meantime I attach the rejection letter.

Any advice at this juncture is appreciated.

Thank you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:07
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 17:06) *
TMO
https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk/data/sch...20No.%20111.pdf
Note that no mention of Parking Clock re relevant position and that Relevant Posisition relates to the 2000 regulations..says section 4 but not sure what that is about.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/68...ulation/12/made

The map based schedule adds nothing
https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk/data/msc.../AT17_rv0_1.pdf


No requirement for clock, no contravention, my story and I am sticking with it.


I am with you, no clock requirement except in yellow line situations. I am intrigued by their informal rejection where they say legislation requires the clock to be displayed to qualify for the dispensation. I think they need to be made to quote *exactly* what the Act and specific sections are in the formal challenge response.

This post has been edited by Gert: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:17
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



They've shot themselves in the foot with this I reckon with the ref to regulations.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:40
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,690
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Be careful; the Order mentions "parking disc" which under the 2000 Act means:-

(5) In this regulation “parking disc” means a device which–

(a)is 125 millimetres square and coloured blue, if issued on or after 1st April 2000 or orange, if issued before that date;

(b)has been issued by a local authority and has not ceased to be valid; and

©is capable of showing the quarter hour period during which a period of waiting has begun.

It is quite possible that an adjudicator might suggest that the mere mention of a "parking disc" meant it had to be used and that was the Council's intention. For instance he/she might point out that if it is required in a P&D bay its use in a time limited disabled bay is similarly required.

That letter does not make any allowance for the disabled person and just quoting the BB booklet is a cop out.

I would continue but more on the lines that Parliament did not intend to fine a disabled person for mistakes or forgetfulness when they were clearly entitled to use the bay i.e there has been NO mischief.

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 19:10
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,971
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Did you send the draft that you put in post 18? If not, please show us exactly what you sent. In any case the rejection looks like nonsense to me.

Mick there is no article of the TMO that the council can suggest has been breached, I think even Michael Burke would struggle to refuse this.


--------------------
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. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 23:20
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 19:10) *
Did you send the draft that you put in post 18? If not, please show us exactly what you sent. In any case the rejection looks like nonsense to me.

Mick there is no article of the TMO that the council can suggest has been breached, I think even Michael Burke would struggle to refuse this.


Hi there, my submission was as per post 22.

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 08:40
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,102
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:40) *
Be careful; the Order mentions "parking disc" which under the 2000 Act means:-

.........
It is quite possible that an adjudicator might suggest that the mere mention of a "parking disc" meant it had to be used and that was the Council's intention. For instance he/she might point out that if it is required in a P&D bay its use in a time limited disabled bay is similarly required.

...............
I would continue but more on the lines that Parliament did not intend to fine a disabled person for mistakes or forgetfulness when they were clearly entitled to use the bay i.e there has been NO mischief.

Mick

Certainly I would include the no mischief bit in any further challenges.

But their rejection letter specifically refers to regulations requiring the clock, which takes it away from any adjudicator interpretation and to a more binary decision.
Which regulations?

I would be asking that question in further challenges and if not getting an answer, within any appeal to adjudicators. If the council cannot show which regs, they have nothing to rely upon.

TBH, I would be asking the question now.....

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ???? and your rejection letter dated ????
I note that you rely on "regulations" that require a time clock to be displayed.
So I may fully consider my further options, please advise which regulations and which specific section you are relying upon.
Many Thanks
Hugs and Kisses
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 11:02
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 08:40) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 17:40) *
Be careful; the Order mentions "parking disc" which under the 2000 Act means:-

.........
It is quite possible that an adjudicator might suggest that the mere mention of a "parking disc" meant it had to be used and that was the Council's intention. For instance he/she might point out that if it is required in a P&D bay its use in a time limited disabled bay is similarly required.

...............
I would continue but more on the lines that Parliament did not intend to fine a disabled person for mistakes or forgetfulness when they were clearly entitled to use the bay i.e there has been NO mischief.

Mick

Certainly I would include the no mischief bit in any further challenges.

But their rejection letter specifically refers to regulations requiring the clock, which takes it away from any adjudicator interpretation and to a more binary decision.
Which regulations?

I would be asking that question in further challenges and if not getting an answer, within any appeal to adjudicators. If the council cannot show which regs, they have nothing to rely upon.

TBH, I would be asking the question now.....

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ???? and your rejection letter dated ????
I note that you rely on "regulations" that require a time clock to be displayed.
So I may fully consider my further options, please advise which regulations and which specific section you are relying upon.
Many Thanks
Hugs and Kisses




Thank you. The last line of their rejection letter states that they will not enter into any further correspondence prior to any appeal. Will I be wasting my time if I send them any other correspondence now? Especially considering it’s taken me nearly 2 months to respond to the original letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 11:53
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,566
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



I'd send it anyway. Won't they look good at an adjudication with a letter saying that, as it could be considered an unlawful statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 12:05
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Who is the resgistered keeper and is the V5C address correct as the notice owner is the next step if they do ignore that info request.

They also say they are 'unable' to reply to anything before the NTO... Well of course they are able - what they should say it is policy.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 14:29
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



OK, I'll send it. The registered keeper is my mum and all the logbook etc are correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 12 Dec 2021 - 11:53
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,102
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (LondonBloggs @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 14:29) *
OK, I'll send it. The registered keeper is my mum and all the logbook etc are correct.

Good.

It is not whether or not they will answer, it is that the question has been asked.
And will be asked again at NTO stage and again at Appeal (should it get that far)

They have made a solid statement that "regulations" require a time clock to be displayed.
As far as I know (which is a lot) there are no regulations saying that in a Disabled Bay, even a time limited one, a clock must be shown.
There is guidance (BB booklet), it is a good idea to show the time in any time limited and you must on yellow lines, can even be inferred (at a real stretch) within the traffic order.
But they are relying on mythical regulations which is simply not right and cannot be used to enforce a contravention.

There are other things such as signage and whether or not it is the right contravention but ask the question on which regulations at every stage, they cannot answer and in not doing so, you will win.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LondonBloggs
post Sun, 12 Dec 2021 - 14:25
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Member No.: 114,478



Thanks for your continued advice.

I have sent the letter today. Let’s see if we get a response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 12 Dec 2021 - 15:19
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,571
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Sometimes the intended audience if a letter is NOT the addressee
This is one of those occasions I'd say.

If they respond - Great. We have more info to help you pick yet more holes
Or they realise they're stuffed and cancel before wasting more public time and money. Unlikely.
Or they don't respond, and it pushes all the way to adjudication. I didn't an adjudicator would be on any councils side that ignored a disabled driver asking a perfectly reasonable question, while lying that they are "unable" to answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Tuesday, 25th January 2022 - 08:56
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.