PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 12r - Hardman Road, Kingston upon Thames
Ninjaman1998
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 12:36
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,889



parked here on friday evening, next to the meter and used ringo P+D until the 6:30 cut-off without realising the shared use bay swapped over to permit holders only as the bottom of the sign was obscured by a nearby tree from my vehicle, it was also quite dark and raining, there is only one street light on that section road as you turn in and the sign beneath it would not have been directly in sight as i turned in, or when walking past it as it sits on the kerbside, opposed to the sign near the meter which was against the wall of a building.

could it be argued the wrong contravention code (12r instead of 19) was used as i had a P+D session which had expired or would the change from shared-use to residents only at 6:30pm make this an invalid argument?

If anybody thinks this is worth contesting i would appreciate it greatly.


Contravention code: 12r
- Parked in a residents or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge.


https://imgur.com/FUBBikF
https://imgur.com/dvmsivo
https://imgur.com/Uk8ZlLA
https://imgur.com/Yc1BUjG
https://imgur.com/3FYogmQ
https://imgur.com/TkSd04N
https://imgur.com/y5KXQ93
https://imgur.com/Lmo30Yx
https://imgur.com/f5s5kQs
https://imgur.com/QlZi8oV
https://imgur.com/224YuZk
https://imgur.com/ya54fmz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Advertisement
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 12:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 16:20
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.411953,-0.2...6384!8i8192

Tree can't have leaves on though at this time of year and it is set back from tree. The PCN has been fairly issued and you were past the grace period but maybe the visibility angle is worth a shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 16:56
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Visibility...from the vehicle?

But you were not in the vehicle when you checked what the sign stated when you paid until 6.30.

Or did you do this from memory having seen the sign at some earlier time?

OP, it won't wash, I'm afraid: at some stage you had to have looked at this sign in order to know what you had to do and therefore you cannot now claim that part of the sign - the rather important part with which you did not comply - was not visible.

Sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 08:46
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



There's an argument to be made that the wording of code 12 is duplicitous, this has never been fully tested.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 09:25
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



There's an argument to be made that the wording of code 12 is duplicitous, this has never been fully tested.

Indeed it hasn't.

OP, fancy being a pathfinder? This would be at adjudication - the authority would reject such an argument - with the full penalty at risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 09:41
Post #6


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Oh! Yes it has!

2150275729
Mr Dishman appears on behalf of the Appellant.

I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons:

First, I accept the evidence of the driver (the Appellant's husband) that the Penalty Charge Notices was not found affixed to the Appellant's vehicle when he returned to it.

Second, I agree with the Appellant's representative that, in the particular circumstances of this case, to follow the judgment of Mr Adjudicator Austin Wilkinson in the case of Rush - v - London Borough Southwark (case number 2120562288).

Third, in doing so I find (for the same reasons as Adjudicator Wilkinson) that the failure to record the suffix on the Penalty Charge Notice to be a procedural impropriety; the Appellant in this case would not have known from the Notice to Owner that her vehicle had been parked by her husband in a residents' bay.

Fourth, I have copied into this decision the relevant part of Adjudicator Wilkinson's decision in the case of Rush:

'I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur. The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty. However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN'.

The appeal is allowed.




Mick


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 09:48
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



One (at best 2) appeal decision does neither a consensus nor Key Case make.

A 2015 case which also referred to one from 2012.

2 in 8 years.

And the view of the Mayor of London in light of this overwhelming legal kickback to his code has been......?

No change.

OP, I say again: there is no consensus among adjudicators on this issue.

Are you a gambler?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 09:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 29th March 2024 - 06:45
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here