PCN 12r - Hardman Road, Kingston upon Thames |
PCN 12r - Hardman Road, Kingston upon Thames |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 12:36
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:45 |