PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Newham - PCN for not clearly displaying a ticket - but i did
mpesm
post Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 14:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,226



Hoping you can help as this one seems like a no brainer that I can challenge but I want to double check before I do.

I was parked in a permit area and put my visitors ticket on display on my dashboard. I place it in the middle of the dash as previously it has slipped down when i have put on drivers or passengers side because of the way the dash is. But the back of the permit does not specify location other than on display.

I took a photo of it displayed before I left the car (and have the photo on my iPhone which shows the day and time I took it, see below).

Can you think of any other reason why I would have received this as I don't know how the guy could not have seen it.

Thanks in advance!







Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 29)
Advertisement
post Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 14:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:19
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:10) *
I completed the permit as required


Deliberate use of the passive?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mpesm
post Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 15:35
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,226



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:10) *
When you challenge, just state the facts:
I parked in a GSN Permit bay at 9.28am on 7 November ;
I completed the permit as required and placed on the dashboard so that all details were visible from outside the car - see the authority's photos;

As I was permitted to park at the location at the time of the alleged contravention, then clearly the CEO has made a mistake and I look forward to receiving confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.


Thank you so much. Will send the letter tonight and let you know the outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:52
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:10) *
When you challenge, just state the facts:
I parked in a GSN Permit bay at 9.28am on 7 November ;
I completed the permit as required and placed on the dashboard so that all details were visible from outside the car - see the authority's photos;

As I was permitted to park at the location at the time of the alleged contravention, then clearly the CEO has made a mistake and I look forward to receiving confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.


This case lends support to your argument And guess what. It's Newham

2160310495

The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence that the permit was completed in pencil by Appellant, a builder who had to deal with an emergency and had only a pencil to hand. One would have thought that the mitigation was substantial enough for the exercise of discretion. The Council states that over 7 hours later he had made no attempt to rectify the permit. One suspects that had he subsequently overwritten it in ink a PCN would have been issued on the basis of unlawful alteration, cases of which I have encountered.
A Council demanding a substantial penalty for what is, in the absence of any evidence of bad faith and in the light of the mitigation, a trivial and technical contravention at best, must be expected to prove the matter with some strictness. In the present case the conditions of use on the reverse of the permit have not been produced and in their absence the instruction to use ink on the face of the permit seems to me insufficient to demonstrate that a failure to do so automatically renders the permit invalid. The Appeal is therefore allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mpesm
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 17:42
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,226



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:52) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:10) *
When you challenge, just state the facts:
I parked in a GSN Permit bay at 9.28am on 7 November ;
I completed the permit as required and placed on the dashboard so that all details were visible from outside the car - see the authority's photos;

As I was permitted to park at the location at the time of the alleged contravention, then clearly the CEO has made a mistake and I look forward to receiving confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.


This case lends support to your argument And guess what. It's Newham

2160310495

The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence that the permit was completed in pencil by Appellant, a builder who had to deal with an emergency and had only a pencil to hand. One would have thought that the mitigation was substantial enough for the exercise of discretion. The Council states that over 7 hours later he had made no attempt to rectify the permit. One suspects that had he subsequently overwritten it in ink a PCN would have been issued on the basis of unlawful alteration, cases of which I have encountered.
A Council demanding a substantial penalty for what is, in the absence of any evidence of bad faith and in the light of the mitigation, a trivial and technical contravention at best, must be expected to prove the matter with some strictness. In the present case the conditions of use on the reverse of the permit have not been produced and in their absence the instruction to use ink on the face of the permit seems to me insufficient to demonstrate that a failure to do so automatically renders the permit invalid. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


Thank you! I’m writing the letter tonight. Should I reference this case?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 00:00
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (mpesm @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 17:42) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:52) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:10) *
When you challenge, just state the facts:
I parked in a GSN Permit bay at 9.28am on 7 November ;
I completed the permit as required and placed on the dashboard so that all details were visible from outside the car - see the authority's photos;

As I was permitted to park at the location at the time of the alleged contravention, then clearly the CEO has made a mistake and I look forward to receiving confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.


This case lends support to your argument And guess what. It's Newham

2160310495

The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence that the permit was completed in pencil by Appellant, a builder who had to deal with an emergency and had only a pencil to hand. One would have thought that the mitigation was substantial enough for the exercise of discretion. The Council states that over 7 hours later he had made no attempt to rectify the permit. One suspects that had he subsequently overwritten it in ink a PCN would have been issued on the basis of unlawful alteration, cases of which I have encountered.
A Council demanding a substantial penalty for what is, in the absence of any evidence of bad faith and in the light of the mitigation, a trivial and technical contravention at best, must be expected to prove the matter with some strictness. In the present case the conditions of use on the reverse of the permit have not been produced and in their absence the instruction to use ink on the face of the permit seems to me insufficient to demonstrate that a failure to do so automatically renders the permit invalid. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


Thank you! I’m writing the letter tonight. Should I reference this case?

I would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mpesm
post Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 14:25
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,226



I sent in my challenge by fax and received today a notice for the full amount. They say they never received the fax. Luckily I have a fax report to show I did so sending that and the challenge again today via recorded signed for.

Will update this when I get an answer.

Just about to post about another ticket I got today...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 14:31
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (mpesm @ Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 14:25) *
I sent in my challenge by fax and received today a notice for the full amount. They say they never received the fax. Luckily I have a fax report to show I did so sending that and the challenge again today via recorded signed for.

Will update this when I get an answer.

Just about to post about another ticket I got today...


Stop if you have an acknowledgement that you sent a challenge, but they say they did not receive, this is a ground for cancelation. Failing to consider. If you send now best that will happen is that they will re offer the discount.
If you intend to press on then that makes no difference so post the NTO and lets deal with that
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 14:58
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,671
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



The historically legendary Newham FAX

fax by Neil Black, on Flickr


This post has been edited by Neil B: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 15:01


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 15:04
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 14:58) *
The historically legendary Newham FAX

fax by Neil Black, on Flickr

sign10.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 17:51
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



As regards the adj decision posted slightly earlier, I think there's a lesson there for the adj.

No road traffic contravention occurs unless one or more of the conditions set out in Schedule 7 TMA has been met.

It does not lie with a council to 'add' conditions to an article in an order and then use failure to comply as justification for a PCN. Ultimately the evidence trail should go back to the order, and therefore the Schedule, and not just the reverse of the permit and there should be nothing in the permit's conditions which is inconsistent with or not supported by the order. '..so that all particulars are legible from outside the vehicle..' is the standard requirement, not pen, pencil, magic marker or whatever. How this is achieved is not relevant and IMO may not be stipulated other than pursuant to a requirement in an order.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 24th May 2018 - 07:48
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.