Parked in resident disabled bay, Fathers allocated bay to assist him |
Parked in resident disabled bay, Fathers allocated bay to assist him |
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 26 Sep 2015 Member No.: 79,618 |
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155513302@N05/shares/5DFm77
https://www.flickr.com/gp/155513302@N05/oBh3G0 Hi, my husband received a PCN while parked in a resident disabled bay which is allocated to his father, to assist him into the car and take him to an appointment. He appealed but this got rejected and he has just recieved NTO. Please see both NTO docs and the appeal letter above . Have I got grounds for appeal? I would have thought assisting my disabled father and attaching all evidence previously would have sufficed? Thabks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Can we see the PCN, and the councils rejection letter. You have a claim to the exemption for boarding/alighting
it would also help to see a GSV. If this is a disabled bat then it could be the wrong contravention is used -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:35
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 26 Sep 2015 Member No.: 79,618 |
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155513302@N05/shares/3556ND
Please see photos of rejection letter. I have lost the PCN unfortunately . |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:40
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
If this is a disabled bat then it could be the wrong contravention is used I think it's correct. Newham conscious of defeats for these when using '40'. Use of the bay requires display of a 'Disabled Resident's Permit' for that zone. resident disabled bay which is allocated to his father, None are 'allocated': Where did you get that idea? I suggest you read the explanation in the rejection. Can we see the PCN, and the councils rejection letter. You have a claim to the exemption for boarding/alighting If that's an exemption in those bays then yes - and Newham have ignored it clearly stated in challenge. Evidence of the appointment will help. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:41
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Newham - a miserable borough.
Can you recall how long it took to board father? Without the PCN we can't see any observation time. As you've foregone the discount there's no reason not to take this all the way. They have not made any reference to the points in your challenge other that they were 'considered' (Jim Royle has a reply for that). This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:42 |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:11
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
If this is a disabled bat then it could be the wrong contravention is used I think it's correct. Newham conscious of defeats for these when using '40'. Use of the bay requires display of a 'Disabled Resident's Permit' for that zone. resident disabled bay which is allocated to his father, None are 'allocated': Where did you get that idea? I suggest you read the explanation in the rejection. Can we see the PCN, and the councils rejection letter. You have a claim to the exemption for boarding/alighting If that's an exemption in those bays then yes - and Newham have ignored it clearly stated in challenge. Evidence of the appointment will help. code 16 so it applies -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:33
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Usually this Council provides normal disabled bays but also disabled bays for designated people/vehicles for their exclusive use.
Normally the associated sign has a "Q" plus ether a code or the VRM. The OP needs to confirm, or otherwise, that this is an exclusive bay. I would also advise that the bay dimensions are measured because a lot of these are undersized. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:38
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:45
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Boarding alighting exists in any permit bay.
But how long did it take? How long was vehicle observed for? What proof did you supply with challenge ? If long time, what can be used to justify it ? |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:00
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
My view is that these bays are illegal anyway because of the heap of work we did with designated bays with Namster here:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1137921 He got a Code 16 (5). Mick |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:04
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Time on first CEO pics of car at 15:43 and final pic of car with served PCN 15:49.
|
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:37
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Do we know that one? I found five -- but all the same as yours shown. My view is that these bays are illegal anyway because of the heap of work we did with designated bays with Namster here:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1137921 He got a Code 16 (5). Mick Not revisited the thread Mick but I'd say I agree. If they now want to use '16' which, as I've said, suits better on the face of it, then the road legend becomes superfluous and misleading to BB holders - doesn't it? -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 06:26
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 26 Sep 2015 Member No.: 79,618 |
The car wasn’t observed for more than 10mins. And it wasn’t an appointment , it was a visit to a friend my husband was taking him on.
I assumed as he had the bay put in outside his house that it’s allocatwd , however I now know any resident disabled permit holder can park there. There was no other parking on that day either. He was in the bathroom when I went to pick him up, which took me longer to assist him out and into car. Note my father in law has severe disability issues. He doesn’t leave the house at all, except once a week for prayer. This was a very rare visit out. The evidence I provided was a signed letter from my father in law to confirm I was parked there in order to assist him into the car, and to confirm he lives at the address where I received the PCN. A copy of his disabled badge and a copy of the disabled residents permit on my brothers car which is registered to that address also. I would have thought boarding/alighting Would have worked in this case? |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 07:30
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,058 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, can we get back to the events please and focus on the BB side of the argument.
You parked for the purpose of ****** Mr A by prior arrangement (some short explanation would help); Mr A possesses a BB; The parking bay is situated outside Mr A's house and therefore as you anticipated that Mr A would be ready when you arrived (why?) you would be parked without displaying Mr A's BB for a minimal period; In the event Mr A *******; The PCN was issued at *** after **** minutes' observation; The authority's letter states that ' disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit'. I don't see boarding/alighting as being a superior argument to you collecting the holder of a BB in order to transport them. As there's only a single BB in play (unlike res permits where visitor's permits can be obtained) then by virtue of the council's policy to allow these bays to be used by BB holders IMO ALL the associated allowances come into play including that the transporter is allowed time to obtain the BB from the person to be transported. The question on this point is, how long? So, some specifics pl. And of course if the authority reject this line of argument in principle, irrespective of the time periods, then IMO they are misleading themselves as regards the correct legal framework for consideration of reps and this would be a PI in itself. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 07:36 |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:10
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I see that in the rejection they say the bay is for anyone with a BB and so potentially the OP was taking a space that someone else could have had.
I agree with HCA's line. If Newham fail to use discretion at NTO stage I would be inclined to write to other parties about their failure to consider the needs of a vulnerable disabled person. |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:42
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 26 Sep 2015 Member No.: 79,618 |
The car was observed for a maximum of 10mins. Sorry I cannot be specific here as the original PCN has been misplaced.
And the info isn’t given with evidence online . The letter states the bay is allocated for all resident disabled permit holders in zone E, which obviously I would never have been able to display. As statedd previously by another member, the pics were taken from 15.43 and the ticket issued at 15.48. It’s safe to assume they were there for a few mins before taking pictures? On what basis should I appeal? |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:51
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
It's not appeal yet
It will be challenge against the NTO should you decide to risk the full payment. You have assisted boarding/alighting and the BB situation as HCA laid out. Plus a solid failure to consider if council ignore as they did at informal stage My only concern is that both exemptions rely on time allowed is as long as needed but not one second more... chatting and a cuppa are not allowed. |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:12
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I see that in the rejection they say the bay is for anyone with a BB They don't say that and it isn't their position. Which means I think HCA is mistaken too. The bay is for holders of a'disabled resident permit' for that zone. It is NOT available to those displaying BB only. On the face of that, the BB angle falls down. It is a permit space for a specific permit (and I repeat - I don't see how it can then have road legend?) BB holders may use resident bays (NOT this one) with unlimited time. Rightly or wrongly, that is the Newham position. I don't know why we have to revisit it every time one of these crops up. I can understand what they are trying to do: Not directly allocating but giving nearest disabled resident a better than standard chance the bay will remain available most of the time. Whether they are doing so correctly is another matter. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:17
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I see that in the rejection they say the bay is for anyone with a BB They don't say that and it isn't their position. Sorry I meant that it isn't a bay that's exclusive for a certain person. The position stands on boarding and also that there is a disabled residents permit registered to the address as the OP says. |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:24
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
As boarding might ultimately need to be presented at adjudication may I make an observation.
Sabs, get your story straight! First an appointment, then it's not. First your husband picking up Dad, now it was you. Sounds harsh but thankfully it's us noticing and querying and not an adjudicator. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:36 |