PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parked in resident disabled bay, Fathers allocated bay to assist him
sabs
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post 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 .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:21) *
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.

QUOTE (sabs @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30) *
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.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:21) *
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.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:40) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:21) *
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.

QUOTE (sabs @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30) *
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.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 20:21) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:38
Post #8


Member


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



This is the bay sign:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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 ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:37
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:38) *
This is the bay sign:


Do we know that one?
I found five -- but all the same as yours shown.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:00) *
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?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:12
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:10) *
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.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:17
Post #19


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:12) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 10:10) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post 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.


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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:36
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