Merton. One box unscratched in ½ day Parking Permit = PCN. Options

[ZigZagZog]

My mate John was issued PCN by Merton Council. On the Half Day Parking Permit he used he omitted scratching clear the 'month' box.

Any chance of a succesful appeal against this PCN?

TIA











This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:50

[Advertisement]

[ZigZagZog]

Looking through the old posts I see Merton have a rep for being hardcore with parking PCNs. However, I also see a couple of posts from people who have successfully appealed on the grounds that similar infractions were honest mistakes. In this case I think that argument might be supported by the fact that this parking permit could only possibly be used on 1 day in the remained of 2018, the day it was used on. There is not another Monday the 9th of any month to come this calendar year.

That will be the first action John takes (is admitting to being the driver a no-no on council tickets?) unless someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject has something to say. Haven't been inundated with replies so please don't be shy, let me know if there's anything else that should go in the first appeal.

Ta.

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:32

[stamfordman]

Looking through the old posts I see Merton have a rep for being hardcore with parking PCNs. However, I also see a couple of posts from people who have successfully appealed on the grounds that similar infractions were honest mistakes. In this case I think that argument might be supported by the fact that this parking permit could only possibly be used on 1 day in the remained of 2018, the day it was used on. There is not another Monday the 9th of any month to come this calendar year.

That will be the first action John takes (is admitting to being the driver a no-no on council tickets?) unless someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject has something to say. Haven't been inundated with replies so please don't be shy, let me know if there's anything else that should go in the first appeal.
.

merton has been known to cancel for honest mistakes so you obviously need to challenge politely on this basis, enclosing copy of valid permit and noting it could only have been for that month.

For code 19 merton says:

Code 19 should only be issued if a permit that is or was valid for that bay is used but is invalid at time of PCN due to:
 It has expired
 It is in the wrong vehicle
 Obscured date/ VRM

So no mention of incomplete date, but the terms of the permit on the reverse will no doubt spell this out - does it?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:58

[ZigZagZog]

stamfordman,

Ta for replying.

I don't know what's on the back of the permit & won't be able to get a piccie of it until late tonight. I'll post it then.

Hopefully, regardless of what's on the back Merton will be reasonable, allow that the fault on the permit was de minimis, the intention to abide by the parking rules was there & cancel the PCN.

Am I dreaming?

[stamfordman]

Hopefully, regardless of what's on the back Merton will be reasonable, allow that the fault on the permit was de minimis, the intention to abide by the parking rules was there & cancel the PCN.

Am I dreaming?

Probably, but as it's only a £60 PCN your mate could take the to adjudication without a big hit.

[ZigZagZog]

stamford,

My mate John had another from the series of permits in the car & has sent me a picture of the back. There is nothing on it at all, totally blank. He will confirm the actual permit used which resulted in a PCN is the same when home late tonight but I think we can assume it'll be the same.

Does that change anything?

[stamfordman]

There is nothing on it at all, totally blank.

If it came from a book of permits there may be something on the book covers?

Or terms when purchasing.

If nothing then that's some ammunition that terms not specified.

PS - actually it does on front what you have to do to validate the permit, but they usually cover themselves by saying what makes it invalid.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:23

[ZigZagZog]

I'll find out tonight whether it came from a booklet or if there was any other info with them - cover letter or what have you.

Ta for your help with this.

P.S. Fixed the Permit picture so it's easier to read now.

[Steve_999]

.. . . enclosing copy of valid permit and noting it could only have been for that month.
. . . .

Or April 2018?

[stamfordman]

.. . . enclosing copy of valid permit and noting it could only have been for that month.
. . . .

Or April 2018?

Oops.

OP you could also get council pics as CEO will have taken a pic of windscreen.

This is basically about discretion so 9 April isn't really a factor.

[ZigZagZog]

What I actually said (in full) was:

"Looking through the old posts I see Merton have a rep for being hardcore with parking PCNs. However, I also see a couple of posts from people who have successfully appealed on the grounds that similar infractions were honest mistakes. In this case I think that argument might be supported by the fact that this parking permit could only possibly be used on 1 day in the remainer of 2018, the day it was used on. There is not another Monday the 9th of any month to come this calendar year."

If only my time machine was still working......

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:24

[ZigZagZog]

stamfordman,

The CEO did indeed take pictures of everything.

Why would I need them?

[cp8759]

stamfordman,

The CEO did indeed take pictures of everything.

Why would I need them?

So you know what evidence the council has to use against you.

[ZigZagZog]

The evidence on Merton's site is 12 photos of the parked car, 6 of the permit inside the car from various angles, 5 of the car parked correctly in the parking box on the road & 1 of the signage, included below.

The permit says place permit in clear view on the nearside of the dashboard but it was actually left in clear view on the driver's side, the off side. They didn't mention this in the PCN so I'm guessing that doesn't matter at this stage.



This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 19:42

[ZigZagZog]

Just a thought. Is this legal or has it been superseded by the new data protection thingy which recently came into effect?

Is the last para of the back of the PCN legal, the bit where it says "The London Borough of Merton will use any data collected in the issuing of this PCN for the enforcement of traffic notices and other associated purposes. This data may be also be disclosed to the London Councils and other enforcement agencies. All processing of this data will be in accordance with the Data Protection Act of 1998."

[cp8759]

Just a thought. Is this legal or has it been superseded by the new data protection thingy which recently came into effect?

Is the last para of the back of the PCN legal, the bit where it says "The London Borough of Merton will use any data collected in the issuing of this PCN for the enforcement of traffic notices and other associated purposes. This data may be also be disclosed to the London Councils and other enforcement agencies. All processing of this data will be in accordance with the Data Protection Act of 1998."

That is of no relevance to the validity of the PCN.

The evidence on Merton's site is 12 photos of the parked car, 6 of the permit inside the car from various angles, 5 of the car parked correctly in the parking box on the road & 1 of the signage, included below.

We normally like to see the photos ourselves, but from what you say asking for discretion is your only hope.

[ZigZagZog]

Below are all the images Merton have in their Evidence file.

Posted here so those who know about these things can have a look to see if there's anything useful that can be added to my friend John's appeal. The sign photo is in a post above.

He's going to write a draft of his appeal letter today I'm told. When it's done I'll post it on here for your perusal & comments.

TIA.

[ZigZagZog]

Plus this one.



This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:20

[ZigZagZog]

Just received John's informal appeal - short & sweet. If any of you can think of anything that hasn't been said that needs saying, or something that should be not said please let me know at your earliest.

I received the PCN xxxxxxxxx with the parking contravention 19s on 09/07/18 at xx.xx. I would ask the council to please use their discretion to kindly waive this PCN for the reasons outlined below.

I used a valid parking permit but forgot to scratch off the month part, in this case for 'July'. It was a foolish, honest mistake – I was pushed for time as I was running late and in my haste simply omitted scratching off the last of the four sections, the month the permit was for. The car was otherwise parked properly and safely as you can see from your CEO's photos.

I'd like to point out that with the boxes I had scratched out on the parking permit I used it could only ever have been used on the 09/07/2018 as there is not another Monday the 9^th to come in any month remaining in 2018. The permit was only and could only ever be valid for that particular Monday, July 9th, 2018.

I am very sorry about the inconvenience to your department and to have wasted your time. I can only reiterate that it was an honest and silly mistake, arguably a trifling de minimis mistake, with no intention on my part to game the system or parking regulations and no possible gain to be made by me. I would be very, very grateful if you would look kindly upon this request and please let me off for my silly mistake.

This post has been edited by ZigZagZog: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 18:40

[stamfordman]

Looks good to me - may give them a laugh. I take it John is standing for leader of the Silly Party.