LBH&F - Parking ticket issued in re-zoned road. H&F website out of date. Options

[Jackfruit]

Hello,

On 30th December my girlfriend and I went to a show at Shepherd's Bush Empire. Before leaving we checked the LBH&F website, and it said that the road we planned to park in (Sulgrave Road) was in zone C, and therefore free after 6pm. On arrival, after 6pm, we checked a parking app (Appy Park) which also said that parking was free. On coming back to the car we found it was ticketed.

Hammersmith & Fulham justify the ticket on the basis that the road was rezoned into CC a month earlier, which is only free after 8pm, and say that it was our responsibility to check signs.

It may be that half a mile back down the Shepherds Bush road there was a CPZ sign that said "Zone CC", but on the strength of their own website and the parking app we weren't looking out for information that would contradict what we'd already got from the authority themselves.

We've written to H&F explaining that at the time of the alleged offence their own website showed that parking was free (they've since updated it, but I have screen shots), and that they had obviously also failed to inform the providers of external parking apps of the change. They don't think this makes any difference.

My (our) argument is that we went out of our way to ascertain the parking rules, and that LBH&F should take responsibility for their own website giving incorrect information.

We're at the point of either going to independent adjudicator, or paying up the increased fine of £130.

If this goes to the independent adjudicator and they rule against us, does the fine stay at the £130 mark, or do you end up paying additional costs?

Any useful advice / comments / experience welcome!

Thanks,

Piers.

This post has been edited by Jackfruit: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:33

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

Post all the material. Use a pic site such as Imgur or Flickr.

Don't pay - you can't lose any more than £130 provided you hit deadlines. Have you appealed the notice to owner and been rejected?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:28

[Jackfruit]

Hello,

Haven't appealed the PCN yet, about to do that.

We wrote to the address on the ticket itself, making the case, and got a 'challenge refused' letter from H&F.

Will upload the images in a bit, but need to get the scanner working first!

Piers.

[stamfordman]

OK so you have the notice to owner (not PCN).

You don't need a scanner - you can take pics with your phone. Leave in all times and dates.

[Jackfruit]

Sorry for the delay, needed to get my gf to send me photos of the relevant docs.

The original PCN:



H&F Parking Zone Map on 31/12/17:




H&F Parking Zone Times on 31/12/17:



The first submission, via the H&F website, went as follows:

--------------------------------------------------
I am not in the habit of parking in restricted areas and carefully checked both your own website and the parking app I use (Appy Park) when considering potential parking locations. Both sites specified that the single yellow lines are free after 6. I have enclosed screenshots from your own pages that state that controlled hours are Mon to Fri 9.00-6, along with the relevant page from the parking app.

Having had conversations with nearby local residents and shop keepers it seems that controlled hours have been changed recently but information for drivers has not been updated, so there is no way this ticket should have been issued.
--------------------------------------------------

Letter from H&F, 19th Feb:



The second submission, in response, was as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to appeal further, though I note that you have refused my original challenge, an opinion which I continue to struggle to understand.

Before setting off on my journey I made a point of checking the parking regulations on the LBHF website. It was absolutely clear from the information available there, on the date in question, (see pictures below) that Sulgrave Road was in Zone C and that parking restrictions would not be in place after 6pm. I parked there believing that the information provided by LBHF themselves could be taken in good faith.

There was a clear failure of duty on the part of LBHF to inform both road users and the providers of mobile parking apps of local regulations in a consistent manner. It is as unreasonable of you to expect road users to question the veracity of your own published guidance, as it is for you to expect us to deliberately seek out contradictory signage on entering the zone.

I made all reasonable effort to ensure I that I parked legally, and, without misinformation provided by LBHF themselves, would have done so. The responsibility for proof-reading LBHF regulations lies with LBHF not the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Letter from H&F, 2nd March:



Notice To Owner:



My girlfriend is planning on submitting an appeal, basically reiterating what she's said so far.

If you have any suggestions for wording we'd be very grateful to hear them

Thanks.

[hcandersen]

Don't. You need to word it smarter.

I suggest something along the lines of:

On the day in question I accept that the vehicle was parked in a street restricted by order and for the purposes of these representations I am not going to dispute, neither do I accept, the presence or otherwise of the required CPZ signs. I also accept that in the ordinary course of events a motorist is responsible for checking signs. Given these points, I hope that the authority will not belabour these issues in their reply.

My representations go to a completely different point for which I accept that the enforcement authority's officers are not responsible but nonetheless they may not ignore and to which they must give detailed consideration (as opposed to the off-hand dismissal in their letters dated *** and ***). On the day in question the council's website stated that the location was not restricted, see enclosed evidence in the form of a *****. My representations are therefore based in 'compelling reasons' why the representations should be accepted, namely that the council's published data were incorrect and in this instance misled the driver who having (mis)placed their faith in the council's published information did not look closely enough for a sign which would have stated the contrary which, had they seen, would have made them none the wiser given that a real time check of a *** app showed that the location was not restricted.


.....and we know how authorities (and some adjudicators) mistake compelling reasons for discretion...

[stamfordman]

They're saying you had to check the zone entry signs. You say you were lulled into a false sense of security by the website.

I think an adjudicator will decide in your favour, but you'll have to go through the the formal rep first and maybe they'll cancel this one before the final stage. I can't see you can say anything very different.

[Jackfruit]

Thanks for the continuing advice. Hcanderson, we've gone with your wording.

I'll post an update as and when H&F respond.

[Jackfruit]

Hello,

LBH&F have replied with a Notice Of Rejection Of Representation, and included the Right ot Appeal form from the London Tribunals Environment & Traffic Adjudicators.

1) Is it better to ask for a personal decision rather than opting for the postal one?

The Grounds for Appeal section of the form has tick boxes giving nine reasons, none of which seem to cover misinformation from the authority themselves.



2) Does one of these have to be ticked, and if so which one?

3) Would you recommend any wording, other than what's already been submitted to LBH&F, to go in the Details of Appeal box on the last page?

Thanks.

[stamfordman]

Post the full letter. A personal hearing is of course best.

[Jackfruit]

Here's the letter from LBH&F:





Would you like the Appeals form as well, or is that sufficiently standard?

[stamfordman]

I can't see you losing this as they havefailed to address your formal rep and I would expect them to withdraw before the tribunal. Hammersmith has form in pushing things like this.

[Jackfruit]

OK, well that's sounding hopeful!

Do you have any advice on ticking boxes / filling in the Grounds for Appeal section?

Once again, thanks for the help, it's much appreciated!

Piers.

[Incandescent]

There is a clear procedural impropriety in that they have not considered your point on their website giving incorrect information. By not updating their website and also advising parking companies of the changes before they started enforcing, they could be in "abuse of process" as well.

So I reckon there are two grounds to be submitted for the appeal: -

- " The penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case" - abuse of process by commencing enforcement before their website was up-to-date.
- "procedural impropriety" - by failing to consider reps