PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Visitor Parking Permit Displayed - PCN still issued, Threads merged x3
dave1050
post Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 23:02
Post #1


New Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 5
Joined: 31 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,203



Dear Colleagues,

I parked in a residents bay and filled out a visitor parking permit and left it where it could be clearly seen by an enforcement officer - very near the rear window on the parcel shelf ( because previously, my car got broken in to and the permit I left on the dashboard also went missing).

I received a penalty notice with Contravention Code 12 ( pics attached ).

The pictures taken by the enforcement officer only show the front dashboard and side views of the car, not the back of the car or rear window.

What I wanted to ask was:

1) The terms and conditions of use of the permit state 'the permit must be clearly displayed in the vehicles windscreen..'.
Surely 'windscreen' includes rear 'windscreen' ? - but the enforcement officer took no pictures of the rear of the car or rear windscreen. If the permit is clearly displayed - and I took a picture of it in that position ( as evidence ) after removing the penalty notice. Can an argument be used that a valid Parking Permit was still 'clearly displayed' for the enforcement officer to see in the 'windscreen' ( in this instance, the rear windscreen ) ?.

2) Is the contravention code correct ?.

I have attached the following files:

This post has been edited by dave1050: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 23:18
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 23:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
aldermartin
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 14:47
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1 May 2010
Member No.: 37,263



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 11:40) *
No, you can't pay any more than £130 if you stick to deadlines. If they do not reoffer the discount if they reject a formal appeal then it cost nothing to take it to adjudication.

Draft an appeal to the NTO and post here - I think CP has an idea to beef it up.


This is my appeal letter to the NTO which responds to the Councils rejection letter posted above - if there is anything I should include / remove, please let me know:( do I still need to include the evidence which was included in my informal representations with this ? )


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:23
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Please post the text in the thread so we can edit it.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:23


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aldermartin
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 10:50
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1 May 2010
Member No.: 37,263



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:23) *
Please post the text in the thread so we can edit it.


Please accept this letter as an appeal ( representations ) in response to your letter dated the 15th May 2019.

I respectfully request that the Council reconsider its decision and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice for the following reasons:

1) The alleged offence states that a vehicle “…must be parked…in a parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit….”. In this particular case, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ was clearly on display in the rear windscreen.

2) Your letter dated the 15th May 2019, mentioned that “if you display a permit, it is expected that you display it in the best place it can be seen”. With respect, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ does not explicitly designate the front windscreen as the best place for the permit to be displayed, hence the permits use of the word windscreen does not preclude the rear windscreen.
If the permit did exclude its use in the rear windscreen, then the permit would make provision for this in the same way that the permit makes explicit in its terms and conditions at section 10) “…that you must not display more than one visitor permit….”, but the permit does not do so.

3) Your letter also stated that “..that the Civil Enforcement Officer ( CEO ) has checked all the windows and although the rear window photo was not taken, the CEO confirmed no permit was on show. With the greatest of respect, CEO photographs are an important part of evidence.

Nothing stopped or impeded the CEO from taking photographs to corroborate that he had examined the front and side windows. There was nothing to stop or impede the CEO from actually taking a picture of the rear windscreen, but he failed to do so. There is no actual photographic evidence from the CEO to confirm that no permit was on display.
With respect, and due to the aforementioned, the Council has insufficient evidence to show that a valid permit was not on display, should this case progress to adjudication ( P.A.T.A.S. ).

4) The Council should act fairly and proportionately as it is a ‘public body’ under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Therefore I respectfully request that the Council cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
In addition, I would also like to refer to the ‘Local Government Ombudsman, Fairer Fines – Ensuring Good Practice in the Management of Parking and Traffic Penalties Guidance Report February 2017. At page 3 ‘Exercising Discretion’ :

“Importantly, although the processes are set out in law and regulations, councils have the discretion to decide NOT to pursue a penalty charge at any stage in the process. They should not lose sight of this. ( The statutory part of the Guidance makes this clear ) ……‘Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion....”

I respectfully ask Newham Councils Parking Department, that on this occasion, to exercise its discretion and decide not to pursue this penalty charge


Yours sincerely,



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 00:04
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Your challenge is against the NtO, not the informal rejection, it is also not an appeal.

------------

Please accept this letter as a representation against the Notice to Owner issued on 18 June 2019.

I respectfully request that the Council cancel the Penalty Charge Notice for the following reasons:

1) The alleged offence states that a vehicle “…must be parked…in a parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit….”. In this particular case, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ was clearly on display in the rear windscreen.

2) Your letter dated the 15th May 2019, mentioned that “if you display a permit, it is expected that you display it in the best place it can be seen”. With respect, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ does not explicitly designate the front windscreen as the best place for the permit to be displayed, hence the permits use of the word windscreen does not preclude the rear windscreen.
If the permit did exclude its use in the rear windscreen, then the permit would make provision for this in the same way that the permit makes explicit in its terms and conditions at section 10) “…that you must not display more than one visitor permit….”, but the permit does not do so.

3) Your informal rejection letter stated that “..that the Civil Enforcement Officer ( CEO ) has checked all the windows and although the rear window photo was not taken, the CEO confirmed no permit was on show. With the greatest of respect, CEO photographs are an important part of evidence. Nothing stopped or impeded the CEO from taking photographs to corroborate that he had examined the front and side windows. There was nothing to stop or impede the CEO from actually taking a picture of the rear windscreen, but he failed to do so. There is no actual photographic evidence from the CEO to confirm that no permit was on display.

Once more I enclose a copy of the Visitors Parking Permit, I note your PCN Cancellation procedure provides for these circumstances in the section "Miscellaneous - 1st Contravention (Permits/P&D)", I invite you to confirm the validity of the attached permit and then to cancel the PCN, this case clearly falls within the cancellation criteria of your policy.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 08:22
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I am baffled as to why, when you posted 'and I took a picture of it in that position ( as evidence ) after removing the penalty notice', you make no reference to this in your reps, let alone include the photo. Instead you waffle on - sorry to be harsh, but that's how it reads- about their lack of photographic evidence when front and centre you need to say that the CEO was mistaken and here's my photo.

It is reasonable assumption that the CEO's notes state 'AWC' (which means all windows checked). The authority claim there was no permit, you say there was. Frankly it is irrelevant whether this is a windscreen or not, there wasn't a permit according to them.

And showing a photo is not the end of it. If you had placed it where its details could not easily be seen from outside then whether it was there or not is not the issue, it was not displayed clearly.

I suggest you devote more energy to the above in your reps.

(As an aside, the front windscreen is, of course, nothing of the sort, if there is a wind screen anywhere, then it's the rear! With my automotive engineering hat on..the air strikes the bonnet and gets deflected to the roof creating a vortex in the void, the air then strikes the rear and boot creating a similar vortex. The difference being that the one at the front has the effect of sucking wind from the front screen, the rear the effect of blowing it towards the car. Just look at any convertible on film: the hair of the (inevitable) blonde passenger is blown to the front of the car, not the rear. Frankly you don't need a screen in front for the wind, just a frame.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aldermartin
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 13:42
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1 May 2010
Member No.: 37,263



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 01:04) *
Your challenge is against the NtO, not the informal rejection, it is also not an appeal.

------------

Please accept this letter as a representation against the Notice to Owner issued on 18 June 2019.

I respectfully request that the Council cancel the Penalty Charge Notice for the following reasons:

1) The alleged offence states that a vehicle “…must be parked…in a parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit….”. In this particular case, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ was clearly on display in the rear windscreen.

2) Your letter dated the 15th May 2019, mentioned that “if you display a permit, it is expected that you display it in the best place it can be seen”. With respect, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ does not explicitly designate the front windscreen as the best place for the permit to be displayed, hence the permits use of the word windscreen does not preclude the rear windscreen.
If the permit did exclude its use in the rear windscreen, then the permit would make provision for this in the same way that the permit makes explicit in its terms and conditions at section 10) “…that you must not display more than one visitor permit….”, but the permit does not do so.

3) Your informal rejection letter stated that “..that the Civil Enforcement Officer ( CEO ) has checked all the windows and although the rear window photo was not taken, the CEO confirmed no permit was on show. With the greatest of respect, CEO photographs are an important part of evidence. Nothing stopped or impeded the CEO from taking photographs to corroborate that he had examined the front and side windows. There was nothing to stop or impede the CEO from actually taking a picture of the rear windscreen, but he failed to do so. There is no actual photographic evidence from the CEO to confirm that no permit was on display.

Once more I enclose a copy of the Visitors Parking Permit, I note your PCN Cancellation procedure provides for these circumstances in the section "Miscellaneous - 1st Contravention (Permits/P&D)", I invite you to confirm the validity of the attached permit and then to cancel the PCN, this case clearly falls within the cancellation criteria of your policy.


Thanks for the response cp8759.

Can I ask where you found the PCN Cancellation Procedure on the internet for miscellaneous first contraventions - I've been searching for it but cannot find it ?

This post has been edited by aldermartin: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 13:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 12:53
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (aldermartin @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 14:42) *
Thanks for the response cp8759.

Can I ask where you found the PCN Cancellation Procedure on the internet for miscellaneous first contraventions - I've been searching for it but cannot find it ?

If you look in the PCN flaws database, council policies are in column B on the main tab: http://bit.ly/2ALghSS, Newham is (currently) on row 184.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 12:54


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aldermartin
post Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 18:06
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1 May 2010
Member No.: 37,263



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 13:53) *
QUOTE (aldermartin @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 14:42) *
Thanks for the response cp8759.

Can I ask where you found the PCN Cancellation Procedure on the internet for miscellaneous first contraventions - I've been searching for it but cannot find it ?

If you look in the PCN flaws database, council policies are in column B on the main tab: http://bit.ly/2ALghSS, Newham is (currently) on row 184.


Thanks.

Is it safe to mention 'first contravention' in the letter ? ( as I may imply that a contravention had occurred or accepting that placing the Parking Permit in the rear windscreen is not the same as the front windscreen and therefore a contravention has occurred ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 09:56
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't think you need to mention it - one of the things they will do is check whether there's been previous PCNs issued to the same vehicle for the same reason.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aldermartin
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 10:09
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1 May 2010
Member No.: 37,263



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 10:56) *
I don't think you need to mention it - one of the things they will do is check whether there's been previous PCNs issued to the same vehicle for the same reason.


I am going to include it - because if you can argue that 'windscreen' includes rear windscreen, and then the Council counter that argument with 'but it wasn't properly displayed, I can then argue that their policy 'the PCN cancellation procedure' states that even if the Permit wasn't properly displayed, as long as its a first offence ( which this is ), they should cancel the PCN.

Please can you read the final draft below and make any amendments - thank you.


Dear London Borough of Newham,

Re: Challenge to Notice to Owner
PCN Number :
Vehicle Registration:
Address:

Please accept this letter as a challenge to the Notice to Owner dated the 18th June 2019.

I respectfully request that the Council reconsider its decision and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice for the following compelling reasons:

1) The alleged offence states that a vehicle “…must be parked…in a parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit….”. In this particular case, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ was clearly on display in the rear windscreen.

2) Your letter dated the 15th May 2019, mentioned that “if you display a permit, it is expected that you display it in the best place it can be seen”. With respect, the ‘Visitor Parking Permit’ does not explicitly designate the front windscreen as the best place for the permit to be displayed, hence the permits use of the word windscreen does not preclude the rear windscreen.
If the permit did exclude its use in the rear windscreen, then the permit would make provision for this in the same way that the permit makes explicit in its terms and conditions at section 10) “…that you must not display more than one visitor permit….”, but the permit does not do so.

3) Your letter also stated that “..that the Civil Enforcement Officer ( CEO ) has checked all the windows and although the rear window photo was not taken, the CEO confirmed no permit was on show. With the greatest of respect, CEO photographs are an important part of evidence.

Nothing stopped or impeded the CEO from taking photographs to corroborate that he had examined the front and side windows. There was nothing to stop or impede the CEO from actually taking a picture of the rear windscreen, but he failed to do so. There is no actual photographic evidence from the CEO to confirm that no permit was on display.
With respect, and due to the aforementioned, the Council has insufficient evidence to show that a valid permit was not on display, should this case progress to adjudication ( P.A.T.A.S. ).

4) If after looking at the video evidence of the Parking Permit being on display, the Council decides that the Parking Permit was not clearly displayed, then I respectfully bring the Council’s attention to the Highways ‘Transport & Parking – Processing & Customer Liason Team – PCN Cancellation Procedure - at Page 12 under section ‘Miscellaneous – 1st Contravention (Permits /P&D ), which states that a PCN should be cancelled for a first contravention, which applies in this case.

5) The Council should act fairly and proportionately as it is a ‘public body’ under the Human Rights Act 1998.

In addition, I would also like to refer you to the ‘Local Government Ombudsman, Fairer Fines – Ensuring Good Practice in the Management of Parking and Traffic Penalties Guidance Report February 2017. At page 3 ‘Exercising Discretion’ :

“Importantly, although the processes are set out in law and regulations, councils have the discretion to decide NOT to pursue a penalty charge at any stage in the process. They should not lose sight of this. ( The statutory part of the Guidance makes this clear ) ……‘Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion....”

I respectfully ask Newham Councils Parking Department, that on this occasion, to exercise its discretion and decide not to pursue this penalty charge.


Yours sincerely,



This post has been edited by aldermartin: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 10:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:00
Post #31


Member


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



A simple question an adjudicator would ask is, why in a standard saloon type car would you act contrary to millions of people and rather than simply put the permit on the dash would go to the effort of placing it in the rear windscreen? TBH the most likely answer to themselves would be. Ahh no photos of the back I 'll say I put the permit there. You will need rebut this


--------------------
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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:33
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