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 (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:34
Post #21


Member


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



Hi NeilB,

Au contraire I'm afraid. My post contains the exact quote from their letter: BB holders are allowed to park without limit (para. 4 lines 5-8 refer).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:37
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 26 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,618



My husband received the PCN. I’m fighting the appeal for him. Otherwise he will just make the payment. I assumed it was an appointment until I spoke to him properly regarding the facts later on. I’m merely writing as if it’s me just to make like easier than to keep saying my husband.

The facts are he was visiting a sick relative , my husband was going to take him on this visit. He parked for no longer than required to assist father out of the bathroom, getting ready and into the car, by which time ticket was received.

There was no other parking spaces which would have been free given it was a Sunday, hence he had to park in this pat which we all thought was allocated to him as he applied for it etc , however now we know that’s not the case.

We understand a BB wouldn’t have worked in this case as it’s a permit they require for these bays, we would never normally park in any bays such as these, but it was a one off and in this case to help a severely disabled man into the car and towards his journey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:39
Post #23


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:34) *
Au contraire I'm afraid. My post contains the exact quote from their letter: BB holders are allowed to park without limit (para. 4 lines 5-8 refer).



No, Neil's right - that's for residents bays, not disabled residents bays.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:40
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 26 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,618



I think by that thy mean BB holders are allowed to park in resident bays NOT disabled resident bays
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:54
Post #25


Member


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



I stick to my interpretation.

The contravention relates to a permit bay, in this case a class of resident permit holder, therefore as it is a resident permit holder bay the BB exemption applies according to their letter.

The fact that their definitions confuse them as well as motorists is a problem they'll have to deal with at adjudication.

So, was the bay a resident permit holder bay'? IMO, yes.

The bay has nothing necessarily to do with the definition of disabled in the Chronically Sick etc. and regs because there is no logo on the sign.

Was the driver entitled as a matter of law to rely on an interpretation of the sign which conveyed the meaning that it was a class of res permit holder bay? IMO, absolutely, and I would argue this at adjudication.

Therefore the BB provisions would apply.

OP, you must get the timings and background clear, no changing half way through the process.

Parked by arrangement, but he wasn't ready. The whole process of getting your car out of contravention was accelerated not hindered by you assisting him.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 22:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:07
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:54) *
I stick to my interpretation.

The contravention relates to a permit bay, in this case a class of resident permit holder, therefore as it is a resident permit holder bay the BB exemption applies accotding to their letter.

The fact that their definitions confuse them as well as motorists is a problem they'll have to deal with at adjudication.

So, was the bay a resident permit holder bay'? IMO, yes.

The bay has nothing necessarily to do with the definition of disabled in the Chronically Sick etc. and regs because there is no logo on the sign.

Was the driver entitled as a matter of law to rely on an interpretation of the sign which conveyed the meaning that it was a class of res permit holder bay? IMO, absolutely, and I would argue this at adjudication.

Therefore the BB provisions would apply.

OP, you must get the timings and background clear, no changing half way through the process.

Parked by arrangement, but he wasn't ready. The whole process of getting your car out of contravention was accelerated not hindered by you assisting him.


Whilst i do not really disagree with this reasoning, the BB provision is not in play if a BB is not displayed. the process of obtaining the BB is not the same as obtaining a visitors voucher, as the BB does not give a non disabled person the right to park. It is and must be the same process as collecting the disabled person, so boarding alighting


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:21
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:54) *
Was the driver entitled as a matter of law to rely on an interpretation of the sign which conveyed the meaning that it was a class of res permit holder bay? IMO, absolutely, and I would argue this at adjudication.

Therefore the BB provisions would apply.

This is potentially a valid argument but only presented like that I think.

It doesn't change their clearly stated stance; that BB is irrelevant and only a specific permit will suffice.
And it is clearly stated in the letter: The later sentence you are reading is advisory, pointing out
that, according to their rules, OP had the option of using anywhere except where he chose.

So if presented in terms of 'the letter says so' when it clearly doesn't, you endanger your otherwise
valid point imho.

--

Mick has a point about whether the Newham invention of such a permit can legally exist.


--------------------
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 - 12:45
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 26 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,618



Ok. So on what basis shall I make representations ? Do I include all evidence as I did the first time round?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:50
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I'm on the side of HCA's interpretation but even if I wsn't, it is not a case of whether or not a BB was displayed, it is a case that one was available, that the person being assisted was entitled to one and presumably the permit for the space, everything was being done for that person.
That may only be mitigation but at the moment Newham have not answered or considered anything of that nature.
I say throw it in as HCA suggests and see what Newham have to say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:55
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:50) *
I'm on the side of HCA's interpretation

The letter or the sign? I see the latter.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:57
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:55) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:50) *
I'm on the side of HCA's interpretation

The letter or the sign? I see the latter.

That it is a resident permit bay for a class of resident and therefore BB is valid
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 13:12
Post #32


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Newham issued their disabled residents permit because BBs were being stolen. However in order to legitimise a disabled permit, of any description, the Council needed to apply for Secretary of State approval. At the time of Namster's thread the Council did not have such approval.

By substituting an acceptable Blue Badge the Council has introduced a disabled permit which is illegal. It does not have approval from the Secretary of State to use such a permit as per Sect 2(2)(a)(1) of The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.

The sign which says disabled resident permit holders is critical because it means an illegal permit would have to be used to park there. Ergo, given the illegality of the permit, the bay is unenforceable IMO (subject to Newham not getting SoS permission in the meantime).

However, regardless of the above, they key to this case is the disabled person and the duty of the Council to fully consider his needs and his inability to drive a vehicle. Therefore he depends on carers who use his permit.

These disabled bays are for the sole use of people who are registered disabled and there was no mischief. Parliament never intended that people who had a right to park there or their carers should be fined.

In considering the challenge the council the Council failed to have had regard to your FIL's disability and their statutory obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to take that disability into account. If the council decide not to cancel at the next stage require them to fully explain why they think your FIL's rights under the Equality Act 2010 do not merit cancellation of the penalty charge.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 13:25
Post #33


Member


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



@MMV,

These disabled bays are for the sole use of people who are registered disabled..


Is this published by the council, I've no idea, neither importantly would the average motorist, IMO.

The criteria that the council wish to apply for their unique Disabled Resident etc.. are for them.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 15:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sabs
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 13:32
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 26 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,618



I agree with you Mick.
I find it uncomfoetavke having to explain every part of what was happening in that house in order to help a disabled man get out and transported. I find it very hard to believe they wouldn’t consider any of what I explained previously. The fact that The disabled resident permit resides in my younger brother in laws car and he was out that day means that my FIL is restricted , as in other words the council believe nobody else can care for him?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:57) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:55) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 12:50) *
I'm on the side of HCA's interpretation

The letter or the sign? I see the latter.

That it is a resident permit bay for a class of resident and therefore BB is valid

And I agree in terms of the sign.
But it clearly isn't what Newham think or state and for the [oint to be made then their stance
is open to challenge. But I don't see how saying they've stated something they haven't achieves that.

Much of this ties in with Mick is saying I think.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:40
Post #36


Member


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



The OP is perfectly entitled to assert that their understanding of the sign is that, as it states clearly on the tin, it is a class of resident's permit, therefore under the council's policy, which their letter set out clearly and which is reproduced below, a BB was valid without time limit in the bay.

On this basis and as the authority do not challenge that a BB is held by the occupier of **** and that the driver was in the process of obtaining this in order to transport the holder when the PCN was issued, then the authority must address the issue of the BB in their response.

Council policy:
'disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:36
Post #37


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:40) *
Council policy:
'disabled badge holders are permitted to park in residents bays without time limit


+1

How bizarre if the one type of residents bay you can't park in with a BB is a disabled one...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:54
Post #38


Member


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



Don't sacrifice assisted boarding to going to get a BB word so both are included


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 19:56
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:40) *
The OP is perfectly entitled to assert that their understanding of the sign is that, as it states clearly on the tin, it is a class of resident's permit, therefore under the council's policy, which their letter set out clearly and which is reproduced below, a BB was valid without time limit in the bay.

The OP has not stated that is their understanding; exactly the opposite.

and
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 17:40) *
and that the driver was in the process of obtaining this in order to transport the holder when the PCN was issued,

OP has stated was definitely NOT the case.
Are you suggesting they make things up?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 22:31
Post #40


Member


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



Post #1

father, to assist him into the car and take him to an appointment.

And I did not say nor do I suggest that the OP says that when they parked their interpretation was ****, this is not necessary.

But given that the authority have now introduced the issue of BB holders being permitted to park then it clearly lies with the OP to hold the metaphorical mirror up to the authority and assert as I have suggested and that as they were in the process of collecting a BB holder for pre-arranged transportation then on the basis of the council's policy it follows that the contravention did not occur.

No suggestions other than putting what the OP has said - they even provided the BB with their challenge- in the context of the authority's response.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:41
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