Contravention 26 - Islington, Unloading car for <5 minutes Options

[rustybearings]

Hi,

Was parked outside our flat unloading some furniture; the road is disabled parking only so our permit does not allow us to park on the road.

As the furniture was heavy, wanted to get the car as close as possible to the door. Hence why we left it in the street (a cul-de-sac with two lanes) with the hazards on. As soon as I had got the furniture into the flat I ran back down to find a ticket being slapped on the car. Must have been gone a couple of minutes at best.

I note the contravention code (26) is for parking more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place. I can't argue with that, but it just seems really unfair that:

1) There are no loading bays provided to the street at all;
2) I was gone for such a short time. Is there not a period of time that they should have observed the contravention;
3) It's a cul-de-sac and nobody ever comes down to the end of the road;
4) There are two lanes and I wasn't obstructing the entirety of the road.

Details of the PCN haven't been posted yet but will upload the photos when they are.

Also,probably not relevant but the ticket was not sealed inside the envelope.

Diagram to show where the car was parked:



Thanks in advance for any help at all. Appreciate I might just have to bite the bullet with this one.

[Advertisement]

[rustybearings]

Thanks all.

Have emailed, will update as and when I hear back.

[rustybearings]

Hi all,

Still have not had any response to my appeal.

Prior to issuing the appeal I did request evidence, as this was not available on the Islington website. I have finally had a response regarding the request for evidence:

"Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office.

The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the vehicle was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place.

I note you are not challenging the Penalty Charge Notice you just requested the images therefore, I have included all the images taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time of the contravention.

I am satisfied the contravention occurred and have found no grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice on this occasion.

As the PCN was issued correctly, payment is now due. I have decided that we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 27/04/2018. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will increase to £130.00.

If you wish to continue to contest the matter, the next stage is that a Notice to Owner will be sent to the person responsible for the penalty charge. This is a necessary legal step and further correspondence will only delay this process.

I am afraid you are unlikely to get a further opportunity to make discounted payment. However, the Notice to Owner will establish liability for the Penalty Charge Notice and the grounds under which representations may be made. If representations are made at this stage and they are rejected, there will be the right of appeal to an independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.

You can make credit and debit card payments on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number)."

I will include the photos below. I responded to this by saying that I had issued an appeal separately and that my request for information was simply because that's what their website advised. The photos were all taken between 20:49 and 20:50 and the side view shows that the space (which is a disabled bay) is too small to fit into and open the boot to remove the furniture.

Photos:














Thanks

This post has been edited by rustybearings: Wed, 30 May 2018 - 16:18

[stamfordman]

Did you get a receipt for your challenge? islington parking is a mess and they it seems they have taken your request for pics as a challenge.

now this raises the question as to whether they have sent a notice to owner - is all well with your V5C name and address?

was their reply an email or posted?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 30 May 2018 - 16:35

[DancingDad]

I note you are not challenging the Penalty Charge Notice you just requested the images therefore...

I am satisfied the contravention occurred and have found no grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice on this occasion.

That letter is as clear a case of premature consideration as we see !

[rustybearings]

Did you get a receipt for your challenge? islington parking is a mess and they it seems they have taken your request for pics as a challenge.

now this raises the question as to whether they have sent a notice to owner - is all well with your V5C name and address?

was their reply an email or posted?

No receipt for my challenge - sent via email and have yet to hear back.

I believe the owner is listed as my girlfriend's father, but he would have told us if he had received anything.

Their reply was by email.

Thanks

[rustybearings]

Have now finally heard back from Islington Council who said:

"Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office. I have noted your comments and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I can confirm that your appeal should have been looked in to sooner and I will ensure you are not disadvantaged by this delay.

I understand you had wanted to appeal the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was loading/unloading. We may reconsider the charge if you can provide documentary evidence that this was the case. Usually, this would be something like a job sheet or delivery note. However, based on your appeal we may consider a receipt for the items you purchased. The link to Ikea's website would not be sufficient.

Your choices now are to either to pay the penalty charge or provide the information requested. Alternatively, you can allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the Notice to Owner. If no action is taken we may issue a Charge Certificate to that person advising that the right to appeal has expired and that the charge has increased to £195.00. I have decided that, if you wish to settle the matter, we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 6 August 2018. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will revert to £130.00 before increasing to £195.00 when the Charge Certificate is sent out.

You can make a credit or debit card payment on our automated payment line on 020 7527 8000 at any time or speak to an advisor on 020 7527 2000 – between 09:00 to 17:00. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number)."


As I said previously, the table was my parents' previously and we took it from them - so no receipt. Regardless of whether the table is new or used, it weighed the same, so it is frustrating that it appears I will only be exempt in the event that it was new. Do appreciate this appears the only way to prove that I actually unloaded the table.. Any ideas?

Thanks again.

[stamfordman]

Islington are being arses. I think you'd win this at adjudication if you turned up in person but it will be at risk of £130. Why else would you park there?

And their procedure must be called to account - they say, " Alternatively, you can allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the Notice to Owner."

have they sent it? They messed up with the challenge too.

As for the table, can your parents dig up a receipt or at least a credit card statement - I think Islington will cancel if you provide proof the table exist and is in your family's possession.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 10:43

[rustybearings]

Islington are being arses. I think you'd win this at adjudication if you turned up in person but it will be at risk of £130. Why else would you park there?

And their procedure must be called to account - they say, " Alternatively, you can allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the Notice to Owner."

have they sent it? They messed up with the challenge too.

As for the table, can your parents dig up a receipt or at least a credit card statement - I think Islington will cancel if you provide proof the table exist and is in your family's possession.

They did send the Notice to Owner - the registered owner of the car was still my girlfriend's dad. I have asked, unfortunately not though, they bought it about 5 years ago. They're more than welcome to come up to my flat and have a look at it!

This post has been edited by rustybearings: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 10:49

[stamfordman]

If it were me I would continue but the formal appeal will need to come from g/f's dad but you can write it on his behalf.

you say was - who is reg owner now?

They say you can speak to an advisor - I think I'd try one call to them to explain the status of the table and to ask if as it's secondhand they will be reasonable and cancel as you feel confident that the circumstances will be accepted by an adjudicator.

[Incandescent]

In a case like this, I would submit photos of the table, and its weight and dimensions, plus a witness statement from your parents that the table was a gift from them to help furnish your flat. If they persist after this, then I'd take them to adjudication and also ask for costs. The problem with the whole decrim parking regime is that the more thick and stupid and obdurate councils are the more money they make.

[hcandersen]

OP, pl forget about tables, chairs, IKEA, receipts and anything not directly related to procedure.

You say a NTO has been issued.

In which case the authority are dead in the water procedurally.

You cannot have two distinct demands for different sums of money being made against two unrelated (in law) parties for the same alleged penalty.

Read the back of the PCN:

‘....but if a NTO is served notwithstanding those representations then representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the NTO’

So, on whom was the NTO served and what was its date of issue?

That’s it IMO.

Once you’ve confirmed, we can draft reps for the owner to make against the NTO and a response from you to the authority’s letter.

[rustybearings]

Hi

What does it mean if they are dead in the water procedurally?

The NTO was served to my girlfriend's father, the date of issue was 13/06/2018.

Images of the NTO below:













Thanks

[hcandersen]

And what did he do with it?

Nothing, make representations as required?

[rustybearings]

And what did he do with it?

Nothing, make representations as required?

Emailed a copy to me. Once I received it I emailed the council to ask why they had not yet responded to my initial appeal. It was to that email that I finally got a response.

Thanks

[PASTMYBEST]

OP, pl forget about tables, chairs, IKEA, receipts and anything not directly related to procedure.

You say a NTO has been issued.

In which case the authority are dead in the water procedurally.

You cannot have two distinct demands for different sums of money being made against two unrelated (in law) parties for the same alleged penalty.

Read the back of the PCN:

‘....but if a NTO is served notwithstanding those representations then representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the NTO’

So, on whom was the NTO served and what was its date of issue?

That’s it IMO.

Once you’ve confirmed, we can draft reps for the owner to make against the NTO and a response from you to the authority’s letter.

Agree almost completely, but I would include the loading exemption as a first point as well. The procedural point raised by HCA worded correctly is an almost dead cert at adjudication

[rustybearings]

So what should I do next?

Thanks

[stamfordman]

Draft a two point appeal.

First, restate the loading exemption and that you would only have parked there for the purposes of loading to your home - there was no other reason to do so. you could as Incan says include a pic of table.

Second, pick up the HCA procedural point.

Post here before sending.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 15:23

[rustybearings]

Sorry, could you explain the procedural point issue for me? Is it just that they cannot request two sums of money for the same contravention from two different people?

Thanks again!

[stamfordman]

Sorry, could you explain the procedural point issue for me? Is it just that they cannot request two sums of money for the same contravention from two different people?

Yes - that's it. Just say that an NTO has been issued to the RK (registered keeper) for £xxx but you - not the RK - are in receipt of an offer to pay a discounted penalty of £xx. This simultaneous action is a procedural impropriety.

You need though to draft the rep on behalf of the keeper, not you.

Post here first.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 20:50

[rustybearings]

How's this? Thanks again.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing in response to the NTO dated XX/XX/XX in relation to PCN no. XXXXXXXXX. As the registered keeper, I wish to appeal this based on the following points.

I note that there is a loading exemption to Contravention 26. As explained by my daughter’s boyfriend, he was collecting a heavy item from his parents and had parked there for a very short time whilst he carried the item inside. The hazard lights were left on in the hope that it would be clear that the car had not been left there for a long period of time. The car was in that location for a couple of minutes at most and I note this is not contradicted by the photos taken by the traffic officer.

Furthermore, both my daughter’s boyfriend and I have received separate requests for payment. I have received the NTO requesting payment of £130, whilst my daughter’s boyfriend has received separate correspondence from XXXX requesting a discounted payment of £65. I note that this simultaneous action is a procedural impropriety.

I hope that you will cancel the penalty to avoid the need for tribunal.

Yours sincerely,