PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Tower Hamlets Parked in a permit space or zone without valid permit PCN
PeePii
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 22:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



Hi all, I hope you can help!

I recently parked in the Tower Hamlets on a Business permit and pay and display bay with a valid public service parking permit. This was my first time using one of these and I went and received a PCN! I checked on the website at the time of parking to check if I was eligible to park there. The TH website stated that I could park in "permit holders or pay at machine" (screenshot attached). Thinking this meant the bay I was looking at, I merrily parked and left my car only to return to a ticket.

I appealed the PCN on the basis that I had a valid permit when the alleged contravention stated that I didn't. However, their clear response is that I parked in a business permit bay when I shouldn't have. The wording on the website is as per the screenshot - there is no stipulation that I am not allowed to parking in a business permit bay.

I'd like to put together an appeal having received the NTO stating that the wording of the website "permit holders or pay at machine" is ambiguous and could easily be taken to mean that "business permit holders or pay at machine" bays are eligible. Are there any other factors I could include in the appeal to assist this or make it more likely that the PCN will be overturned? I've included all the relevant documentation.

Thank you very much for any help you can provide!







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 22:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 09:55
Post #2


Member


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



The other issue which should be raised is the use of a higher penalty Code 16 when you clearly displayed a TH permit. IMO the lower penalty Code 19 is appropriate:-

"Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time"

This Council have been getting away with this Code 16 scam for far too long.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 10:28
Post #3


Member


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



+1 to MMV's point. You have two grounds - the wording and the higher penalty. As you have lost the discount you have nothing to lose now by making both a formal appeal and going to adjudication should TH reject again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:37
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,065
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



And the contravention's wrong.

As printed, it means you parked in a shared use bay (in this case permit or pay) but not when the payment option was in force.

Therefore the only defence available to you under this contravention would be to produce a valid permit, it does not allow you to present valid proof of payment because not paying the parking charge is not alleged.

But it's wrong, it was a shared use bay with payment as an option and therefore the correct contravention was 'blah blah or without payment of the parkng charge'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:07
Post #5


Member


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



IMO the contravention is unsustainable in any event: If the council issues a public service parking permit and tells you it is valid in both resident only bays and permit only bays, how are you to know some types of permit holder only bays are excluded?


--------------------
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
PeePii
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 23:59
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



Absolutely brilliant advice everyone, thanks! Yes I feel that the fact that business permit bays are not explicitly excluded in the guidance makes it unreasonable to allege a contravention. I'll write up the appeal and go to adjudication if they reject.

Thank you for the help, any other wisdom would be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 02:02
Post #7


Member


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



Post a draft of your reps here first. If they reject, post a copy of their rejection. Do not go it alone, let us help. We've seen far too many people fail because they think they can go it alone, and our advice is very competitively priced.


--------------------
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 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 08:41
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,065
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



This was my first time using one of these

Can you pl elaborate.

How do you hold a Public Service(General) permit, for example do you work for the council?
Who actually applied for it,you or your organisation?
If not you, how and when was it given to you?
Is the NTO addressed to you?

I ask because IMO it is not as clear cut as portrayed that 'permit' is synonymous with 'business permit'. The application form and guidance notes can be read that there is a clear distinction between these permits and the council will argue that there is and you should have known. This begs the question: WHY would you consult the webpage, after all you had the permit and if YOU applied then you would or should already have known where it was valid?

So far you've given none of the backstory, but IMO it's important. Firstly, it could give rise to a discretionary cancellation as a first-time user or, if you did not apply, then what an adjudicator would find you should have known about its use and validity could be affected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeePii
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:44
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 08:41) *
This was my first time using one of these

Can you pl elaborate.

How do you hold a Public Service(General) permit, for example do you work for the council?
Who actually applied for it,you or your organisation?
If not you, how and when was it given to you?
Is the NTO addressed to you?

I ask because IMO it is not as clear cut as portrayed that 'permit' is synonymous with 'business permit'. The application form and guidance notes can be read that there is a clear distinction between these permits and the council will argue that there is and you should have known. This begs the question: WHY would you consult the webpage, after all you had the permit and if YOU applied then you would or should already have known where it was valid?

So far you've given none of the backstory, but IMO it's important. Firstly, it could give rise to a discretionary cancellation as a first-time user or, if you did not apply, then what an adjudicator would find you should have known about its use and validity could be affected.



Sure, happy to elaborate. I've recently started working for the local authority and this was the first or second time I used the permit. It's a multi vehicle permit (hence the MVP on the permit) and the organisation holds a few of these for the use of workers. The NTO is addressed to me as the owner of my vehicle. I checked the website as I had been given verbal guidance on the usage but wanted to be sure. I've checked the terms and conditions since the PCN and found that it has similar wording and no explicit exception for business permits.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 02:02) *
Post a draft of your reps here first. If they reject, post a copy of their rejection. Do not go it alone, let us help. We've seen far too many people fail because they think they can go it alone, and our advice is very competitively priced.



That's very kind of you to say! I certainly won't go it alone and I'll seek all your guidance as I go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 23:03
Post #10


Member


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



Show us these terms and conditions you speak of.


--------------------
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
PeePii
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 00:12
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



Hi all, quick update and request for some further guidance!

I sent of the NTO appeal as the date approached rather quickly and then didn't hear anything until the last couple of days when I received a Charge Certificate in the post stating that I now had to pay £195 as I didn't meet one of the listed criteria, e.g. not making representations to the NTO or making an appeal to the Adjudicator following rejection of appeal.

I immediately telephoned Tower Hamlets to state that I didn't receive a response to the representations. They informed me that they received my representations and sent out a rejection two days later. They have offered no proof of sending this, and are also saying the matter is no longer with them and that I will next be hearing from a Civil Enforcement Officer (bailiff).

The lady stated that if I wished to appeal on the grounds that I did not receive the rejection, I would have to wait for the bailiff, inform them that this was the case, to which they would return the matter back to TH to review this.

This seems very dissatisfactory as I have to wait for a bailiff to approach me when they do not appear to have proof they have sent this to me. Is that the usual process? Can anything else be done, e.g. contacting PATAS?

As usual, thanks for any help!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 00:25
Post #12


Member


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



No, they are not telling you the truth. The next step is an order for recovery (of the debt) and you have a guaranteed right to reset the process to the NTO by declaring that you didn't get a reply to your reps. No bailiffs.

But if you want help you really must do as we ask - you didn't post a draft of your reps...

Is all well with your post and is the name and address correct on the charge certificate?

QUOTE (PeePii @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:44) *
That's very kind of you to say! I certainly won't go it alone and I'll seek all your guidance as I go.


This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 00:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeePii
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 00:25) *
No, they are not telling you the truth. The next step is an order for recovery (of the debt) and you have a guaranteed right to reset the process to the NTO by declaring that you didn't get a reply to your reps. No bailiffs.

But if you want help you really must do as we ask - you didn't post a draft of your reps...

Is all well with your post and is the name and address correct on the charge certificate?

QUOTE (PeePii @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:44) *
That's very kind of you to say! I certainly won't go it alone and I'll seek all your guidance as I go.




Apologies! I rushed off my representations last minute and didn't give myself enough time to run it past the forum.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to request the cancellation of this PCN on two grounds: the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been procedural impropriety by the Enforcing Authority.
Firstly, the alleged contravention is described as "Parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit (Shared Use Bay)". The images supplied of the alleged contravention clearly demonstrate that I have parked appropriately in a bay and have displayed a valid parking permit. Section 5.3 of the Terms and Conditions of the Public Service Parking Permit states that the permit is valid for use in "Permit Holder or Pay at Machine bays", as I have done in this instance. At the time of parking, to ensure that I had parked correctly, I checked the Tower Hamlets’ parking permit webpage “Where You Can Park” section. As per the screenshot attached, the website stated again that the permit is valid for use in "Permit Holder or Pay at Machine bays". As can be seen from the photo evidence, there was no additional blue sign saying “no public service permits”. No specific exemption is made in the Terms and Conditions or the webpage for Business Permit holder bays. It cannot be shown from these images that I have "Parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit" and therefore I would like to appeal on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Secondly, the code for the alleged contravention is the higher Code 16, described as "Parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit (Shared Use Bay)". I would like to appeal on the grounds that this is a procedural impropriety; as this code does not allow the option to present valid proof of payment (of a parking ticket) because not paying the parking charge is not alleged. If the contravention occurred as the civil enforcement officer stated, the lower penalty Code 19 appears to be more appropriate: "Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time".
I hope both these grounds are compelling reasons to cancel the PCN.
Thank you for considering my appeal.



The name and address is correct on the Charge Certificate and I haven't noticed many difficulties with my post. Are you suggesting I should wait for the "order for recovery"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 16:24
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (PeePii @ Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 15:51) *
The name and address is correct on the Charge Certificate and I haven't noticed many difficulties with my post. Are you suggesting I should wait for the "order for recovery"?

Yes, there's no other reasonable course of action open to you.


--------------------
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
PeePii
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 00:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



Ok, thanks that sounds like a plan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeePii
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:19
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



Tower Hamlets saga continued..

Would anyone be able to tell me if this letter indicates that I won't be able to take this process back to the NTO stage or is the wording deliberately obfuscating? Does the reference to County Court suggest I will have a CCJ against me if I don't pay and take it back to appeal?

Thanks for any help!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:37
Post #17


Member


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



They are just trying to hustle you into paying. Ignore it and wait for the order for recovery. They should not be sending letters implying that you have no recourse at debt recovery stage and this letter is an impropriety.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeePii
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:04
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,318



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:37) *
They are just trying to hustle you into paying. Ignore it and wait for the order for recovery. They should not be sending letters implying that you have no recourse at debt recovery stage and this letter is an impropriety.



I couldn't tell, devious scrotes! Thanks for the help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 12:43
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