PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Tower Hamlets PCN - residents parking
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Hi all,

hope you can help. wife visited her sister in east london (we live in the midlands) and parked in a residents bay as she was told she would be given a scratch card to put on which gives parking. When she got there and parked up, not only did she have two kids (1 and 5 years old), her sister upstairs had two kids as well so neither could leave the kids alone. So my wife went up with the kids (tower block), left them with her sister and got the scratch card down to display. by the time she got back down, there was a PCN on the car.
I have made an informal rep explaining exactly this which has been rejected. please see the PCN and letters below.

PCN and scratch card.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/yy646t0zb4d4trv/2...162519.jpg?dl=0

back

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukzq7qm8eddjhwd/2...162529.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nl8bqr1p7rqmz9a/2...162537.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhlh0c2jq2odnx0/2...162544.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdgmnoeytoynsl6/2...162557.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2wclpt2ef64kek/2...162607.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/usmrue44yjz4gbk/2...162630.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2hrcx800b1xj20s/2...162643.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6u6o200jmckrm3/2...162653.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/omx582ddez26lhh/M...285%29.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nczsqtn5k8fiw4g/M...284%29.jpg?dl=0


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image



Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image



Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



you are allowed time to go and get the permit, the same as you would a P&D ticket. The PCN shows an observation of 6 minutes, but you scratched of the time at 15.00 so need to account for 11 minutes

it is for you to show this time was reasonable so what was the distance from car to flat how many floors lift or stairs are there any reasons that your wife would take longer than normal.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:30
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Hi there, yes sorry fair question. She took the kids up, I think that is a 21 storey building. It was the waiting for the lift, going up, leaving the kids. I believe the ticket was scratched while they were upstairs not when she came down. Obviously it was around 3pm which is why they put 3 on there. I believe that's when she was scratching it. Then she had to wait for the lift to come and take her down.
11 minutes go very quick when you are sorting kids and taking them up and going down a block of flats.


To be honest, in hindsight I don't think she would have been able to do things any differently as she did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,005
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
I think that is a 21 storey building


And which floor did you have to access for the permit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:00
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



16th floor
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:01
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Their rejection disregards any defence of getting a permit by saying a card has to be displayed before you 'close the doors of your vehicle'.

So they've set themselves up for a successful appeal.

The permit is only scratchable in 5 min intervals so there is some leeway there and the key is it is scratched before the contravention but it could have been nearer 3:05 than 3:00.

What floor were they visiting?

Obviously you have lost the discount so no worry about a formal appeal and then to the tribunal should they reject again.

Post a draft of an appeal here first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:08
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Quick question, if it does go to tribunal, is it going to be in London? Or can I go to a local one?
Because that will cost me more than the full price of the ticket to get there and spend a day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:16
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The council are plainly wrong, motorists are not required to leave a visitor permit before closing the car doors. Visitor permits are obtained from the premises the motorist is visiting, and a motorist is allowed the time required to go and get the permit and return to the car (there was a very similar case a couple of years ago when an appeal was won on these exact grounds, although in that case the motorist had to get a pay&display voucher from the local shops, maybe someone on here remembers the case number?). In failing to consider this, the council has misdirected itself in law and it has therefore failed in its duty to consider your reps. As stamfordman says, they've set themselves up for a successful appeal, although I imagine you will need to go to adjudication to get this cancelled I think the odds are in your favour on this one.

QUOTE (d-evil @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:08) *
Quick question, if it does go to tribunal, is it going to be in London? Or can I go to a local one?
Because that will cost me more than the full price of the ticket to get there and spend a day.

You don't have to attend at all, you can just submit your appeal in writing.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Thank you guys/gals

I will draft my letter and post up here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:16) *
You don't have to attend at all, you can just submit your appeal in writing.


To be clear, all appeals are submitted in writing with the evidence (eg scan of permit), but in London you can opt for a personal hearing so you can talk through the evidence. Otherwise the same materials are considered by the adjudicator but not at a hearing.

See:

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/your...postal-decision

Outside London (England and Wales) there is an option for telephone hearings, which I think they should do in London too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:16) *
The council are plainly wrong, motorists are not required to leave a visitor permit before closing the car doors. Visitor permits are obtained from the premises the motorist is visiting, and a motorist is allowed the time required to go and get the permit and return to the car (there was a very similar case a couple of years ago when an appeal was won on these exact grounds, although in that case the motorist had to get a pay&display voucher from the local shops, maybe someone on here remembers the case number?). In failing to consider this, the council has misdirected itself in law and it has therefore failed in its duty to consider your reps. As stamfordman says, they've set themselves up for a successful appeal, although I imagine you will need to go to adjudication to get this cancelled I think the odds are in your favour on this one.

QUOTE (d-evil @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:08) *
Quick question, if it does go to tribunal, is it going to be in London? Or can I go to a local one?
Because that will cost me more than the full price of the ticket to get there and spend a day.

You don't have to attend at all, you can just submit your appeal in writing.


Don't have the case you mention but this for now

2160400146

The Appellant driver Mr P Cameron has attended this adjourned hearing I find him to be an honest witness I believe what he tells me.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid residents' permit or voucher when in Wilberforce Road on 16 June 2016 at 12.37.
The Appellant's case is that he had gone to collect a visitor's permit from a customer's home, and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued before he could display the visitor's voucher. He has produced the visitor's voucher and a statement from the customer confirming his evidence.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that insufficient time was permitted for the Appellant driver Mr Cameron to collect, validate and display the visitor's voucher, which had been given to him, in his vehicle.
The appeal is allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



It will be a hard hearted adjudicator who turns this down when in front of pics of two mums with two small kids each and a pic of the tower block with an arrow pointing at the 16th floor.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:20
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I've found the case I was thinking of, it's 2050413235, which, so far as relevant, says

"In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the P it is expected that a supply of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source of them for motorists."

In this case, the council's assertion that a visitor permit must be displayed before the car doors are closed means, by necessary implication, that the council expects a supply of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. As in the above case, this expectation has no justification in law, the scheme in this instance is that visitor permits are obtained from the occupiers of the premises being visited, and that is the source of them for motorists. As the council has misdirected itself in law, the council has committed a procedural impropriety which is sufficient grounds for the PCN to be cancelled.

So there's two grounds for challenge, procedural impropriety based on 2050413235 and the contravention did not occur based on 2160400146.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d-evil
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,064



Thank you so much for your help. Please see initial draft.

To Whom it may concern,
I would like to contest the above PCN. The timeline of events are as follows (as described in the intital appeal).
- My wife was driving her car from the midlands down to east London with my two young children.
- Upon arriving, she had to obtain a scratch parking permit from her sister who lives in the building who also has two very young children therefore could not leave them in the house. My wife had to take the children out of the car safely, lock the car and travel up to floor 16 to obtain the permit.
- Once there, she had to obtain the ticket, ensure that it was scratched according to the rules and leave the children with her (while they were crying not to be left alone after an hour and 30 minute journey where they were sleeping and had just woken up).
- By the time she had gone down to the car, there was already a ticket placed.
I understand the requirement to have to display a permit on the car however in this instance, there was no reason for her to be parked there other than visiting someone as this is over 70 miles from where we live. The intention was always to have the permit therefore applying the full letter of the law when an individual has done what they can humanly do is not in the spirit of the law.
In regards to the statement the council have made in the notice of rejection stating that the driver has to ensure that it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that permit is displayed as soon as the car door is closed before leaving the vehicle, this is wholly wrong and is prejudicial.
The grounds of my appeal are as follows:
- Procedural improprietry (Supporting case in London Traffic adjudication 2050413235)
"In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the P it is expected that a supply of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source of them for motorists."

In this case, the council's assertion that a visitor permit must be displayed before the car doors are closed means, by necessary implication, that the council expects a supply of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. As in the above case, this expectation has no justification in law, the scheme in this instance is that visitor permits are obtained from the occupiers of the premises being visited, and that is the source of them for motorists. As the council has misdirected itself in law, the council has committed a procedural impropriety which is sufficient grounds for the PCN to be cancelled.

- Contravention did not occur (Supporting case Supporting case in London Traffic adjudication)
The Appellant driver Mr P Cameron has attended this adjourned hearing I find him to be an honest witness I believe what he tells me.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid residents' permit or voucher when in Wilberforce Road on 16 June 2016 at 12.37.
The Appellant's case is that he had gone to collect a visitor's permit from a customer's home, and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued before he could display the visitor's voucher. He has produced the visitor's voucher and a statement from the customer confirming his evidence.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that insufficient time was permitted for the Appellant driver Mr Cameron to collect, validate and display the visitor's voucher, which had been given to him, in his vehicle.
The appeal is allowed.

In light of the above, I expect the PCN be immediately cancelled.

Kind regards

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:40
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Needs some tidying up. Plenty of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:49
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,304
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:40) *
Needs some tidying up. Plenty of time.



+1

don't give them anything to get their claws into. There is plenty of time. Some one will help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Bump it if we've not got to it over the w/e.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:07
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, stop what you're doing.

You have challenged and this has been rejected. You cannot enter into some sort of pen-pal correspondence.

You must wait for the NTO on receipt of which the owner could submit further reps to the authority.

Who is the registered keeper?

Only if these reps are rejected would the owner be able to appeal to an adjudicator.

So slow down and stop drafting, you're several weeks premature.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:16
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,049
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:07) *
You must wait for the NTO on receipt of which the owner could submit further reps to the authority.


They have the NTO, HCA - see #1. Dated 6 Feb.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:19
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (d-evil @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:26) *
Thank you so much for your help. Please see initial draft.

I've tidied this up a bit, I'm sure others will chip in with any additional suggestions. If your wife is able to truthfully provide any details about inevitable delays (such as the lift stopped on however many floors) those details should be added under ground 1. By the way be prepared for the fact that there's a 99% chance the council will reject this (they want your money) and you'll have to appeal to the London Tribunals, but I'm as confident as I can be that this will get cancelled at that stage.

To Whom it may concern,

Please accept the below as my formal representations against the Notice to Owner issued on 6 February 2018 for PCN number XXXXXX

Ground 1: The Contravention did not occur:
My wife was driving her car from the midlands down to east London with my two young children. Upon arriving, she had to obtain a scratch parking permit from her sister, who lives on the 16th floor of a high rise building. Her sister also has young children who cannot be left unattended, so it was not possible for my wife's sister to bring a visitor's permit down to the car. My wife therefore secured the car and made her way to her sister's flat, together with her young children, in order to obtain a permit. Once there, she obtained the ticket, she ensured that it had been scratched according to the rules, and left the children with her sister. Unfortunately at this point the children were crying not to be left alone after they had been sleeping for an hour and 30 minute journey and had just woken up. Nonetheless, my wife made her way back to the car without any unnecessary delay, unfortunately by the time she had returned to the car a PCN had already been placed on the windscreen. I enclose a copy of the scratch card as evidence of the above.

The parking scheme in place requires visitors to obtain a visitor's parking permit and display it on the dashboard. Motorists obtain visitor permits from the premises they are visiting, there is no requirement that a stock of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. It is a necessary implication of the scheme that the motorist is allowed a reasonable amount of time to obtain a visitor's permit and return to the vehicle, where this is done without unnecessary delay, no contravention of the parking scheme occurs. I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in London Tribunals case 2160400146:

"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid residents' permit or voucher when in Wilberforce Road on 16 June 2016 at 12.37.
The Appellant's case is that he had gone to collect a visitor's permit from a customer's home, and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued before he could display the visitor's voucher. He has produced the visitor's voucher and a statement from the customer confirming his evidence.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that insufficient time was permitted for the Appellant driver Mr Cameron to collect, validate and display the visitor's voucher, which had been given to him, in his vehicle.
The appeal is allowed.
"

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:
In its letter dated 11 January 2018 the council has stated "Please be advised that it remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the scratch card is properly scratched off and displayed upon closing the doors of your vehicle", this statement evidences the council has misdirected itself in law and this amounts to a procedural impropriety.

I refer you to the decision in London Tribunals case 2050413235, where adjudicator Martin Wood stated, in so far as is relevant:
"In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the P it is expected that a supply of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source of them for motorists"

In this case, the council's assertion that a visitor permit must be displayed before the car doors are closed means, by necessary implication, that the council expects a supply of visitor permits be kept in the vehicle. As in the above case, this expectation has no justification in law, the scheme in this instance is that visitor permits are obtained from the occupiers of the premises being visited, and that is the source of visitor permits for motorists. It thus follows that visiting motorists are allowed a short but reasonable amount of time to obtain a permit and return to the car to display it. The assertion that the permit must be displayed before the vehicle doors are closed has no basis in law. As the council has misdirected itself in law, the council has committed a procedural impropriety following which the penalty charge cannot be enforced.

In light of the above, I expect the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner to be cancelled.

Kind regards

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:23


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
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: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 20:27
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.