Blue Badge / Parked for longer than permitted |
Blue Badge / Parked for longer than permitted |
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:01
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 6 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,743 |
Hi all,
My mum received a PCN from the council for 'parking longer than permitted' on double yellows with her blue badge. It was in a residential area, quiet cul-de-sac road, and she wasn't obstructing anyone by being there. By parking on the double yellows actually means resident’s (limited) parking isn’t taken up - so you have some idea of where this happened. My mum being disabled takes her time doing things, some days more than others depending on her condition. On this day she lost track of the time and overstayed by 50 mins. We appealed to the council and whilst awaiting to hear back we received a NtO requesting the full balance; no longer giving the 50% discount. In-fact threatening to increase the amount by a further 50% if we do not pay within 28 days. I have a screenshot of the appeal confirmation, made on the council website, as proof. But I'm wondering what the best course of action is, given they haven't responded to our appeal at all. And if we can fight the PCN given a blue badge was displayed and my mum was not obstructing anyone, just simply parked in a residential area. On a side note there were a lot of photos taken as evidence, 13 to be exact, some of which my mum felt were quite intrusive. Few were photos of the inside of her car and her belongings. Not sure if this is grounds to form part of the appeal, but I did mention it as we couldn't understand how this was relevant to the PCN. Your help is very much appreciated! Thanks in advance. This post has been edited by paradisebope: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 09:54 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:01
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 23:59
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 6 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,743 |
From what I can see, blue badge time clock shows 3 hour max stay exceeded when parked on double yellows. 30 Contravention Code seems to have been used here. 30 applies to a permissible parking place, not a double yellow. 01 is the absolute correct code. 02 is for situations when there are kerb blips and loading restrictions apply. Another signs & lines disaster means it is unenforceable. Thank you for responding Gert. To clarify, you think this could be defended on the grounds that the wrong contravention code was used? Wait for the CC, on the face of it we have a PI as the council had committed itself to re-offering the discount. Hi cp8759 So I’m clear on what you’re saying could you please clarify what CC and PI mean? Thank you |
|
|
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 00:10
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 6 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,743 |
From what I can see defeat will be grasped from the jaws of victory I think not! IMO, the only questions to be asked have nothing to do with the contravention: 1. Date NTO presumed served; 2. Details of any correspondence submitted by OP after date of service above; 3. Whether these should have been considered as representations or, if not, responded to; 4. Whether a response was sent and its status. Culminating in advice to the OP whether they have legitimate grounds to submit a witness statement under the grounds that they made reps but no response (as per Appeals Reg 5) received. 1. 1 Feb. 2. OP's letter dated 20 Feb. 3. IMO, yes they should because they raised the issue of perceived procedural impropriety, albeit incorrectly, but that's not the point, it's there. 4. As far as we know, no. Others might see matters differently. But they are stating to have responded to the original appeal? In regards to no. 4, do you mean response to their latest letter? Due to time limit for response, the driver responded stating no response was received but offering a reasonable settlement of paying original PCN (£25). Being clear that this isn’t admission of fault but more to close out the matter as this has affected (negatively) the driver’s condition. It was stated that if the offer was not accepted the driver would defend this in court with legal representation and seek to recover costs. We just need this matter closed out as it’s really affecting the driver. But will not give in to the council’s mal-administration and bullying. Their response to the original appeal was 100% not received by either post or email. |
|
|
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 12:56
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Hi cp8759 So I’m clear on what you’re saying could you please clarify what CC and PI mean? Thank you CC is the charge certificate. PI is procedural impropriety. If the council had committed itself to re-offering the discount, it cannot later resile from that and it commits a procedural impropriety if it does. Looking at it another way, it is demanding a penalty that exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. Post up the documents as requested in post 38 above. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 12:56 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 13:31
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,057 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
It was stated that if the offer was not accepted the driver would defend this in court with legal representation and seek to recover costs.
Stop playing Perry Mason, it doesn't suit. There's no court, it's adjudication. Legal representation is a no-no. As regards my post, IMO you would be correct to consider that your communication post-service of the NTO and before the end of the 28-day period were representations for the purposes of the regs. They were therefore obliged to respond by letter in which they either accepted or rejected your reps. They didn't, therefore you are entitled to submit a witness statement on these grounds. The authority have NO SAY in this matter: provided you submit your statement in time, then revocation of the OfR and CC are automatic. This has NOTHING to do with the contravention as such, it's procedural. But it does provide grounds for subsequent appeal, grounds which of course the authority could defend evidentially. |
|
|
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 14:11
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 838 Joined: 15 May 2019 Member No.: 103,884 |
From what I can see, blue badge time clock shows 3 hour max stay exceeded when parked on double yellows. 30 Contravention Code seems to have been used here. 30 applies to a permissible parking place, not a double yellow. 01 is the absolute correct code. 02 is for situations when there are kerb blips and loading restrictions apply. Another signs & lines disaster means it is unenforceable. Thank you for responding Gert. To clarify, you think this could be defended on the grounds that the wrong contravention code was used? Wait for the CC, on the face of it we have a PI as the council had committed itself to re-offering the discount. Hi cp8759 So I’m clear on what you’re saying could you please clarify what CC and PI mean? Thank you Yes. 30 is used for bays. Any issues with double yellows with BB ov erstay means the dispensation cannot be applied and parking on DYL means only an 01 is applicable. Just like if I parked on them now. CEO error all the way. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:03 |