PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Newham - Contravention 16
factfinder
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 00:27
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,444



Hi Experts,

I have recently got a PCN due to my own mistake. I am wondering if is have a case to appeal.

I parked on resident permit holders bay and placed a visitor permit in my car. Mistakenly I forgot to cross the DAY however I crossed month and year on the permit.

I got ticket with contravention 16.

Thanks

Attached Image
Attached Image

Attached Image
Attached Image

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Advertisement
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 00:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 07:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,214
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP-----this case really depends on whether you are prepared to risk the full penalty and go right through to adjudication (where you will stand a 50:50 chance of success IMO).

You have been given a Code 16 which is a higher penalty even though you displayed a permit for that place. In my opinion this is prejudicial in a legal sense and grossly unfair.

The Council has designated this as a shared parking zone even though 95% of it will be for residents. One adjudicator has questioned this arrangement here:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1378099

In other areas a lower penalty Code 19 is used "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"

Indeed the CEO Handbook for London indicates that "In shared use bays where residents’ permits are valid, codes 12 and 19 should be used as appropriate".

Here's another case on a Code 16 :-

2160168317 (Extract)

Finally, the Appellant queries why a Code 19 allegation has not been averred. The Authority says that this is a Code used for estate parking and there is nothing wrong with it. Code 19 carries a smaller penalty. When the Authority chooses to aver a contravention with a higher penalty, there needs to be some justification as to why a contravention with a higher penalty is averred. The Authority has not offered any justification.

Upholding the PCN with a higher penalty is unfair. I allow the appeal.
---------------------------------------------
The rationale for Codes of this nature was fully considered by London Councils in December 2006 when they set the level of parking penalties depending on whether the parking contravention was deemed to be more serious or less serious.

However they had to use a suffix to Code 16 to differentiate between residential bays and other bays but that went in 2007 giving Councils scope for this scam.

You are bang to rights on having an invalid permit. You don't appear to have parked in a doctor's bay or other designated bay so the level of penalty charge is unfair IMO since you both "paid" and displayed which was London Council's view of a less serious parking penalty.

No doubt others will comment but it's about time Newham was brought to task on this issue.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 07:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,386
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You can really only ask for discretion and surrender the permit but Newham is a horrible council and is unlikely to allow it. In fact they often tow for such things so you have been lucky there.

I would also say that they should issued a lower level code 19 PCN - 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 is £80 or £40 at discount. This because code 16 is not displaying a valid permit but it can be argued that your permit was valid but just not correctly filled in, i.e was invalid.

Plus what MMV says.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 07:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
factfinder
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 13:31
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,444



Thanks for a reply.

I just spend some time to browse around the forum and I am very much surprised to find that NEWHAM is actually ripping people off..I mean towing away for invalid permits. I saw few times wardens roaming around with truck...no wonder they are ready to take and its business of making easy money.

Moving on to my appeal, what should I dispute? Procedural impropriety? or something else?

Information is missing on permit however permit was there on 1st instance. And after reviewing CEO's code book the correct contravention should be code 19 which have lower penalty.

Please can some post some draft letter for representation.

thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
factfinder
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 10:33
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,444



QUOTE (factfinder @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 14:31) *
Thanks for a reply.

I just spend some time to browse around the forum and I am very much surprised to find that NEWHAM is actually ripping people off..I mean towing away for invalid permits. I saw few times wardens roaming around with truck...no wonder they are ready to take and its business of making easy money.

Moving on to my appeal, what should I dispute? Procedural impropriety? or something else?

Information is missing on permit however permit was there on 1st instance. And after reviewing CEO's code book the correct contravention should be code 19 which have lower penalty.

Please can some post some draft letter for representation.

thanks



any help for draft?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:50
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,910
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



How about you write a draft and we'll suggest any amendments? Don't try and copy / paste from a different thread, you need to write your own reps. As per post 3, all you can do is apologise and ask them to exercise discretion to cancel.


--------------------
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

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, 20th June 2018 - 20:48
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.