Lambeth - Multiple PCNs - CR/CB Options

[stripy_wood]

Hi all,

I hope everyone is well given the current circumstances.

I’m reaching out for some help having recently received three PCNs from Lambeth council.

The background is as follows:

• We have a residents e-permit (zone: Clapham ‘C’ – see attached [Attachment 1]);
• Went on holiday for 12 days (14-26th March), parked the car the morning we left on a street around the corner from home;
• Arrived home, but didn’t check on the car until 4th April (part due to isolation and part due to inaction);
• Upon checking car, discover three PCNs issued on days 2, 3 and 4 after we went on holiday for codes 16, 16, 16b respectively (16-18 March, attached [Attachments 2-6]);
• PCNs when found were by then outside of the 14 day discount window for early payment;
• Sent informal challenge to Lambeth on 5th April ([Attachment 7 - all challenges were the same]) assumed it was an admin error as we have an e-permit so were unsure why they had been issued);
• Receive response that the PCNs are considered valid by Lambeth as the space is apparently business parking only [Attachment 8 - responses were the same].

The facts are broadly similar to the below posts on the same matter (which I unhelpfully hadn’t checked before sending the informal challenge).

• http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124439
• http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=111754

From these cases, it appears to follow that there are two main questions:

Whether the ambiguity in the way the permit is issued, i.e. covering Zone C (rather than specifically CR or CB) and the lack of available information on the distinction between CR/ CB are sufficient grounds for an appeal, and whether this has been ever challenged successfully?

• As with the other posts, having checked our permit and online (broadly, everywhere short of calling the council), it is not clear anywhere that CR and CB are differentiated into residential and business parking. We had been under the impression the ‘C’ was a prefix and so based on the Lambeth CPZ street map, our permit for zone ‘C’, and road signs that denoted ‘C’-prefixed permits we could park there.
• It is not explicitly clear from parking sign itself that this is business parking (other than potentially inferable from the coding).
• This seems beyond a reasonable level of action required to validate what falls within the overarching Zone C within which parking is allowed, as per the permit?

Irrespective of the above, would there be a case to challenge the second and third PCNs on the grounds of these being in respect of the same contravention or being excessive?

Are there also any grounds for extending the 14 days discount window for being away?

Given the existing informal challenge, we are awaiting the NtO to follow up on both of these points, but would appreciate any guidance, if possible.

The Lambeth PCN portal also suggests that the penalty will go up to £195 (from current £130 as we missed the original discount window) if we do not pay soon (a point, which isn’t mentioned on the PCNs themselves), so it would be great if someone could confirm whether this will apply even if we are to challenge further (successfully or unsuccessfully).

Thanks all!

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8i 8ii

https://imageshack.com/

This post has been edited by stripy_wood: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 17:02

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

It's a shame neither of the other two got back to us, especially this one:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124439

The B/R difference is not adequate to designate a business bay in my view and their rejection is just nonsense by saying there is a sign that 'explains' it is a business bay. The word business is used by other councils to explain...

What exactly does your permit say - is it a paper one?

[stripy_wood]

Thanks for the quick reply - agreed on both fronts.

As far as I'm aware, the below is all I have been provided with in respect of the e-permit (which appears equally unhelpful), besides the approval email previously attached.



https://imageshack.com/

[stamfordman]

Only one of the PCNs has the suffix b but they just say there was no valid virtual permit.

[hcandersen]

OP, oh really?

And this on their website:

4. Understanding your e-permit

Once your permit has been issued, you'll be assigned an e-permit code according to the zone you live in. For example CR, BIR ,BB.

If your e-permit code matches exactly what is displayed on the timeplate, you can park your vehicle here. (my emphasis)

On occasions you may encounter what’s known as a shared use bay. These bays are designed for multiple users, businesses permit holders, resident permit holders as well as short stay parking for paying visitors to the borough (pay and display).

These bays may display a range of codes. As long as your code exactly matches one of the codes displayed on the timeplate, you can park here.

We advise all permit holders to check their online parking account and familiarize themselves with their e-permit code.

This will allow you to park your vehicle with confidence in the borough of Lambeth, on all occasions.

The last thing you should do is mislead us (commission or omission) - because you, not we, are the owner of all the permit application, guidance notes and other info sent by the council and to which you have access through your 'online parking account'.

You made a mistake by 'parking around the corner' in a bay whose restriction you could easily have checked.

(PS. well-written posts rather suggest someone who would not leave their out-of-sight car unchecked for the best part of 10 days after returning from a 12-day holiday, a total of 3 weeks. This is Lambeth! You were lucky to find more wheels on your car than PCNs, in my day it would have been the other way around)

Accepting that you erred would at least allow us to relegate that part of your argument to a very minor role and to focus on whether continuous contravention is an angle.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 - 07:24

[stripy_wood]

Thanks both.

stamfordman – do the PCNs need to be specific on the contravention code? I had assumed the ‘b’ wasn’t required.

hcandersen – I do not believe the approval email and e-permit make it clear. Unless I’m missing a well-hidden part of the portal, the above two documents (approval email/portal snapshot) are all I have been sent in respect of the permit, which do not to confirm the abbreviated code. The e-permit approval email states the Zone as ‘C’, which I had understood to be the code, and the type as Resident, but CR is neither noted, nor is it defined anywhere else. Relying on the zone above and the CPZ map, it appeared reasonable (the point on which this probably hinges) it was a zonal division, but not necessarily further restricted; albeit, I agree that if the code were C, it would follow that we couldn't park anywhere given the quoted section above.

For the council, it would seem simple to provide guidance when issuing the e-permits (i.e., actually providing the code or a definition?) or marking the business bays more clearly.

I agree the 10-day period may be longer than others leave their cars (it’s almost like there’s something out there keeping people inside!), but this also isn’t uncommon, being an infrequent driver.

Notwithstanding the above, do either of you have guidance on the other queries, i.e., three PCNs being excessive, or the £130/£195 points.

[smith96]

Hi guys,

Sorry I thought I had responded on here. Just got a notification from Stamfordman in my emails.

I actually got all of the tickets cancelled on the basis of my argument above. Just working at the moment, but I will send a copy of my exact argument that got my tickets cancelled. Someone I know also got caught with the same in the same place, then mirrored my challenge with a few stylistic tweaks and also got their tickets cancelled.

I'll dig it out and post it this evening - apologies that I forgot to reply, it was 2 months after I last posted on here that I got a response about the PCNs being cancelled.

Once again, just want to say thanks for everyone's help at the time was much appreciated.

I'll post it on my original post in order to make it easier to follow for anyone who comes back on.

thanks,

[stripy_wood]

Hi all,

Just coming back to this quickly after submitting formal representations and receiving responses from Lambeth (attached).

My letter, which was consistent across all three PCNs, is also attached.

In summary:

First PCN - appeal rejected;
Second PCN - appeal rejected initially, but cancelled in a second letter dated the same day;
Third PCN - appeal rejected, but discounted price offered as goodwill gesture.

The council's response is as per the letters; however, confusingly, no response is given on the grounds for cancelling the middle PCN (not that I'm complaining).

How does this sit given your experience? Would we have anything to lose going to tribunal?

Thanks again!

Attached File(s)

 7._PCN_1___Representation_Letter.pdf ( 18.41K ) Number of downloads: 1368
 7._PCN_1___Lambeth_Representation_Response.pdf ( 98.01K ) Number of downloads: 67
 7._PCN_2___Lambeth_Representation_Response.pdf ( 491.96K ) Number of downloads: 55
 7._PCN_2___Lambeth_Representation_Response_2.pdf ( 51.21K ) Number of downloads: 53
 7._PCN_3___Lambeth_Representation_Response.pdf ( 636.57K ) Number of downloads: 75

 

[stamfordman]

So if I have this right there is one PCN with the full penalty in play and no discount - no brainer to appeal this to tribunal.

The other one has the discount on the table.

Frankly it looks like incompetence from Lambeth given they've applied three different decisions to three identical PCNs and I really don't think their miserable attempt to justify the CB as clearly business for a C permit holder stands up.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 16 May 2020 - 15:18

[hcandersen]

You made reps in respect of PCNs issued on 16, 17 and 18th.

You have received three flawed NORs, one which references 16th snd two which reference 17th.

As we don't know the PCN numbers and you've deleted them we don't know whether the 2 letters which reference 17th relate to the same PCN or whether there's a slip in the NOR and the PCN numbers relate to the 17th and 18th.

Pl confirm.

Until we're clear we won't know whether there's another NOR en route. This leads to too many what if scenarios to play with IMO, so just clarify the PCN issue pl. In fact why not just give us the last 3 or 4 numbers as in:

16th *****1234
17th *****2345
18th *****3456

[stripy_wood]

Thanks for the quick replies both - I agree the responses don't appear to fully address the issue.

In terms of how these match up, this is as per the attachment titles / date of issue in the rep responses, i.e.,

PCN 1 - 16 March (appeal rejected)
PCN 2 - 17 March (appeal rejected, then cancelled)
PCN 3 - 18 March (appeal rejected, but discount offered)

The letters all include correct references to the original PCNs.

It would be great to know what you think our chances are at tribunal given the responses.

Would we lose the offer of the discount if we were unsuccessful?

[Incandescent]

If you go to the tribunal, it is for the full PCN penalty, the discount option is lost.

[stamfordman]

As it stands on the two PCNs there is £65 in play that you could save if you lost both. You do lose the discount if you appeal to the tribunal. The first one has no discount offered.

I think you should appeal both with our help.

[hcandersen]

Why?

What is the OP's defence?

I can think of a couple, but these are either based on unknowns - for example why the second PCN was cancelled - or procedural errors which have a very chequered history at adjudication.

OP, you must find out why PCN 2 was cancelled. Email and ask them. This doesn't have to be heavy-handed, just that you are grateful for the authority cancelling PCN **** NB. not the second, just give the PCN number and date. However, as they will see from the copy letter enclosed, the authority's reasons have been omitted. You should be grateful if they would let you know those reasons. Don't mention time limits or other PCNs, you guard and do not reveal their existence.

Tell them you're happy to receive the details by email.

Follow up in a couple of days if they don't reply.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 17 May 2020 - 16:44

[stripy_wood]

Thanks all.

£65 for a shot at saving £195 seems stomach-able given it appears there's some hope.

I'll ask why the second was cancelled and come back to you.

[stripy_wood]

Hi all

Just sending a quick reply having heard back from Lambeth on their rationale for cancelling the second PCN (see attached). Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be helpful in respect of the first/third PCNs.

Any guidance/thoughts on whether/how to approach adjudication would be much appreciated.

Thanks again.

Attached File(s)

 8._PCN_2_Lambeth_Response.pdf ( 51.71K ) Number of downloads: 52

 

[cp8759]

Well for the one where the discount is not on offer you might as well appeal, as you can't end up any worse off as long as the appeal isn't vexatious or frivolous.

[stamfordman]

Given the success of the other cases I'd go for both. You may be knocking on an open door.