PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Contravention code 30, Parked for longer than permitted (Devon)
liquidtension
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 21:47
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



Hi everyone,

You will have to excuse any formatting issues, I'm very new to forums!

I parked to the left of the below sign - As I pay for a Business Short Stay Permit (allows me to park in resident bays for 2 hours, no return within 2 hours) and the sign states 'permit holders exempt' I parked here without any thought for the restriction.

I've now had an NTO issued as the council dismissed my informal appeal stating that holding a business short stay permit does not provide me with the exemption stated on the signage.

Within the T&C's for my permit I am referred to as a 'permit holder'. Do you guys think I have a leg to stand on? In addition, the evidence provided (pictures of car and signage) only show the 'to' timestamp, nothing from the start time I was observed from. Does the council have to provide 'from' and 'to' evidence to support a 'parked for longer than permitted' contravention?

Thanks in advance!

Ricky




This post has been edited by liquidtension: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 22:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 21:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 21:51
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the correspondence and the PCN.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 22:23
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



Documents uploaded below











Thanks smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 07:56
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The bottom sign is most strange I must say - it does seem to say you are exempt except they say you have a 2 hour permit, which seems to be the crux of the biscuit. One for the assembled brains here I think.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.3838254,-4....3312!8i6656

I don't get the top sign either - surely to the right it's free anyway after 10 am.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 08:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 11:14
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You need to show us the terms and conditions of your permit, as they determine whether you were entitled to park there or not.


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 18:20
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



Below are the Terms and Conditions of my permit. In any given zone I am permitted 2 hours, no return within 2 hours. Given that the sign states 'permit holders exempt' and I am a permit holder, the restriction of my permit should be irreverent as with an exemption, there is no live restriction on which to base a 'parked for longer than permitted' contravention?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:22
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



BUMP

This post has been edited by liquidtension: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well looking at the details I'm assuming that the exemption is for returning - you are allowed to return in 2 hours but non-permit holders have to wait 8 hours.

But the permit terms say you are allowed to park only in residents or shared use bays - when you parked it was neither, just a free to park for anyone for 2 hours. it was only a residents bay between 8am-10am. In which case the exemption for permit holders would seem to apply for any time as you thought.

It's confusing and could well be worth taking to an adjudicator.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 16:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 06:31
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



Thanks - it hadn't occurred to me that the bottom sign isn't resident or shared use so shouldn't cause my permit to come into effect! When considering they upheld through my original appeal on grounds of the terms and conditions of my permit it looks as though they aren't sure as to which 'stay' I've exceeded.

Am I right in saying there can only be a single contravention to which they are accusing me?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 07:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,117
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I parked at the location at ****;

I looked at the traffic sign and interpreted this to mean that after 10am there was a general restriction of parking for up to 2 hours for non-permit holders with permit holders being exempt i.e. able to park until 8am on Monday.

I displayed my business permit and left the location.

On my return I found a PCN for the contravention 'Parked longer than permitted'. I submitted a challenge which was rejected, however, this letter does not clarify the situation. While the letter acknowledges that an exemption applied, it also states that it was not available to me: 'I can confirm that holding a business short stay permit does not provide you with the exemption stated on the signage'.

This is clearly misleading as the wording on the sign simply states 'exemption for permit holders'. 'Permit' is not defined and therefore can only reasonably mean any permit i.e. in addition to whatever specific benefits such a permit provides. If the authority want to restrict the exemption to specified permit holders, then they must state this on the sign otherwise bona fide permit holders such as myself could potentially be penalised, as happened in this case.

I would further add that as the CEO's observations were discontinuous, there is no evidence as to whether in this case the vehicle was parked for 'longer than permitted' or returned within 8 hours, these being distinct contraventions. In any event, I do not have to rely on this argument because no restrictions applied by virtue of a 'permit' having been displayed.

Hugs

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 07:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:04
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



Assuming they have got an initial observation logged and a second observation and PCN issued no less than131 minutes later, then the ticket is correct. The top sign sets out resident permit holders only 8am to 10am. The lower sign tells drivers they can park for up to 2 hours (plus the 10 min grace period) before having to vacate unless they are a permit holder. Your permit doesn't qualify for the exemption. Their letter doesn't read like they misunderstood the issue to me.

So unless the NtO is flawed there is little to contest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:24
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,117
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Talk about wide of the mark!

Why does 'permit' not mean permit. This has nothing to do with the specific benefits granted by the TYPE of permit, it's simply a benefit bestowed by virtue of it being A permit. Any other reading is perverse IMO.

And the top sign's irrelevant, therefore it's not worth mentioning because that restriction didn't apply.

And to elaborate on the second point, the first obs was at 1200 with the contravention occurring at 1610!

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:55
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:24) *
Talk about wide of the mark!

Why does 'permit' not mean permit. This has nothing to do with the specific benefits granted by the TYPE of permit, it's simply a benefit bestowed by virtue of it being A permit. Any other reading is perverse IMO.

And the top sign's irrelevant, therefore it's not worth mentioning because that restriction didn't apply.

And to elaborate on the second point, the first obs was at 1200 with the contravention occurring at 1610!


And he's off...

The first sign clearly indicates that the bay is a resi permit bay between the hours shown, after that as the second sign shows that anyone can park there for up to 2 hours. The no return within 8 hours rule is only exempted for permit holders.

The Ts&Cs clearly state that the business permit is only valid for use in resi or shared use bays. That bay was neither at the time the vehicle was found parked so the business permit provides no exmption from the no return rule.

My post was to differentiate the restrictions. So if clocked at 12.00 and 1610, the PCN was issued correctly. Unless you can show differently, which I am sure you will try to do.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:01
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,178
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:52) *
. . . . .

I would further add that as the CEO's observations were discontinuous, there is no evidence as to whether in this case the vehicle was parked for 'longer than permitted' or returned within 8 hours, these being distinct contraventions. In any event, I do not have to rely on this argument because no restrictions applied by virtue of a 'permit' having been displayed.

Hugs


Perhaps CEO noted tyre valve positions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:31
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 10:01) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:52) *
. . . . .

I would further add that as the CEO's observations were discontinuous, there is no evidence as to whether in this case the vehicle was parked for 'longer than permitted' or returned within 8 hours, these being distinct contraventions. In any event, I do not have to rely on this argument because no restrictions applied by virtue of a 'permit' having been displayed.

Hugs


Perhaps CEO noted tyre valve positions?


The only evidence on the council website when I log in using the PCN details are all pictures timestamped at 1610 or thereabouts.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 08:52) *
I parked at the location at ****;

I looked at the traffic sign and interpreted this to mean that after 10am there was a general restriction of parking for up to 2 hours for non-permit holders with permit holders being exempt i.e. able to park until 8am on Monday.

I displayed my business permit and left the location.

On my return I found a PCN for the contravention 'Parked longer than permitted'. I submitted a challenge which was rejected, however, this letter does not clarify the situation. While the letter acknowledges that an exemption applied, it also states that it was not available to me: 'I can confirm that holding a business short stay permit does not provide you with the exemption stated on the signage'.

This is clearly misleading as the wording on the sign simply states 'exemption for permit holders'. 'Permit' is not defined and therefore can only reasonably mean any permit i.e. in addition to whatever specific benefits such a permit provides. If the authority want to restrict the exemption to specified permit holders, then they must state this on the sign otherwise bona fide permit holders such as myself could potentially be penalised, as happened in this case.

I would further add that as the CEO's observations were discontinuous, there is no evidence as to whether in this case the vehicle was parked for 'longer than permitted' or returned within 8 hours, these being distinct contraventions. In any event, I do not have to rely on this argument because no restrictions applied by virtue of a 'permit' having been displayed.

Hugs


This reads well, thanks for taking the time


This post has been edited by liquidtension: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,178
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (liquidtension @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 10:31) *
. . . . .

The only evidence on the council website when I log in using the PCN details are all pictures timestamped at 1610 or thereabouts.


They don't put CEO's notes on their website, just the photos. It may be worth including a request for them within your first challenge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 09:59
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



Hcandersen,

I owe you an apology. I mulled this over while mowing the lawn. The intent of the restriction and possibly the wording of the TMO is, as you accurately stated, tripped up by the wording on the second sign. It did not specify the type of permit exempted and therefore any permit could be interpreted as qualifying for the exemption.

I am sorry for my mistake here.

I would only add to Steve999s post to change I displayed my business permit etc" to "As a business permit holder, I took the instruction" exemption for permit holders" to include my permit as it did not clearly specify which type of permit was referred to. " I would emphasise it was precisely because of the wording that you parked there.

As it is at NtO stage there is nothing to lose by taking it to the Tribunal. The LA will need to decide if they risk losing it to impact their performance stats.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liquidtension
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 10:42
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,706



Thanks guys - I really do appreciate all the help!

Genuinely believed I wasn't doing anything wrong so to get a PCN was disappointing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:34
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,866
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Send the draft hcandersen put in post 10, IMO it's spot on.


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:52
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 19:34) *
Send the draft hcandersen put in post 10, IMO it's spot on.


+1
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: Sunday, 20th October 2019 - 22:43
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.