PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Cashless payment delay - Code 12 PCN
BahHumbug19
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 21:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



Hello all,

Can you please give any advice as to how this PCN would best be challenged?

Driver parked around 1:30 pm and walked from vehicle to nearest machine. Tariff had increased since last visit (over a year ago) and correct cash was unavailable. Due to delays accessing the cashless parking facility, payment was not made until 1:49 pm. By this time a PCN had been issued at 1:41 pm, following a 6 minute observation. Driver unaware until returning within paid time.

Mitigating factors:
  • Mobile website of cashless parking facility took driver longer than expected to find and was slow to load. (Official status check confirms network was busy in that location/time and might lead to slower data).
  • Driver prevented from completing transaction on first try due to an error on submitting the form (payment facility later confirmed this error might be due to incorrect form entry but no record of error. Driver has screenshot from different session). Page refresh again delayed access to mobile website and reset all the fields. Required two attempts before success. (VAT receipt available.)


Code 12 wording does not state a specific contravention for payment made by cashless facility. I.e. no physical ticket to display. Is this useful?

Penalty charge seems both unfair and unreasonable as driver made reasonable efforts to pay. Unexpected technical issues delayed that happening. Surely discretion could and should be used?

--
Supporting material:
1 x PCN front, 1 x PCN rear, 1 x signage pic (machine pic could be obtained), 1 x status check, 1 x error



This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 21:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 21:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:07
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,568
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



It is very clear from your post that the driver was not present at the vehicle when trying to make payment. If he had been there, it is highly likely he would have informed the CEO that he was engaged in making a PbP payment when the CEO came past his vehicle. I doubt the CEO would have then issued a PCN, and would have come back later. So in tghe absence of anybody at or near the vehicle, the CEO checks for a ticket and finds there isn't one on display, so checks his data terminal with the vehicle reg. no. and finds no PbP payment has been made, so issues a PCN. He has therefore acted completely correctly.

However, your driver was engaged (somewhere remote from the vehicle), in making payment and finally succeeded, so can submit reps on the lines you describe that payment was delayed due to problems with the PbP system. Proof of payment and, hopefully, some evidence from the PbP people of problems should be submitted with the reps. If the council still refuse to cancel the PCN, then you can pay-up or wait for the Notice to Owner, submit the same reps and if refused again, take them to adjudication where I would think you would succeed.

Ever since deccriminalised parking enforcement came in in 1991, appeals have been won on the basis that time must be allowed for obtaining a parking ticket. PbP wasn't around them, but the same principle applies. Be aware though, that if you take them to NtO and adjudication, the discount option is lost.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BahHumbug19
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 23:07) *
It is very clear from your post that the driver was not present at the vehicle when trying to make payment. If he had been there, it is highly likely he would have informed the CEO that he was engaged in making a PbP payment when the CEO came past his vehicle. I doubt the CEO would have then issued a PCN…


For your information, the driver remained on the same street as the vehicle, which was out of sight.

I would imagine in many cashless payment cases (this was via mobile website not PbP) the driver would not be present! When parking in a new/any location you have to leave the vehicle, walk some distance to a machine and read current instructions, then make suitable payment based on findings.

In my understanding, with the cashless option there is no need whatsoever to return to the vehicle, as no physical ticket has been produced. Is that not correct? (I must preface that by saying it is always pertinent to read physical location signage of course, which often requires leaving)

This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 07:24
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,568
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (BahHumbug19 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 23:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 23:07) *
It is very clear from your post that the driver was not present at the vehicle when trying to make payment. If he had been there, it is highly likely he would have informed the CEO that he was engaged in making a PbP payment when the CEO came past his vehicle. I doubt the CEO would have then issued a PCN…


For your information, the driver remained on the same street as the vehicle, which was out of sight.

I would imagine in many cashless payment cases (this was via mobile website not PbP) the driver would not be present! When parking in a new/any location you have to leave the vehicle, walk some distance to a machine and read current instructions, then make suitable payment based on findings.

In my understanding, with the cashless option there is no need whatsoever to return to the vehicle, as no physical ticket has been produced. Is that not correct? (I must preface that by saying it is always pertinent to read physical location signage of course, which often requires leaving)

What you say is perfectly true, but if things go awry, as they did here, by not being near the vehicle, a CEO can come along, check the vehicle, find it has no ticket or PbP or e-ticket record and issue a PCN causing the motorist a load of hassle even if the PCN is subsequently cancelled. I would say your PCN should be cancelled, as you were in course of "buying a ticket" when the PCN was issued. I am almost certain an adjudicator would agree,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 07:58
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, you must reinstate all data on PCN except personal. It is pointless us responding to your agenda of questions when time, which is not your friend, marches on.

To be frank, IMO the driver's account which they've told you sounds very, very iffy. No point dancing around it.

When the point of the driver's location was posed you replied that the machine was out of sight. Highly, unlikely. But if true could itself indicate grounds for reps.

And as for the tariff having increased so didn't have correct money. So the driver parked with their crystal clear memory from at least 12 months earlier and took the exact amount required and denominations to the machine? Mmmmm.

I want to look at this with all facts pl.

Including:
Who is the registered keeper of the vehicle?
All correspondence if any with the council;
Council photos;
GSV if possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BahHumbug19
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:02
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



@Incandescent—Thank you for your responses, you make a very fair and valid point. Staying with a vehicle where possible can save a lot of hassle.

@hcanderson—Thank you for replying. You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts are what matter and will be referenced. Driver had the wrong cash and paid by cashless means, while away from the vehicle. (Though irrelevant, I have every reason not to doubt the driver. Please reread, I did not say they had the exact amount, simply not the right amount. Nor that the machine was out of sight, but that the driver was away from the vehicle.)

I have no 'agenda' of questions. Only asking wiser people than I, on what grounds is it best to challenge. The driver parking in this location is not disputed, nor the contravention unintentionally made.

  • Registered keeper is a relative
  • I am preparing an Informal challenge, no Council correspondence or photos yet. I am well within reply timeframe. Would you care to see the letter being drafted?
  • Happy to reveal more PCN info. No intention to challenge on location of machine. What specifically would be helpful to see?

From researching the forums and similar cases I do have two questions:
  1. Code 12 as written on the PCN does not specifically include a contravention for cashless payment. Could or should Code 11 (lower) be put forward instead? Ie. Wrong code.
  2. Are there potential wording issues with the PCN reverse, specifically the challenge section making no mention that the charge may increase if not paid within 28 days. (Apparently required by Section 4(8)(a), sub para (v) of "the 2003 Act") found here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1376065

Are these worth raising, if correct, or should an informal challenge simply request discretion—even though it'll likely be rejected?

This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,652
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Good look, but I do not think referencing the London local authorities act of 2003 will help you with a parking contravention outside London. What you are proposing to send is no more than a request for mitigation. HCA has asked for information to see if there may be a reason in law that you can challenge and then go further


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 17:26
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I did not say they had the exact amount, simply not the right amount.

No you didn't, you said 'correct cash was unavailable' for which 'exact' would appear to be a reasonable synonym given that you could not underpay.

You also posted 'For your information, the driver remained on the same street as the vehicle, which was out of sight.' and then 'Nor that the machine was out of sight, but that the driver was away from the vehicle.)'

You seem content to amend your posts as it suits, not a good basis for establishing a clear factual account.

But happy to bat around semantics and revisions if you think it helps you.

Reinstate everything except personal data as I put in my first post.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 18:05
Post #9


Member


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



Code 12 is correct as that covers a shared use bay as the image shows. An 11 is used where only direct payment for parking is required.

They haven't provided information about the possible increase to the penalty charge on the windscreen PCN but the NtO will presumably do so, if it gets to that stage.

Whoever your father used to pay by phone should be able to confirm when his device first contacted them. Unless that first contact was immediately around the time the CEO first checked the car, your dad is on a steeply uphill battle.

The natural suspicion is that upon finding a PCN on the car, the driver rings up and then claims signal strength issues preventing an earlier payment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 19:01
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,568
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The plain fact is that the relatively new facility of PbP or even pay using a PC at the office has opened up a whole new can of worms for those paying to park this way. Far too many people seem to think they can park, then buzz-off to the office and pay there, or walk away and pay on the way to where they are going using their mobile phones. Now of course this is not banned, but it is unwise, because if delays occur whilst making the payment, CEOs can visit the car park in the interval between parking and paying, and find the vehicle has no paid parking record and issue a PCN.

My own view is that one should not leave the car park until payment for parking has been achieved by whatever method. It has been recognised by adjudicators since 1991 that time to go to machine and pay is allowable, but going to get change to pay is not. All of this assumes the presence of the driver reasonably near to the parked car, so CEOs "hovering" near a car can be advised by the driver that a ticket has been purchased. Where the CEO has already issued a PCN the presence of the driver and his conversation with the CEO post-PCN can go in to the CEO's notes.

Adjudications for PbP allegations follow this principle. Here, the motorist was not present, but can prove payment and the delays to same, therefore really should expect to get the PCN cancelled because he was in the process of payment when the PCN was issued.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BahHumbug19
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 19:55
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



@pastmybest—That was my mistake. A large number of posts here, including the stickies, reference case numbers from London Tribunals. I wrongly assumed they ref some sort of central parking enforcement act, with local EA's tailoring specifics of their locations and payment terms.

I will update the PCN. As mentioned, the driver did park there and inadvertent contravention is not disputed. Mitigating factors and discretion can only be asked it seems.


@hcanderson— I do appreciate your input, but I came for advice. Not your baseless accusations. There have been absolutely no 'revisions' of facts. I will update the PCN.

Fact: driver did not have the cash to pay the parking fee. Paid by cashless method instead.

I will argue semantics where my facts are misstated. You, not I, were the one to suggest driver had a 'crystal clear memory and took exact...denominations'. I stated that driver did not have 'the correct cash' to pay the recently increased charge. [I.e. they did not have enough based on what they believed it would be. Not that they did take exact]

As for your attempts to polarise my statements re: driver. Both are true. They remained on the same street but away from the vehicle while paying. [I.e. it was not within sight].



@gert—thank you. I will pay attention to the NtO wording if/when it arrives.

Natural suspicion or not, by that logic the same could be argued of anyone who gets a PCN while leaving the vehicle to insert change and pay for a ticket. It would be timed after the notice. There is proof above from the mobile phone provider of the busy network and slow data on the street at around that time. Issues beyond driver's control would inevitably delay reasonable efforts to make payment. As Incandescent says, hopefully an adjudicator would be fair.

[please note there was no mention of the father being the relative]


@Incandescent—You do make very valid points. Certainly something I try to do. However, even in a car park you can often be out of sight of your vehicle. More difficult to define that boundary on a street too.

Out of interest, when you and others refer to 'PbP' [Pay by Phone I assume], does that cover payment via mobile website or does that only mean telephone payment? Thank you.

This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 19:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 20:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



When you do then we can advise, until then we're in the dark.

And to repeat, if the car was out of sight of the machine then it raises the issues as to whether the authority could expect a motorist to use a machine so far from a parking place and the reasonable period which in law a motorist is permitted to make payment.

Frankly your references to signal strengths etc. seem no more than clutching at straws and obfuscate the key information.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 20:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 20:47
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,568
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
Out of interest, when you and others refer to 'PbP' [Pay by Phone I assume], does that cover payment via mobile website or does that only mean telephone payment? Thank you.

I understand PbP to be payment using a mobile device, ( almost invariably a mobile phone), carried by the motorist and which has a facility to pay the parking charge on entry of the car park code. This allows payment to be made electronically at or near the car instead of putting cash into a machine, (or using a bank card with it), and getting a paper ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BahHumbug19
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 21:47
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



PCN image above has been updated. Thank you all for your comments, they are appreciated.

The key argument has been suggested as 'mitigating circumstances', of which technical issues seem wholly reasonable. E.g. Signal strength/slow data, and form errors (and proof of such) speak directly to the delay in accessing the mobile website of the Council's cashless facility, to complete the transaction. And hopefully go some way to explaining that. Would they not?

To repeat, I see no reason to contest machine location. I have explained the driver was out of sight of the vehicle when attempting payment— not the vehicle out of sight of the machine, necessarily. Which in any case only seems relevant if paying by cash? [References to the machine were intended to highlight how you must inherently leave the vehicle to pay]

Discretion and mitigating seem most relevant here. Unless I'm missing something?

This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 21:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 22:06
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



And the fact that the actual dates for payment of the discount and penalty are wrong?
And the fact that PBP is not an option according to the traffic sign, but then again you've just lifted this from GSV and therefore might NOT represent where the vehicle was parked or even the relevant sign because there is another one between this sign and the machine which has an arrow, one of two, pointing in the opposite direction.

So, get the authority's photos because at present neither we nor you know where the vehicle was actually parked.

But apart from these matters, let's just go with your theory.

Like it or not, we are not here for OPs to test their theories against, we are here to apply the considerable sum of our knowledge to the facts.

And without the authority's photos these are still deficient.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 09:05
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,112
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I'm not familiar with payments by phone and always stay by the machine in case I need to recheck instructions rather than return to the car in case a CEO appears
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 09:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



But given that the OP was not the driver then we have no first-hand or objective evidence as to the location of the car- other than the PCN - which in the context of distances from machines and applicable signs is somewhat significant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 21:01
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



BahHumbug19 were you the driver? Just so you know, unlike private tickets, there's no point in concealing the identity of the driver when it comes to council PCNs so if you were driving you might as well tell us.


--------------------
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
BahHumbug19
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 01:34
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,592



Hello everyone. Thank you for your patience…

The CEO's photographs have been supplied, which I've included below.

I can confirm the car was parked right in front of 'Cafe Rouge', whose red awning can be seen in car side reflection. (Incidentally, exactly where the grey Nissan Micra can be seen in GSV) This means the two parking signs are of equal distance in either direction.

Phone network provider has also provided written confirmation of mast fault directly affecting this street/location.

@cp7589—I was the driver. Out of interest, how does driver/keeper make a material difference for private tickets? For council, I was under the impression an NtO, for instance, would be served to the owner, who is not necessarily the driver



This post has been edited by BahHumbug19: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 01:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 07:32
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,861
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Now at last we're getting real info.

1. The sign you posted from GSV is not the one in the CEO's photo. Not a good start. As you were the driver, why did you post the incorrect version in post #1?

2. The sign makes no reference to the direction in which a machine may be found. Fat lot of good that is to the council.

So the evidence available, much of which is questionable GSV, appears to be the following:

A P&D bay; a P&D sign which I presume you do not dispute is the one you saw which neither directs you to a machine NOR refers to PBP; your statement that the machine you looked for was behind your car (when GSV shows a machine beyond this sign and not in the relevant parking place); another traffic sign which you have to have passed en route to the machine you appear to have used which points you BACK in the direction you've come to find a machine;

Can we at least agree that this is the objective evidence, other than your statement as to in which direction you walked.

I'm not going to assess this and give you my view on who's likely to win at adjudication because this would dangle the carrot of revisionism. All I want you to do is to agree the facts. And pl do not refer to PBP, we'll get to this later.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 08:48
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: Tuesday, 17th September 2019 - 19:56
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.