PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Blue Badge PCN
billyblue1
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 18:41
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



I parked in a 3 hour time limited on street disabled bay and the Blue Badge (BB) was clearly displayed on the windscreen. My mistake was failing to display the clock as I thought this only had to be done on yellow lines. So, I was entitled to park in the bay but hadn’t displayed the clock. We were there for about an hour.

The PCN stated Contravention 40; failing to display a BB in the prescribed manner. I appealed as the BB was clearly displayed and the rejection letter said the PCN was for failing to display the clock….although on the PCN it states failure to display the BB.

After some research it appears that failure to display the clock doesn’t invalidate the BB so the car was entitled to be in the disabled bay. The actual offence should have been Contravention 30; staying beyond the permited time allowed. (although we didn’t do this I appreciate this would be assumed as no clock was displayed).

So, is it worth pursuing this on the grounds that the PCN is invalid because the wrong Contravention code was used and would it be worthwhile contacting the council again and pointing this out.

As 40 is at the higher rate and 30 is the lower rate the council is further penalising the disabled BB holder for an honest mistake.

I appreciate parking has to be regulated but this seems disproportionate to the offence which was actually a genuine mistake and not an attempt to park illegally. In 52 years this is my first parking ticket!!!

One irritating aspect is that judging by the time on the PCN the CEO must have watched me get the wheelchair out of the boot and then help my wife out of the car and into the chair.

This post has been edited by billyblue1: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 18:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 18:41
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 20:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,004
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the PCN, your challenge and their rejection.

Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billyblue1
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 22:09
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



https://ibb.co/XX2rk8k


https://ibb.co/7XntZT6




26 Sep 2019, 12:17

to parkingenforcement
PCN SZ2 1260594 19/09/2019


Contravention; parked in a designated disabled person's parking place without displaying a valid disabled person's badge in the prescribed manner.


I wish to challenge this PCN


The badge was clearly displayed, attached to the windscreen by the clip provided for this purpose. (photo attached).

It complied with the instruction on the badge itself. 'This badge should be displayed at the front of the vehicle. It needs to be clearly visible so that it can be checked'.(Instruction attached).

Dept for Transport The Blue Badge Scheme; rights and responsibilities in England.
Page 9 How to display the badge. 'When using the parking concessions you must display the badge on the dashboard or facia panel where it can be clearly read through the front windscreen.........The front of the badge should face upwards showing the hologram. The side showing the photograph should not be visible through the windscreen.'

The display complied with these instructions. As it was actually attached to the windscreen it was even more easily visible than if it had been on the dashboard.

The badge was clearly displayed so that the date, number and hologram was clearly visible and was positioned so it could easily be read from the pavement.

Kind Regards,


The appeal was against the alleged offence of not displaying a BB. They actually sent me a photo which showed the badge clearly displayed but their reply was talking about the time clock not being displayed. As you can see there is no mention of the time clock on the PCN.

This post has been edited by billyblue1: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 22:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 22:25
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



When you quote something, you should quote it all. Neither we the council nor an adjudicator will look favourably on you not doing

When you need to use a parking clock
When you park on yellow lines or in other places where there is a time restriction, you need to display the blue parking clock to show your time of arrival. The clock should be sent to you together with the Blue Badge. If not, you can get a clock from the same council that issued the badge.
If you need to use a parking clock, you must display it on the vehicle’s dashboard or facia panel, so that the time can be seen clearly through the front windscreen. The clock should be set to show the quarter hour period during which you arrived. If there is no dashboard or facia panel in your vehicle, you must still display the clock in a place where it can be clearly read from outside the vehicle.


Also you need to post all of the documents not just snippets. We do not need your personal details, but everything else.

Get and post the council photos and post a GSV link we need to have a look at the signage


--------------------
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 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 07:35
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,276
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, do we agree that you were parked in a time-limited bay reserved for disabled users?

Your post suggests as much but the photos would confirm.

In which case, as you know the BB booklet I can refer you to this section:

On-street’ disabled parking bays - signs have a blue wheelchair symbol
You may park for free. Unless signs say otherwise, you may park without time limit. You must display the Blue Badge (and the blue parking clock if the bay is time limited).


Because a clock must be displayed then unless it is displayed at the time of parking no right to park exists and not, as your argument implies, that the clock needs to be displayed only if the driver intends to, or indeed does, park for more than 3 hours.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billyblue1
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 08:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



Yes, I was parked in a time limited disabled parking. I displayed the blue badge but not the clock. The signage was quite clear and I am not disputing that I should have displayed both the badge and the clock. It was a genuine mistake.

My question was; is the PCN was correct? It was for Contravention 40; Failure to display a blue badge in the prescribed manner. The blue badge WAS displayed.

Therefore, because the blue badge WAS displayed should not the PCN have been for Contravention 30; staying beyond the time permitted?

It was my mistake in not realising the clock was required. We didn't actually stay over the time permitted but I accept this would be assumed because no clock was displayed.

To sum up; I'm not disputing I failed to display the clock in a time limited disabled bay. My question is about what the offence/contravention should have been. 40 or 30.

This post has been edited by billyblue1: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 08:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 08:11
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,979
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...Helens/SZ08.pdf

Article 22 indicates a clock is required.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 10:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



QUOTE
My question was; is the PCN was correct? It was for Contravention 40; Failure to display a blue badge in the prescribed manner. The blue badge WAS displayed.



Yes but it was not displayed in the prescribed manner. Because it was a time-limited BB bay, the prescibed manner would also require the clock to be displayed as well, so the contravention is correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 10:59
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,276
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, pl get off this angle of yours, it's eating into time and has nowhere to go.

You were parked in contravention.

And as regards.. As 40 is at the higher rate and 30 is the lower rate the council is further penalising the disabled BB holder for an honest mistake.

A lot of contraventions are mistakes - although we see several deliberates here as well - but this does not prevent authorities from pursuing them because it's difficult enough for them to understand the regs, let alone weigh motives and intentions.

Your challenge set off on the wrong foot, implicitly accusing the authority of an error when in fact it was yours.

If they've re-offered the discount - we cannot see because you've only posted snippets which you believe support your case - then I suggest you take it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billyblue1
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



Thanks to all who have offered advice.

Hcandersen. "This angle of yours" was a perfectly reasonable request for advice on whether it was worth pursuing. My further posts were in response to questions asked.

I also thought it reasonable to challenge the council on receiving a PCN explicitly quoting Contravention 40, 'Failure to display a BB' when a BB was displayed and no mention was made, on the PCN, about failing to display the clock. I'm not an expert in parking regulations; that's why I asked for advice on here.

I have subsequently been advised the PCN was issued correctly and the code is correct so my questions have been answered.

Kind regards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,004
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



We would hope that councils wouldd exercise discretion for a first such contravention and some do. I take it this council (St Helens?) is not one of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 21:57
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The policy for St Helens is here: https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/7485/canc...n-policy-v5.pdf

Page 34 lists the circumstances where the PCN may be cancelled on the basis of an incorrectly displayed clock, in the following terms:

MAY ACCEPT REPRESENTATIONS: In no circumstances.

This is clearly an unlawful fettering of discretion because it means that the outcome of a request for discretion is a foregone conclusion. On this basis alone, I would take this all the way.

This is quite aside from the fact that it's arguable there is no requirement to display a clock where the motorist is not informed of such a requirement. In Michelle Dhillon v Leicester City Council (LE00087-1812, 30 January 2019) http://bit.ly/2GAnMQh the tribunal held that (as I recall to hcandersen's disappointment):

12. It may be that the booklet issued to blue badge holders says that a clock should be displayed in a time
limited waiting bay, but that does not create a legal requirement to do so. I am therefore not satisfied that the
contravention recorded on the PCN occurred.

13. The information on the roadside sign informed Miss Dhillon that waiting in the bay was time limited and the
evidence suggests that she had not stayed longer than permitted. Were any driver to do so, there would be the
contravention of waiting beyond the permitted period (contravention code 30), but that would be established, as
with any other on-street limited waiting bay where there was no requirement to display a parking disc, by the
timed observations of the CEO.

14. There is an important distinction between the two contraventions as contravention 40, which is alleged,
attracts the higher penalty of £70 whereas contravention 30 attracts the lower penalty of £50.

15. Therefore, I conclude that the contravention recorded on the PCN did not occur. The appeal is allowed. Miss
Dhillon has nothing to pay.


The position in law is that a time-limited bay does not require a parking disc or clock, there is no statutory exception for time limited bays reserved to blue badge holders. The booklet drafted by the DfT cannot alter the legal position. Apart from anything else, to impose this additional requirement would appear to be solely for the convenience of councils and their CEOs. The existence of a statutory requirement to display a clock is nothing more than the received wisdom of council officers.


--------------------
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
billyblue1
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 22:27
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



Thanks cp 8759 for some very interesting information. I have no experience of parking law but I do have in Employment Tribunals and the MD v LCC case appears to be a very significant ruling as is your point in St Helens ruling out any representations.

I really am tempted to take this further.

I'll have a detailed look at the M Dhillon case, as soon as I have a few moments.

Thanks again for the links etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billyblue1
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 00:56
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



cp 8759

Mad Mick V posted this link, earlier in the thread, and until you posted the M D v LCC appeal I thought paragraph 22 was a definer in that the clock must be shown.

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...Helens/SZ08.pdf

St Helens.

Prohibition of Waiting and Loading and provision of Parking

Consolidation Order 2013

22 Disabled Parking

No person shall, except on the direction or with the permission of a CEO, cause any vehicle to wait in any disabled parking place described in Schedule 2 to this Order unless it is displaying a parking Disabled Parking Badge and displaying a parking disc with the clock set to indicate the time of the vehicle's arrival in that parking place.


Central to the Adjudicator's M D v LCC decision was the lack of any mention of a clock in the LCC TRO.
If the LCC RTO had contained a clause as in 22 of the St Helens RTO I feel the Adjudicator may well have come to a different decision as in points 10 and 12 (below) and in her final conclusion. Please correct me if you think otherwise
.
12. It may be that the booklet issued to blue badge holders says that a clock should be displayed in a time
limited waiting bay, but that does not create a legal requirement to do so. I am therefore not satisfied that the
contravention recorded on the PCN occurred.


9 The Council may impose further requirements in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The TRO in this case is The
Leicester (Consolidation) Traffic Regulation Order 2006 (together with the amending order of 2016). It deals with
disabled persons parking bays in Section 4 Part 300 and says:-
“No Person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait or to load and unload at any time in any road or length of road
to which this restriction is applied except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed
in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000” and
includes similar badges issued by other European Member States. Vehicles must be parked wholly within the
parking bay marked on the carriageway. No vehicle may wait for more than 3 hours and may not return to the
same length of parking bay restriction within a further consecutive period of 3 hours.”

10. The TRO therefore refers to the Disabled Person Regulations 2000 in respect of the manner of display. I am
thus satisfied the TRO does not contains a requirement to display a parking clock set to the time the vehicle
arrives.

11. The CEO’s photographs confirm the blue badge was displayed behind the windscreen of the vehicle and was
valid

12. It may be that the booklet issued to blue badge holders says that a clock should be displayed in a time
limited waiting bay, but that does not create a legal requirement to do so. I am therefore not satisfied that the
contravention recorded on the PCN occurred.

13. The information on the roadside sign informed Miss Dhillon that waiting in the bay was time limited and the
evidence suggests that she had not stayed longer than permitted. Were any driver to do so, there would be the
contravention of waiting beyond the permitted period (contravention code 30), but that would be established, as
with any other on-street limited waiting bay where there was no requirement to display a parking disc, by the
timed observations of the CEO.

14. There is an important distinction between the two contraventions as contravention 40, which is alleged,
attracts the higher penalty of £70 whereas contravention 30 attracts the lower penalty of £50.

15. Therefore, I conclude that the contravention recorded on the PCN did not occur. The appeal is allowed.


Of course, the average lay person isn't necessarily familar with the RTOs of every town they visit!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 08:04
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,276
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



My mistake was failing to display the clock as I thought this only had to be done on yellow lines So, I was entitled to park in the bay but hadn’t displayed the clock. We were there for about an hour.

The PCN stated Contravention 40; failing to display a BB in the prescribed manner. I appealed as the BB was clearly displayed and the rejection letter said the PCN was for failing to display the clock….although on the PCN it states failure to display the BB.

After some research it appears that failure to display the clock doesn’t invalidate the BB so the car was entitled to be in the disabled bay.


You are wrong and it was not so entitled - your statement being predicated only on your 'research' that a disc is not required in any circumstances. I arrive at this conclusion because you do not mention that your research included the articles and provisions within the underlying order.

And your reasoning that the contravention is wrong but that a contravention occurred must similarly be flawed. Either you were entitled to park, as you claim, or you were not. You returned 'within an hour', therefore you could not have parked for longer than permitted, could you?

I don't see how the quoted decision helps you. This was predicated on a flawed order and if you wish to refer to it then you must ensure that your circumstances and those which gave rise to the decision are aligned where necessary.

At least you now know that your prior belief that discs only had to be displayed on yellow lines was wrong.

And come on, you did have an angle because you held, and for all I know still hold, the view that 'I was entitled to park in the bay' without displaying a disc despite the booklet (which is issued to guide holders in the do's and don'ts and which you have either misunderstood or decided to ignore) stating the opposite. You also conducted research before coming here (research designed to bolster your view, not to take an objective view of the law) and already held the view that a disc was not required: you therefore started from this point.

Yes, it's blunt. But frankly as the order requires a disc and they've rejected your challenge then where else is there to go?

I am not going to blithely suggest that you wait for a NTO because there have been occasions recently where the discount has not been re-offered. Therefore as I do not think you have any hope with the contravention, I suggest paying the discount unless you are satisfied that the discount would be re-offered.


I cannot comment on the issue of fettered discretion because I haven't seen their rejection in full.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 08:25
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,979
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP----on the contravention you are bang to rights so all you have left is to ask the Council to exercise their discretion and cancel the PCN. No faffing about with other cases----bang to rights.


I would not wait for a Notice to Owner but put it to them that you were only parked an hour (it would be great if you could prove this with something like a doctors appointment) thus did not infringe the 3 hour limit.

Second, I would put them on the spot on discretion with something like this:-

That disabled bays are for the sole use of people who are registered disabled and there was no mischief. Parliament never intended that people who had a right to park there should be fined and that, in reality, this was not an abuse of a disabled bay since the disabled person still has the underlying condition, is a recipient of DLA and still qualifies for a Blue Badge. Second, it was never the intention to fine eligible Blue Badge holders for forgetfulness or mishap and therefore the enforcement of this charge would serve no useful purpose other than one which relates to income generation.

When considering this further challenge I trust the Council will have regard to my disability and their statutory obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to take my disability into account when considering my challenge. If the council decide not to cancel I require the council to fully explain why they think my rights under the Equality Act 2010 do not merit cancellation of the penalty charge.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 08:33
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,276
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



But if you do, then(if the reference to the council's policy is correct and applicable) IMO you should link MMV's points to what appears to be their policy on exercising discretion and say that this appear to be at odds in that the law clearly anticipates situations where a person's disability should and must be taken into account whereas on the face of it the council's policy does not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 08:48
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,979
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@hca
TBH I wouldn't mention their policy at this time--because tactically that is the tipping point of any fettered discretion ground.


If they refuse again the OP's case is much much stronger in that the Council has either refused to consider its discretion or fettered its discretion with slavish adherence to its written protocols.

They are IMO pinned if my suggested draft is sent.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billyblue1
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 08:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,152



https://ibb.co/dprxS5k

hcandersen. I agree with your view that the Leicester case doesn't help mine. I don't still hold the view that I'm entitled to park in a time limited disabled bay without displaying the clock. I've said several times I didn't think you had to. Obviously a failure to fully think it through and I was wrong.

It would have helped me better understand the alleged contravention if the PCN had mentioned failing to display the clock instead of stating 'failure to display the BB in the prescribed manner'. As a lay person this was confusing as the BB was displayed.

I agree I'm probably going to lose this but I posted on here seeking advice on whether it was worth pursuing. The concensus appears to be 'pay the discounted rate.' I don't have a problem with that and thank you for your considered reply.


Mick; thanks for your post and your suggested further challenge. I'll have a go but don't hold out too much hope St Helens will be amenable to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 09:09
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,979
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@hca

OK, since I have suggested the OP send a further challenge before the NTO. We don't know yet whether the case is strong enough for adjudication or whether the OP wants to risk it.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 12th November 2019 - 10:40
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.