PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Blue Badge Drop Off in Goods Loading Bay
chickofallchicks
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 00:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



I want to help my 80-year old disabled aunt with a challenge but I need to run it by you knowledgable guys to see if you think we have a chance of getting it cancelled and to make sure I am doing it correctly.

Her Grandson dropped her to her friend's house and escorted her to the front door, he was away from the vehicle for 5 minutes. We sent a representation explaining that the vehicle was not parked there as they had assumed it was. We told them that it was unloading a disabled person which is allowed in Sutton as she has done it on occasion without problems but in a loading bay. The representation was rejected as the bay is a goods vehicle loading bay and not just an ordinary loading bay.

I have attached a copy of the NTO, the representation and the rejection letter. Unfortunately, she lost her handbag with the original windscreen ticket inside which is why it has come this far. She would have liked to have paid at the reduced rate but she forgot all about it, what with being 80 and Christmas etc... Then she received the NTO. We figure she should appeal to the adjudicator as she has nothing to lose...

I have read in the forum that she could go with the fact that the sign does not explain what it means by "goods vehicle" ie: no vehicle category letter. It sounds a bit weak to me and I would greatly appreciate your opinions...Thank you...

https://ibb.co/MZGWBf3
https://ibb.co/476W9Mh
https://ibb.co/3sTBTL6
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 00:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 08:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Bit mean not to reoffer discount here so no brainer to take it to tribunal.

Alighting/boarding is an exemption blue badge or not and assisted alighting must be considered as an exemption as in this case.

Your reps alluded to the exemption but should have been clear enough for the council so can be beefed up for the tribunal.

I would start by just registering the appeal. You can send evidence later. You need to deicide whether to appear in person (recommended - someone can act on behalf of the keeper - who is?)





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 08:48
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,071
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



You can see how venal and rapacious Merton are with their reply. The key question here is whether boarding/alighting passengers is allowed in the bay and for that you would have to look at the TRO which defines the bay restrictions. There may also be legislation for disabled people that trumps the TRO. I'm not an expert on here, but if you have the Notice to Owner, then it is a no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals, (LT), but first you have to submit reps to the NtO. Only when these have been refused can you register an appeal at LT.

I assume your elderly aunt is the vehicle owner and recorded as such on the V5 for the vehicle. Please confirm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Sutton not Merton, and formal reps have been made and rejected.

London Councils guidance gives boarding/alighting as an exemption but yes some councils may not allow it in a loading bay (eg Westminster) but most London councils do I think in their own policy (eg Camden does). We do not have Sutton's.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:26
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,715
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



There was a bit of a rush in making reps, don't rush the appeal. Get and post the council photos. There is an error with the definition of the date of service in both the NTO and NOR that can win on its own


--------------------
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
chickofallchicks
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 23:37
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 08:48) *
You can see how venal and rapacious Merton are with their reply. The key question here is whether boarding/alighting passengers is allowed in the bay and for that you would have to look at the TRO which defines the bay restrictions. There may also be legislation for disabled people that trumps the TRO. I'm not an expert on here, but if you have the Notice to Owner, then it is a no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals, (LT), but first you have to submit reps to the NtO. Only when these have been refused can you register an appeal at LT.

I assume your elderly aunt is the vehicle owner and recorded as such on the V5 for the vehicle. Please confirm.


yes, my aunt is the recorded owner of the vehicle...Here are the parts of Sutton's guidance pertaining to our case... I wonder what you make of it.

https://ibb.co/YhcQfyZ

https://ibb.co/VLT7MMY

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:26) *
There was a bit of a rush in making reps, don't rush the appeal. Get and post the council photos. There is an error with the definition of the date of service in both the NTO and NOR that can win on its own


my bad for rushing, i thought they would cancel it but it seems to take a much more knowledgable approach these days...

can you explain what you mean by council photos? do you mean the sign?

are you saying that there is an error?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 23:57
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,071
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:15) *
Sutton not Merton, and formal reps have been made and rejected.

London Councils guidance gives boarding/alighting as an exemption but yes some councils may not allow it in a loading bay (eg Westminster) but most London councils do I think in their own policy (eg Camden does). We do not have Sutton's.

Oh dear, mea culpa ! The words "should have gone to Specsavers" comes to mind ! Are Sutton venal and rapacious too ?

Anyway, this is surely a case of assisted boarding/alighting, so the PCN should be cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chickofallchicks
post Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 00:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



i suspect the lot of them are venal and rapacious...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 20:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:15) *
London Councils guidance gives boarding/alighting as an exemption but yes some councils may not allow it in a loading bay (eg Westminster) but most London councils do I think in their own policy (eg Camden does). We do not have Sutton's.

Yes we do but it doesn't mention boarding / alighting. Still I'd expect the TMO to allow it.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 20:01


--------------------
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 Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 20:11
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The OP also found the below. If they want to play hardball and can produce a TMO against this and contest for a disabled person well then venal would be an understatement.



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 20:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chickofallchicks
post Sat, 8 Feb 2020 - 11:50
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 09:26) *
There was a bit of a rush in making reps, don't rush the appeal. Get and post the council photos. There is an error with the definition of the date of service in both the NTO and NOR that can win on its own


do you think i should appeal with the same plea as the representation? and can you elaborate on the errors, please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 21:25
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Have a read of Oscar Manuel Martinez Lazalde v Sheffield City Council (FD00078-1903, 05 June 2019). You can't use the same grounds as before because the adjudicator is not allowed to take mitigation into account but for now I would just register the appeal on the tribunal website and see if the council contests.


--------------------
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
chickofallchicks
post Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 01:04
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 21:25) *
Have a read of Oscar Manuel Martinez Lazalde v Sheffield City Council (FD00078-1903, 05 June 2019). You can't use the same grounds as before because the adjudicator is not allowed to take mitigation into account but for now I would just register the appeal on the tribunal website and see if the council contests.


thanks for your reply.

i read the case you suggested and as interesting as it was, i do not see how it will help this case?

am i not expected to send any content when i register an appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 18:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (chickofallchicks @ Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 01:04) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 21:25) *
Have a read of Oscar Manuel Martinez Lazalde v Sheffield City Council (FD00078-1903, 05 June 2019). You can't use the same grounds as before because the adjudicator is not allowed to take mitigation into account but for now I would just register the appeal on the tribunal website and see if the council contests.


thanks for your reply.

i read the case you suggested and as interesting as it was, i do not see how it will help this case?

The tribunal held in that case that the council has conflated the concepts of service and delivery and for that reason the appeal was upheld (see paragraph 12 onward of the decision), as PMB points out the council has made the same mistake in your case.

QUOTE (chickofallchicks @ Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 01:04) *
am i not expected to send any content when i register an appeal?

It's optional, you're not required to submit anything at all. In most cases it makes sense to wait as this forces the council to show its hand first, it also means that if we can pick any holes in the council's evidence we can including something about that in your appeal. There's also the chance that the council doesn't bother contesting the case.


--------------------
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
chickofallchicks
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:22
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



Okay I see what you mean now, although I have yet to work out how the council have conflated the concepts of service and delivery in my aunt's case. would you mind throwing a bit of light on it for me please?

i am registering the appeal now...

This post has been edited by chickofallchicks: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:24
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,355
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



As regards 'policy' MC33, what's the context, DYL, SYL, waiting restriction with associated loading, loadings bays??

Who knows?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chickofallchicks
post Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



should i go for procedural impropriety or contravention did not occur??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 14 Feb 2020 - 20:29
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (chickofallchicks @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:22) *
Okay I see what you mean now, although I have yet to work out how the council have conflated the concepts of service and delivery in my aunt's case. would you mind throwing a bit of light on it for me please?

Well here:



QUOTE (chickofallchicks @ Wed, 12 Feb 2020 - 22:30) *
should i go for procedural impropriety or contravention did not occur??

Both I would suggest.


--------------------
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
chickofallchicks
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 01:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 9 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,347



Well here:



is the date of service different from the date it was delivered? or is it the fact that they have combined the two?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 15:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (chickofallchicks @ Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 01:51) *
is the date of service different from the date it was delivered? or is it the fact that they have combined the two?

It's the fact that they've combined the two. If the letter arrived one day after it was posted, or three days after it was posted, the date of service is still deemed to be the second day after postage for the purpose of all the deadlines, so by conflating the two they're potentially confusing you about when the 28 days will run out.


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

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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, 23rd September 2020 - 23:28
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.