Council fine for 'failing to display', Possible grounds for appeal in response to NTO? Options

[troglodyte]

Has anybody here successfully appealed a fine for failure to display a parking permit? My daughter didn't notice that the parking permit had fallen off the windshield onto the floor of the car. I argued in the initial appeal that the failure of the adhesive perimeter of the plastic holder/wallet could just as easily have occurred after the car door was shut (in her case, much more likely slammed), and that most ppl would consider a fine under such circumstances to be unreasonable and excessive.

My appeal was rejected, of course, and I now have only a few days left to submit a formal appeal in response to the NTO. If anybody has any ideas about possible grounds that stand a chance of succeeding, I would be much obliged.

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

Cases have been won, particularly if the council supply the holder but we need more

The PCN both sides, ALL the council photos

Your challenge and the council rejection

use an external hosting site such as imgur to post

[troglodyte]

[Mad Mick V]

Post up what you sent in as a challenge plus the Council's response. NTO would be useful too (timescales are important). Location too so we can have a look on Google Street View.

Display in these circumstances irks me in that a resident is given the full penalty for failure to display (Code 12) whereas I could display any old permit and come away with a lower penalty (Code 19). It's a shared use bay so there's likely a P&D element too.

I take it that a copy of the permit was sent to the Council when you challenged?

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 - 17:57

[stamfordman]

Our member rosturra has experience with Greenwich on this - see this saga:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120122

This is the policy we have:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kUeQX5x4uM...fRR_9QR2Fa/view

They should cancel for a first such issue but we need to see the correspondence. I'm not sure if Greenwich has pics online. Where did the permit end up? Regardless they should cancel for a valid permit.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 - 18:33

[troglodyte]

Thanks for the prompt reply PASTMYBEST (sorry to hear that BTW). I've just realised something that slightly complicates matters. My daughter actually got 2 consecutive PCN's for the same offence - she didn't return to the car until the evening following the date of the first PCN, by which time the traffic warden had slapped on another PCN. On checking my records again, I have just discovered that it was the 1st PCN I successfully appealed, not the 2nd PCN as I had incorrectly assumed. The rejected appeal was as follows:

In answer to the question - "Please tell us why you think the ticket was unfair," I submitted the reply:

Please see my appeal against PCN GRXXXXXXXX for the circumstances obtaining at the time of issue of both PCN's. The 2nd PCN is appealed on the grounds that 2 tickets were issued for a contiguous single event, so the second PCN was in any case improperly issued.

Rejection letter to follow shortly.

This post has been edited by troglodyte: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 - 18:46

[stamfordman]

in that case the link I posted from rosturra is even more relevant as it also deals with a continuous contravention but it went to the tribunal for a win.

I consider that this was one incidence of parking taken in conjunction with the PCN issued less than 24 hours earlier.
The vehicle had not been moved. The EA should have followed its Exemption and Waiver policy.
The appeal is allowed.

[troglodyte]

Post up what you sent in as a challenge plus the Council's response.

Plse see my reply to PASTMYBEST

NTO would be useful too (timescales are important).

To be uploaded shortly, along with their rejection letter - just as soon as I can work out how!!

Location too so we can have a look on Google Street View.

Location was Footscray Rd, New Eltham, SE9, on the same side of the road as Cinar Food Market, just before Bercta Road

Display in these circumstances irks me in that a resident is given the full penalty for failure to display (Code 12) whereas I could display any old permit and come away with a lower penalty (Code 19). It's a shared use bay so there's likely a P&D element too.

I take it that a copy of the permit was sent to the Council when you challenged?

Yes, it was, though I think it was sent as an attachment to my appeal against the first PCN only, on the assumption that it's also then available to them for inspection in connexion with the second PCN. Dunno if I'm correct in that assumption, but I can in any event include it in my formal appeal to the NTO.

Thanks for your input M/Mick.

This post has been edited by troglodyte: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 - 19:26

[troglodyte]

@ stamfordman - Thanks for the links. I'll check 'em out.

Where did the permit end up?

As mentioned in my OP, the permit "had fallen off the windshield onto the floor of the car." To be more precise, it landed a few inches in front of the passenger seat, and might even have been visible from the driver's window, though not necessarily readable if it was face down.

Regardless they should cancel for a valid permit.

As mentioned to PMB, they cancelled the initial PCN, but not the 2nd contiguous PCN. Cheeky buggars.

[PASTMYBEST]

@ stamfordman - Thanks for the links. I'll check 'em out.

Where did the permit end up?

As mentioned in my OP, the permit "had fallen off the windshield onto the floor of the car." To be more precise, it landed a few inches in front of the passenger seat, and might even have been visible from the driver's window, though not necessarily readable if it was face down.

Regardless they should cancel for a valid permit.

As mentioned to PMB, they cancelled the initial PCN, but not the 2nd contiguous PCN. Cheeky buggars.

They got that wrong then they should have cancelled the second there is an adjudication on this. But first answer my question. Who supplied the permit holder?

[troglodyte]

But first answer my question. Who supplied the permit holder?

Apologies. Hadn't realised it was a direct question. Holder was provided by L. B. of Bexley, who also issued the parking permit. The permit is valid for Zone N, which straddles the border between Bexley & Greenwich, and by reciprocal agreement between the two boroughs the permits issued by either borough is valid in the other's side of the border within the same zone - if that makes sense.

[hcandersen]

OP, can I try and clarify as this is becoming very bitty.

On **** (I still don't know the date because I don't know which of the 2 PCNs was dated 5 Nov) my daughter parked the car of which I am the registered keeper* in **** (street), see photos and Google street view.

When she returned at *** on *** she found 2 PCNs, one issued at ** on ***, the other at ** on ***. Both were for the contravention as shown on the PCN for 5 Nov.

I submitted a challenge on her behalf/drafted a challenge for her for only one/both PCNs? See attached.

The first PCN was cancelled, the stated reasons being ****, see council response. The second PCN was not cancelled and I have received a NTO dated *** demanding the full penalty.


Pl fill in the gaps.

The MOST important issues are:
Is the NTO addressed to you by name (Nov to late March is getting on for 4 months) ?
The date the NTO was issued because you posted: and I now have only a few days left to submit a formal appeal in response to the NTO.

[PASTMYBEST]

See these cases that support two arguments you have

2190501040

Appellant, appeared before me in person.
　
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Aliwal Road – a restricted street – during prescribed hours on 14 August 2019. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1020.
　
The Appellant states that two penalty charge notices were issued to his vehicle on this day. He had been attending an emergency at his home as his mother, who is blind at fallen down some stairs and needed assistance. He states that the first penalty charge notice was issued at 08 44 and the second at 1020 and questions why the first penalty charge notice was not visible to the second issuing officer.
　
The Council requested evidence from the Appellant as to his mother's fall and indicated if this was received they would reconsider their decision. In addition, the Council explained that a different civil enforcement officer issued the second penalty charge notice because there was no penalty charge notice on the vehicle at the time that he issued it. The Council state they cancelled the first penalty charge notice.
　
The Appellant told me that he did not find either penalty charge notice and was only aware that to had been issued when he received the notices to owner. It seems likely that a third person unknown removed the first penalty charge notice before the second officer issued the second penalty charge notice. While in those circumstances the second officer was acting lawfully, as he was unaware of the issue of the first penalty charge notice, the Council ought to have cancelled the second penalty charge notice, issued at 1020 and not the one issued at 08 44. This is because the contravention is a continuing contravention. The first penalty charge notice was valid and the Council could have proceeded to enforce it. The second penalty charge notice was not valid because of the existence of the first penalty charge notice and the fact that the contravention is a continuing one. Accordingly, the Council cancelled the wrong penalty charge notice and they may not enforce the second one.

Therefore the appeal is allowed and there is no need for me to determine whether or not the Appellant had an exemption.

2130469449

The appellant, who appeared before me today, presented as a particularly credible and convincing witness. He gave evidence that he had paid for and displayed a pay and display ticket with an expiry time of 13:57 he securing it to the vehicle's windscreen using the accompanying sticker it being a warm day the adhesive on the sticker failing he finding on returning to the vehicle that his ticket had fallen to the floor.

I accepted what was said my concluding that adhesive on the sticker must have failed. Where the council provide stickers for use to affix tickets they must be fit for purpose and I was not satisfied that enforcement could be pursued where this was not the case. I should add that I am satisfied that the appellant by purchasing this ticket had paid for parking until 13:57 and that this vehicle was not therefore parked after the expiry of paid-for time. I find for the reasons given that the contravention did not occur.

2170444294

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Church Road at 12.16pm on 23 May 2017 without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher.
The CEO's photographs show that Mrs Nixon's car was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for pay and display parking during the restricted hours of 8.30am to 6.30pm Mondays to Saturdays.
Mrs Nixon appeals because she says that she had bought and displayed a valid pay and display ticket. A copy of the ticket is submitted in evidence and this shows an expiry time of 12.34pm on 23 May 2017. Mrs Nixon says that she affixed the pay and display ticket to the left hand side window of the car, using the sticky back on the ticket.
The Council correctly says that it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that the ticket remains correctly displayed throughout the period of parking. It is equally, however, the Council's responsibility to ensure that the adhesive backing to the ticket is fit for purpose and I am not satisfied that this was the case. Although the Council refers to a random testing of the adhesive backing, I have seen Mrs Nixon's own evidence of testing the adhesive backing with 5 pay and display tickets. The test was carried out by Mrs Nixon at home and three out of the 5 tickets fell to the ground after being displayed. Mrs Nixon tells me that the tickets were the free tickets from the machine in Church Road. She says that the three tickets fell away within 10 to 15 minutes. I allow the appeal for this reason.

[stamfordman]

I would start with the continuous contravention as per the case I posted. It seems the second was issued within 24 hours of the first.

[troglodyte]

Do I need to merge files before uploading?

[PASTMYBEST]

I would start with the continuous contravention as per the case I posted. It seems the second was issued within 24 hours of the first.

I don't disagree but the council will argue that the cancelled the first. TBH both of my suggested points are for appeal not reps but they must be put to the council to maintain consistency

[hcandersen]

I just wish we could get a full hand of facts before deciding upon possible arguments in front of an adj.

For example, we don't know whether the restriction was discontinuous, but we know the first PCN was found by the driver.

Also, given this statement from the recent appeal.. I consider that this was one incidence of parking taken in conjunction with the PCN issued less than 24 hours earlier., the fact we don't know the time gap between the two suggests the OP has got some catching up to do with the facts in this case and I can see them going off half-cock unless we get them.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 11:28

[stamfordman]

I agree - the OP misled us by not mentioning 2 PCNs and a successful challenge to the first.

But he has said she didn't return to the car until the evening following the date of the first PCN, by which time the traffic warden had slapped on another PCN.

The circumstances do seem about the same as the other Greenwich case adjudicated in that OP's favour but it needs setting out properly.

Not least we've not seen the challenge(s) and replies!

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 11:23

[troglodyte]

@ hcandersen:

I still don't know the date because I don't know which of the 2 PCNs was dated 5 Nov

First PCN issued on 4th Nov. 2019 @ 09:58 - Successfully appealed.
Second PCN issued on 5th Nov. 2019 @ 10:14 - So just outside the 24hr 'window' - Appeal refused. Dunno if being just outside the 24hr period is anything to worry about at the moment, but BOTH PCN's cite 12S as the contravention, so hopefully that also goes in my favour. Got a lorra reading to do to keep pace with you guys. Thx for all the advice - I'm fairly optimistic about winning this one.

More relevant docs to be uploaded shortly. IMGUR has been giving me some serious GURRRRRRR, so gonna try google photos.

Again, thanks for all the excellent advice fellas. Much appreciated.

This post has been edited by troglodyte: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 11:42

[PASTMYBEST]

Challenges replies photographs (for both PCN's) we have not seen and in order to suggest the strongest appeal grounds ( I discount representations assuming almost certainly correctly that they will be rejected)

But whether on not it is a continuous or continuing contravention is not reliant on it being a 24/7 restriction. so I see no harm or indeed with a reluctant OP as we seem to have here in giving indicators into possible grounds

The OP will post the requested info or not and receive better advice dependent upon the content of those documents or not it is their choice. If they wish to go solo they are in a slightly better position than they were