Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for parking on 'Permit Holders F' bay with Disabled Blue badge next to Guy's Hospital
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
roumen
Hi All,
Please Help ohmy.gif !!
I am a disabled driver who needs crutches to walk short distances.
I parked on Crosby Row SE1 (next to Guy's Hospital) to attend a doctor's appointment.
The only vacant space was in a bay marked "Permit Holders Only F".
I parked there and displayed my Blue Badge, knowing it will be OK - I park everyday on "Resident Permit" bays in Lambeth and Southwark and other similar as well.
I was very surprised to see a ticket upon my return to the car.

Please see the pictures of the ticket and the car I posted here: http://1drv.ms/1ojompc

Could you please help - what chances I have to contest the ticket? What can and how shall I do it?
I was thinking I was parking in a parking spot rather then double yellow line etc but...
Those rules are so confusing...
Thanks to all in advance for any bit of help.
Bets Regards!
R rolleyes.gif
Neil B
From Southwark website.

Blue badge holders must not park in the following locations:

Permit holder parking bays


Same as a recent Hackney case I think.
roumen
Thank you Neil for clarification. Any ideas to contest?
R
Neil B
Show PCN and sign pics or Streetview link.

People will take a look.
roumen
PCN pictures and the car pictures are here: http://1drv.ms/1ojompc
Just click on the link to view them in OneDrive.
Thank you all!!
Regards,
R
Neil B
I think wrong contravention.

According to the same web page you are allowed to park in shared use bays, i.e. Res or other permit or p&d.

To allege you've done exactly what you are allowed to must be wrong, imo.

I think code 16 should apply.

Also code 19 refers to invalid display but I don't think a BB falls into the spectrum intended.

We'll soon see what others think.
PASTMYBEST
What springs to mind is that the offence should be code 16 (Parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid permit ) not code 19 Wrong contravention should invalidate the PCN

Also it would seem to me that the bay would be created under regulation 45 of RTRA1984 as such this should apply


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/68...gulation/8/made
hcandersen
The BB booklet, see below, makes it clear that the default position is that a BB is not valid in a permit bay. As this was published by the Dept. for Tpt, I cannot see the OP succeeding in overturning what is the government's interpretation of the relevant statute.

OP, you are the second one today who refers to the complexity of permitted uses of a BB when the booklet which accompanied your BB makes it clear that the default position is that you may not park in a parking place reserved for specific users, such as Permit Holders.

Did you not get the booklet?

Page 20:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...nsibilities.PDF

I would make a soft challenge - terribly sorry etc.

You refer to parking regularly in Southwark residents' bays without previous problems. You rather assumed therefore that Southwark is a local authority which has chosen to exempt BB holders from this restriction. In this respect, your previous experiences might have just been lucky or this one lucky, or perhaps the authority attach significance to a difference between Resident Permit Holders and Permit Holders? You would ask the authority to cancel the PCN on this occasion. If the authority do not cancel the PCN, then you should be grateful if they would explain why the contravention refers to Resident Permit Holders when the sign clearly states Permit Holders.
Mad Mick V
There are a number of ways to contest this one:-

1. The London Council's CEO handbook indicates that with a Code 19 there is an exemption in favour of BB holders;
2. The OP indicates that there are different enforcement policies in London which confuse BB holders (but see 1 above)
3. The wrong contravention has been given since the OP didn't pay and could not display a valid permit/voucher for that place;
4. If the traffic order imposes a charge for the parking place by means of a permit then the OP has an exemption as follows:-

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000

Exemptions from other provisions of orders under section 45 or 46 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

9.—(1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act which prescribes–

(a)a charge to be paid for a vehicle or vehicle of any class left in a parking place designated by the order;

(b)a maximum period during which a vehicle may wait in a parking place; or

©a period which must elapse before a vehicle taken away from a parking place may be left there again.

(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption, from each of the matters so prescribed, in favour of a vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.

Any Council has to prepare its traffic orders by reference to this Act.

I haven't researched this in detail but I would imagine the other Councils take heed of this Act and the CEO's handbook.

Mick
hcandersen
I don't see the connection.


(a)a charge to be paid for a vehicle or vehicle of any class left in a parking place designated by the order; A pay and display bay which the booklet makes clear that a BB is permitted. But it wasn't a P&D.

(b)a maximum period during which a vehicle may wait in a parking place; there was no such period.

©a period which must elapse before a vehicle taken away from a parking place may be left there again. No such period.

So, what's the relevance. A permit is not a charge to be paid.

The CEO's Handbook is guidance.

I stick with my soft approach and the OP must include the reference, albeit oblique, to Resident's as opposed to Permit. We must get the authority to commit themselves on this point and then counter-punch later.
Mad Mick V
London Councils are responsible for Contravention Codes and if they publish guidance to CEO's as to how to apply them then that is gospel as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand the BB booklet falls into the same category as the Highway Code in my view--no legal presence.

If a traffic order actually stipulates the amount to be paid for various permits that, IMO, denotes a "charge" for the purpose of using a parking place. If Parliament meant the exception only related to P&D bays it would have stipulated that surely.

As I said, I haven't researched this fully but it raises the possibility that some Councils are ignoring The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 when considering new traffic orders.

My last point on the BB booklet (I have a copy in my glove compartment) is that it is wishy washy on loading bays and permit places---it doesn't offer a cast iron prohibition on BB holders using them.

Mick
roumen
Hi All
Thanks for all replies and suggestions.

I think I'll possibly go with the soft challenge as i do not quite gasp the other options. Especially as the council's site says:
" ... if you are the holder of a valid blue badge, you can park in the following locations:
...
* Shared use (permit holders or pay and display) - free of charge and without time limit
...
and
Blue badge holders must not park in the following locations:
...
* Permit holder parking bays
..."
Seems ambiguous and "Permit holders" is in the both - Must and Mustn't part..

Mad Mick V
A shared use bay is completely different from a permit only bay.

Refer to the CEO Handbook published by London Councils which specifically allows BB holders to park in bays where a Code 19 contravention can be given --exemption H1. In the circumstances ask the Council to cancel the PCN.

If they refuse come back and we can draft up a more comprehensive appeal.

Mick
roumen
Thanks, Mick,

According to PCN a “contravention 19 occurred:
Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket or after expiry of paid for time…”

Regards,
Roumen
DancingDad
Just a counterpoint on the Code 19 v Code 16
The regs state that the grounds for which a penalty is payable must be stated.
London councils force prescribed wording to allow higher or lower.
Both 19 and 16 could have been used IMO but I agree that in the circumstances, 16 is probably closer to the mark.
But, 16 is higher and 19 is lower level.
Seems to me that by stretching "invalid permit" a little, the CEO used discretion to lower the potential penalty, whether by choice or by council guidance, dunno.
In that respect, one of the arguments that can support wrong contravention is removed, the penalty is lower then the amount that could have been applied.
It is an easier argument the other way round, when the higher is chosen over the lower option.

My choice would be a soft challenge.
I relied on being able to use my blue badge in resident's permit bays, shared use and P&D bays across London and failed to realise that there was a difference with a Permit only bay. Please accept my sincere apologies and accept the mitigation to cancel the PCN.
Please explain etc etc
I do think that Mick's point re the handbook guidance could be included as part of the question, ie, as a code 19 PCN has been served but the handbook specifically provides an exemption for BB holders, I fail to understand why a PCN was served in the first place and can only ask that the PCN be cancelled.

Do Southwark have a one strike policy for BB holders BTW?
hcandersen
This is dragging on and we don't know the date of issue of the PCN.

You have 14 days beginning on the date of issue in which to make a risk-free challenge i.e. they would extend the discount if they reject your challenge.

What is the date of the PCN?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.