Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newham-visitor parking permit
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
saj123
So, my 6 month pregnant wife parked up last night and put a card on display as we don't have a permit for the road yet.
she entered the reg and was so worried about getting the date right she entered the date-yet she forgot the time.
the zone is residents parking permit holders only from 9am till 5pm. so its 8hours.
the permit we was using was a 6hour one. I go to work at 12pm so take the car then everyday. is there any way I can fight this?
still trying to figure out how to add pics on this.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/150x100q90/922/tKrV3G.jpg[/IMG][/URL
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/150x100q90/921/Tgjnrt.jpg[/IMG][/URL
stamfordman
Use a site such as Imgur or flickr for pics.

As the PCN was issued during the valid time for the permit if the time had been put in then the council ought to use its discretion but Newham probably won't. You can of course include proof from work you moved the car at 12 I guess but that is unlikely to butter any parsnips with our friends at Newham.

have you applied for a permit? If there's been a wait for it that's also good grounds for making an honest error with a daily stop gap.
saj123
to be honest, I haven't yet applied for a permit as id rather keep an east ham one for when my missus drops the little one off to her mums and leaves the car there when she goes to work.
i've managed to attach the images. i'm just hoping to see them see common sense.
I have proof of a time sheet. but how could I prove i've taken a car?
cp8759
Upload the picutres to imgur.com, the images you've linked to are unreadable.
PASTMYBEST
If you went to work by 12 then a six hour permit had to be valid regardless of an entered time so no contravention occurs

See this case

2160272793

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Pennyroyal Avenue at 2.38pm on 11 April 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.
I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Mr Overlingas' van was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the controlled hours of 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.
The images show that there was a visitor's permit displayed in the windscreen of the van which was clearly scratched for the date of 11 April 2016. I can see no alteration of the date.
The Council says that the permit was not valid because Mr Overlingas had not written in the time of arrival.
The sole purpose of having a field for the time of arrival is so that the CEO can see whether or not the motorist has overstayed the 6 hours of parking time permitted by the permit. It must have been very clear to the issuing CEO that the permitted 6 hours of parking had not been exceeded in this case. The controlled hours began at 9am and the PCN was issued at 2.38pm. I am satisfied that the permit displayed was valid for parking in the circumstances.
saj123
hope these are better

http://imgur.com/LDHvaET

http://imgur.com/orxKHdp

also - how do I see this case 2160272793

thanks for all your help so far.

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (saj123 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 16:53) *
hope these are better

http://imgur.com/LDHvaET

http://imgur.com/orxKHdp

also - how do I see this case 2160272793

thanks for all your help so far.


just read the text underneath the number, that's it Newham also by the way
TigerRob
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:39) *
If you went to work by 12 then a six hour permit had to be valid regardless of an entered time so no contravention occurs

See this case

2160272793

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Pennyroyal Avenue at 2.38pm on 11 April 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.
I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Mr Overlingas' van was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the controlled hours of 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.
The images show that there was a visitor's permit displayed in the windscreen of the van which was clearly scratched for the date of 11 April 2016. I can see no alteration of the date.
The Council says that the permit was not valid because Mr Overlingas had not written in the time of arrival.
The sole purpose of having a field for the time of arrival is so that the CEO can see whether or not the motorist has overstayed the 6 hours of parking time permitted by the permit. It must have been very clear to the issuing CEO that the permitted 6 hours of parking had not been exceeded in this case. The controlled hours began at 9am and the PCN was issued at 2.38pm. I am satisfied that the permit displayed was valid for parking in the circumstances.


In my mind that's am amazing ruling. So ... I can fail to scratch the time and park at 9:30am. Then return to my car at 12:30pm and scratch that as the arrival time and park until 6:30pm? And it would need the CEO to show the voucher number was unchanged but the car was parked for more than 6 hours?

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:39) *
If you went to work by 12 then a six hour permit had to be valid regardless of an entered time so no contravention occurs

See this case

2160272793

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Pennyroyal Avenue at 2.38pm on 11 April 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.
I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Mr Overlingas' van was parked in a space which was clearly signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the controlled hours of 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.
The images show that there was a visitor's permit displayed in the windscreen of the van which was clearly scratched for the date of 11 April 2016. I can see no alteration of the date.
The Council says that the permit was not valid because Mr Overlingas had not written in the time of arrival.
The sole purpose of having a field for the time of arrival is so that the CEO can see whether or not the motorist has overstayed the 6 hours of parking time permitted by the permit. It must have been very clear to the issuing CEO that the permitted 6 hours of parking had not been exceeded in this case. The controlled hours began at 9am and the PCN was issued at 2.38pm. I am satisfied that the permit displayed was valid for parking in the circumstances.


In my mind that's am amazing ruling. So ... I can fail to scratch the time and park at 9:30am. Then return to my car at 12:30pm and scratch that as the arrival time and park until 6:30pm? And it would need the CEO to show the voucher number was unchanged but the car was parked for more than 6 hours?
stamfordman
QUOTE (TigerRob @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 17:58) *
In my mind that's am amazing ruling. So ... I can fail to scratch the time and park at 9:30am. Then return to my car at 12:30pm and scratch that as the arrival time and park until 6:30pm? And it would need the CEO to show the voucher number was unchanged but the car was parked for more than 6 hours?


So amazing you posted it twice...

Your example is a risk as a lot of CEOs will spot this especially in boroughs such as Newham. Bear in mind the CEO doesn't have to provide evidence other than notes and testimony.
cp8759
QUOTE (TigerRob @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 17:58) *
In my mind that's am amazing ruling. So ... I can fail to scratch the time and park at 9:30am. Then return to my car at 12:30pm and scratch that as the arrival time and park until 6:30pm? And it would need the CEO to show the voucher number was unchanged but the car was parked for more than 6 hours?

Sorry to be blunt but that would be fraud.
TigerRob
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 19:53) *
QUOTE (TigerRob @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 17:58) *
In my mind that's am amazing ruling. So ... I can fail to scratch the time and park at 9:30am. Then return to my car at 12:30pm and scratch that as the arrival time and park until 6:30pm? And it would need the CEO to show the voucher number was unchanged but the car was parked for more than 6 hours?

Sorry to be blunt but that would be fraud.

Oh, yes. I agree. But a ruling that gives a get-out like this opens up a host of possible abuse. But this is OT and should be taken elsewhere if we want to pursue it.
PASTMYBEST
I tend to take an OP at their word unless something leads me to believe otherwise. Adjudicators look at the balance of probability. It would have to be a shady customer indeed to risk the criminal sanctions for the cost of a couple of hours parking

TBH I am sick of Neham with their permits. Punching holes in them to supposedly identify zones, claiming that a permit has been altered, and here. And their roaming tow trucks There is an abuse of power if ever there was one
PASTMYBEST
And Newham again, Quite happy to stick two fingers up to the adjudicator and carry on regardless. Shows Micks point re the code should be in every appeal

Case reference
2180135784
Appellant
Faiz Baig
Authority
London Borough of Newham
VRM
MA14NLK

PCN Details
PCN
PN17124629
Contravention date
29 Jan 2018
Contravention time
14:18:00
Contravention location
Nelson Street
Penalty amount
GBP 130.00
Contravention
Parked in permit space without clearly displaying

Referral date


Decision Date
11 Jun 2018
Adjudicator
Mamta Parekh
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
refund the release charges paid.
Reasons
This case was previously adjourned as follows:-
"The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. he was represented by Ms Baig. It was clear that the appellant had made an innocent error in completing the parking voucher as the 29th February 2018 does not exist. In the circumstances the local authority are asked to explain why a lower differential penalty was not issued /does not apply and provide their policy on removal in such circumstances which the adjudicator consider to be excessive.
If no response is received by the adjournment date the appeal will be allowed in respect of the clamp and removal fees. "
The local authority have not responded.
I therefore allow this appeal in relation to the clamp and removal fees.
saj123
so can I use the bit where it says sole purpose of the time is to see if I had overstayed my time. it was an honest mistake, and would appreciate discretion at this stage?
PASTMYBEST
Yes but make the point that as the restriction starts at 09.00 and you were gone by 12 you could not be in contravention. Don't expect them to agree
saj123
So. They rejected my appeal as i did not clearly display a valid permit and it could have been misuse...what are my chances of winning this case. I cant stand newham council
stamfordman
Post your challenge and their rejection.

I would continue but not my £65 at stake. It's likely to win with a personal hearing at adjudication.
Neil B
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:14) *
And Newham again, Quite happy to stick two fingers up to the adjudicator and carry on regardless. Shows Micks point re the code should be in every appeal

Case reference
2180135784
Appellant
Faiz Baig
Authority
London Borough of Newham
VRM
MA14NLK

PCN Details
PCN
PN17124629
Contravention date
29 Jan 2018
Contravention time
14:18:00
Contravention location
Nelson Street
Penalty amount
GBP 130.00
Contravention
Parked in permit space without clearly displaying

Referral date


Decision Date
11 Jun 2018
Adjudicator
Mamta Parekh
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
refund the release charges paid.
Reasons
This case was previously adjourned as follows:-
"The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. he was represented by Ms Baig. It was clear that the appellant had made an innocent error in completing the parking voucher as the 29th February 2018 does not exist. In the circumstances the local authority are asked to explain why a lower differential penalty was not issued /does not apply and provide their policy on removal in such circumstances which the adjudicator consider to be excessive.
If no response is received by the adjournment date the appeal will be allowed in respect of the clamp and removal fees. "
The local authority have not responded.
I therefore allow this appeal in relation to the clamp and removal fees.

Ta matey. wink.gif
saj123
Below is my challenge- will post the rejection letter when i get home


Dear Sirs,

Re: PCN :
Vehicle Reg Mark:

I write in relation to the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was issued on my vehicle on 11 June 2018.

On the day in question, my wife had placed the parking card on the car. She had parked the car at approximately 8.55am, with the parking restrictions taking effect from 9am. My wife is currently 6 months pregnant. She was so worried about writing the correct date on the parking card that she forgot to write the time. This was a genuine mistake.

The car was only parked at this location until 12pm, after which I took the car to my place of work. In total, the car was parked at this location for no more than 3 hours. You will no doubt be aware of the parking restrictions on Sheridan Road, with it beginning at 9am and ending at 5pm. The CEO issued the PCN on my car at 10.28am.

There is no dispute that the time of arrival was not entered on the parking card, but surely as this was within the 6 hours of the restriction, the CEO should have used discretion and refrained from issuing a PCN at that point. Had the 6 hour restriction passed and the CEO had issued a PCN, this would have been understandable.

In the above circumstances, I would be grateful if Newham Council could reconsider the charge and overturn this PCN.

Yours faithfully,


S


saj123
sorry for the delay guys. I have the rejection letter here. busy with a new arrival and stuff. anyways. I have taken it to an adjudicator but must submit my appeal asap.
https://imgur.com/a/vkdk3RB

any help would be great.

thanks
cp8759
They were bound to reject. Register your appeal and state grounds to follow.
Neil B
Either I've missed something or you are both, variously, confused.
QUOTE (saj123 @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 21:38) *
sorry for the delay guys. I have the rejection letter here. busy with a new arrival and stuff. anyways. I have taken it to an adjudicator but must submit my appeal asap.
https://imgur.com/a/vkdk3RB

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 21:52) *
They were bound to reject. Register your appeal and state grounds to follow.

I see only a rejection to an informal challenge, dated early August.

Perhaps Saj has an NtO and is confused about process?
saj123
Apologies. Yes it is a notice to owner.
Im still to respond. Will do so tonight. Just needed guidance!

Thanks guys
Neil B
QUOTE (saj123 @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:36) *
Apologies. Yes it is a notice to owner.

Sal, pull your finger out; SHOW it! With the date on.
saj123
You want the nto? Ill do it as soon as im home mate.
saj123
so here is the NTO. I have to complete this by tomorrow so can post tomorrow.
https://imgur.com/QT6vZOz
https://imgur.com/R0u1g7W

thanks guys.
Neil B
QUOTE (saj123 @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 18:36) *
so here is the NTO. I have to complete this by tomorrow so can post tomorrow.

No, you have until 3rd October, i.e. your representations must reach them by that date.
Neil B
Looking at your first challenge, this bit was not quite right.
QUOTE (saj123 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 19:18) *
There is no dispute that the time of arrival was not entered on the parking card, but surely as this was within the 6 hours of the restriction, the CEO should have used discretion and refrained from issuing a PCN at that point. Had the 6 hour restriction passed and the CEO had issued a PCN, this would have been understandable.

We know what you mean but you didn't actually say it -
The restriction 8 hours not 6.
What you mean is, had you been more than six hours after the restriction began, i.e. past 3pm, then a PCN would have been justified.
But you weren't and it is nothing to do with 'discretion'; the car could not have been in contravention at 10.28.

Newham are doing two things -
1/. relying on any breach of the terms and conditions being found to be punishable but here it makes no sense.

2/. And this what they are doing to you and lots of others. Assuming any omission, change or breach of Ts&Cs is an attempt
to cheat and penalising people for something they haven't done yet.
All because they're too dumb or lazy to record serial numbers of VPs to catch the real cheats who re-use them.

I'm not suggesting you write that 1 and 2; just explaining what they are doing.
You cannot penalise someone on the basis they might, later, park in contravention.
saj123
So what would i need to put on my new representation?
Neil B
QUOTE (saj123 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 00:35) *
So what would i need to put on my new representation?

I don't have time to write something for you today and others are better than me anyway.

You should try drafting something yourself and post it here for comments.

It is also arguable that they should have used the lower level penalty, code 19, 'displaying invalid'
@ £80.

--
I've just read their rejection properly and, as I said before, they clearly refer to potential cheating, by 're-use'
of VPs.
But re-use, in your case, would have been later, not at 10.28 !
saj123
hi guys, below is what i've written. will post later on today.
let me know of any amendments

thanks for all your help so far.



I write in relation to the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was issued on my vehicle on 11 June 2018.

On the day in question, my wife had placed the parking card on the car. She had parked the car at approximately 8.55am, with the parking restrictions taking effect from 9am. My wife was 6 months pregnant. She was so worried about writing the correct date on the parking card that she forgot to write the time. This was a genuine mistake.

The car was only parked at this location until 12pm, after which I took the car to my place of work. In total, the car was parked at this location for no more than 3 hours. You will no doubt be aware of the parking restrictions on Sheridan Road, with it beginning at 9am and ending at 5pm. The CEO issued the PCN on my car at 10:28am.

There is no dispute that the time of arrival was not entered on the parking card, but surely as this was within the 8 hours of the restriction, the CEO should have refrained from issuing a PCN at this point. Had the 6 hour permit expired and the CEO had issued a PCN, this would have been justified.

In your rejection comments you clearly refer to potential cheating by re-use. But in my case re-use would have been later and not at 10:28, the time the ticket was issued. You can clearly see that I had not exceeded my time as it was issued 1hour and 28minutes after the restriction had started.

I also believe your CEO had used the wrong code for the alleged contravention and the correct code which should have been used is:

19 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 the expiry of paid for time


In light of the above it is clear that the alleged contravention did not occur and we hope that Newham Council will overturn the PCN.
stamfordman
Looks good to me - very clear. Newham will reject though but you have to go through process. Let's see if they actually address the obvious point about the permit and not being in contravention at that time, and also the code.
Neil B
Yep, good to go.

If posting, it must go first class today and get a (free) Certificate of Posting at the Post Office.
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 © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.