Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Lewisham Council Parking ticket rejection
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Richard from Blackheath
I was wondering if you could please help. My 83 year old Father-in-Law has recently had a contraventiom 06 - Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket from Lewisham Council.

We challenged it on the following grounds

1. The pay and display machine wasn't working (taking cash). He wanted to pay by cash
2. Despite his age he tried to pay by Ringgo but unfortunately it defaulted to Blackheath, so the wrong Zone. This was fully paid £8.80 for the day and registered (evidence provided in appeal)
3. He was visiting his Wife in Hospital who had recently had a serious stroke and been moved from Kings to Lewisham Hospital (he told them this)

Despite all this they rejected the appeal. Can you help?. Out of principle we want to dispute but it appears we will then need to pay the full £80 as opposed to £40 if the independent adjudactor also finds against. This seems unfair as we do not accept liability or blame and yet by paying the reduced £40 this is what we are told we are doing (plus we have no further recourse).

Just out of principle I'm tempted to appeal to the independent adjudictor regardless but any advice would be much wlecomed. I've attached the relevant part of the rejection letter from Lewisham County Council.

Many thnaks.

Best wishes.

Richard.Click to view attachment
stamfordman
Post the PCN and your challenge. Also the council's pics and google street view of location.

Sadly some councils just won't play fair with this - I've checked and the other location is in the borough (just) and the fee is the ame or possiby even more so the council is not out of pocket.

Yes, the full £80 is in play at next stage but they often will reoffer it. I've checked their policy though and there is only reference to a face down P&D ticket in reasons for may accepting.

The problem is though that are they likely to exercise discretion at the next stage when they didn't the first time. There are certain arguments we can bring out including ref to government fairness guidelines and there may be something else in the PCN.



cp8759
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 14:52) *
Yes, the full £80 is in play at next stage but they often will reoffer it. I've checked their policy though and there is only reference to a face down P&D ticket in reasons for may accepting.

An argument can be made that the situation here is the digital equivalent of a face-down P&D ticket and providing payment was in fact made, the same policy should apply.

Lewisham will normally re-offer the discount at the next stage.
Incandescent
Lewisham, like all London councils, are venal and rapacious. I find their rejection of the reps quite disgusting as they actually quote the error made by your father, a minor error in the code number, but are too venal to use their discretion. But then they are disgusting people IMHO. For me you are not asking for discretion; a minor error like this with no loss of income to the council comes under "the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". There is no definition of what this means, it is up to the adjudicators to decide. Certainly there is no list of circumstances anywhere in the regulations.

OK, you might get a "hanging adjudicator", (they do exist unfortunately). but if you save up a few quid each week, by the time you get to adjudication you'll have the £40 difference saved up. If you win it's trebles all round "
stamfordman
OP says he'll update this on Monday with PCN etc.

If it were me I'd certainly go for very strong formal reps on this that would hopefully force then to disclose their policy on fairness as well as the complete lack of disadvantage to the council, the de minimis nature of this contravention, and the circumstances of machine out of order and the fuss of using Ringgo by an older person worried about his wife.

I would also consider writing to the council's CEO and the local newspaper.

cp8759
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 22:13) *
There is no definition of what this means, it is up to the adjudicators to decide. Certainly there is no list of circumstances anywhere in the regulations.

Well in parking cases the introduction of the PI ground now means that the penalty exceeds ground cannot be used for a collateral challenge, so it only applies in case where, for example, the penalty should be £110 but the PCN says £130 or whatever. This has been confirmed by the High Court.

However, the council could commit a failure to consider PI if it fails to comply with its own policy.
Incandescent
QUOTE
This has been confirmed by the High Court.

Have you a link so I can educate myself ?
cp8759
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 22:03) *
QUOTE
This has been confirmed by the High Court.

Have you a link so I can educate myself ?

Paras 38 to 54 of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html

Incidentally we've recently had tribunal decisions which have confirmed this only applies to the parking regs under the TMA 2004 (and by implication the identically worded Welsh provisions for bus lanes and moving traffic), so it doesn't affect Scotland, moving traffic in London or Bus lanes in England (including London) & Scotland.
Richard from Blackheath
Thanks again for yours and everyone else's help. PCN attached. My Father-in-law doesn't want to dispute but I do just on a matter of principle and am happy to take any hit! So thanks again.

Best wishes

Richard from Blackheath
stamfordman
Not so much at stake as it's a lower level penalty so you're just gambling with £40 and you may feel it's worth it at least to embarrass them.
Richard from Blackheath
Many thanks for your great advice
hcandersen
Subject to seeing the council's photos, the contravention is wrong IMO.

There is NO legal requirement to display a ticket. End of.

There is a requirement to pay the parking charge and, if this is paid through a P&D machine, then a further obligation arises i.e. to display the P&D ticket.

The correct grounds are either:

Parked without payment of the parking charge, or, if this is a shared use bay,

Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge.

We must see the photos and/or accurate GSV.

At present, you could potentially rely on the grounds:
Contravention did not occur;

If the authority want to play silly b*****s with semantics, then 2 can play at this game.
Richard from Blackheath
Thanks. Only picture I have is from council (see attached). Does this help?

As I said he paid via Ringgo on-line (despite being 83). It defaulted to the wrong zone but the same Council! So they got their money and now want more!

Best wishes

Richard from Blackheath
hcandersen
I'm confused.

GSV shows only 'permit holders or pay at the machine' signs and therefore restrictions. No mention of Ringo, so where does this come from?

And the only photo posted doesn't show any signs as far as I can see.
Richard from Blackheath
Forgot to say we also have a picture of the ticket machine saying 'This machine is de-commissioned' (he wanted to pay by cash not on-line)

Best wishes

Richard from Blackheath

Thanks. I can't seem to be able to scan the whole machine saying de-commissioned etc. but attached is the part that clearly says Ringgo (which he paid by using the wrong zone or should I say which defaulted to the wrong zone (acknowledged in the Council rejection!)

Best wishes

Richard
stamfordman
best to put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.

We should be able to muster a number of points on this for formal reps.

Who is the registered keeper?
Richard from Blackheath
Dear All

Just a quick update on this one. Thanks to all for the great advice. I e-mailed the Chief Exec of Lewisham Council explaining I wasn't happy with this decision based on the facts:

1. Parking had been paid for to Lewisham Council (via Ringgo), albeit for the wrong zone (default error/human error)
2. The parking machine was broken
3. My Father in law's Wife had stroked and he was visiting her in Hospital
4. Adjudictor had rejected appeal and only place now to go was independent adjudiction with the possibility of losing the discount

I said I hadn't gone ot the press but that I had been advised to. I gave her the opportunity to rectify which, to her credit, she did almost immediately. The adjudictors decision was overturned within 12 hours and penalty cancelled. Adjudictors advised about these kinds of scenerios. Good decision and done with speed. All credit to Lewisham Council CEO.

I'd advise anyone who has had a really bad decision (I've read a few here with ill Children etc.) to contact the Council CEO's to either justify or overturn. But clearly only if it's justifiabe (as in cases like this).

Best wishes

Richard from Blackheath


stamfordman
Well done - it was me who suggested writing to the CEO but you weren't even at the formal reps stage with the council yet let alone an adjudicator (it wasn't an adjudicator who rejected the challenge it was just the council's parking dept, and they often reject at first).

Richard from Blackheath
Thanks Stam. It was indeed and all your advice was first class e.g. you also confirmed he'd paid the same local authority etc.. Keep up the good work. This is definately the way to go in these types of scenrios to save dragging it out

Many thanks again.

Best wishes

Richard
stamfordman
Yes indeed - if ever there was a situation crying out for discretion it was this one. We would hope the council would act at the formal stage but what you did was right as councils should be taken to task on these crass and upsetting rejections at the initial stage.
cp8759
QUOTE (Richard from Blackheath @ Fri, 22 Nov 2019 - 16:46) *
The adjudictors decision was overturned within 12 hours and penalty cancelled.

I very much doubt that as there wouldn't have been time for this case to get to adjudication, so there was no adjudicator's decision.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.