Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking bay reference
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ineffable
Hi,

First off, apologies if this has been raised elsewhere but I've been searching many sites and haven't seen this specific scenario discussed, probably because not many people are daft enough to get two tickets in the same spot on the same day...

Anyway, I now have two tickets that both state the same (correct) road in Edinburgh, but one states that I was parked in a 'P&D Bay' the other that I was in a 'Shared Use' bay. The alphanumeric reference numbers for the bays are different too. Both tickets state that the code is 11P Parked Without Payment of the Parking Charge.

I've seen the pictures taken and the car is parked in a Shared Use bay (either P&D or Residents Permit at the time the ticket was issued). I have appealed the ticket but the initial appeal has been rejected. The appeal did state that I was parked in a Shared Use bay though.

So, my question - does having the bay reference and type of bay incorrectly recorded on the PCN invalidate the ticket? I've got until Thursday 1st September to pay at the 50% 'discount' rate, if my appeal is unsuccessful it'll be £60.

Thanks
K

makara
Need to see the tickets - or at least one of them. Scan / photo and post here.
ineffable
This is the first one that incorrectly states it's a P&D bay

this is the second with the correct description of the bay

I have no way of knowing if the reference numbers match the bay descriptions

K
hcandersen
What type of bay was this exactly?

For the purposes of your case I understand that contraventions in respect of parking bays fall into two distinct categories: where a voucher has to be displayed to prove entitlement to park e.g. resident's permit or P&D ticket, and those where there is no requirement to display e.g. pay-by-phone, parking meter.

How can you have committed the contravention for "Failing to pay.." in a bay that requires a voucher to be displayed?

Unless there's something missing from your account, or the requirements of the Road Traffic Act differ from those of the Traffic Management Act in this regard, then surely this must be the wrong contravention as you say you were in a bay which required a voucher to be displayed.

HCA
qafqa
QUOTE
I have no way of knowing if the reference numbers match the bay descriptions

The location code on the 14:45 to 14:51 ticket is possibly LP (Lamp Post) AH05 which is most likely the on the left in StreetView,
PD N158 is possibly Pay & Display machine 158.

Was the car parked continuously in the same bay, were both two tickets issued during that time and
was it on the left or right hand side in this view.

Arboretum Place StreetView

I am asking about the location because on the right of this view is the sign where the restrictions change.

StreetView sign and bay marking
ineffable
@hcanderson - it's a shared use bay for both P&D and Residents Permit
RingGo have the details - http://www.myringgo.co.uk/parkinglocator?zone=12313.
When the first PCN was issued: no voucher had been bought through RingGo, no P&D ticket was displayed and no Residents Permit was displayed

When the second PCN was issued: a voucher had been bought through RingGo but using the location code from the wrong machine which covers the spaces further north. Edinburgh Council have cancelled this ticket at the first appeal though. They state this was "as a courtesy as a previous ticket had already been issued for the same offence in the same location". To be honest, I think that the second ticket was technically valid as the RingGo voucher was from the wrong machine. It was for exactly the same value though so I was prepared to continue to challenge that one as having paid for the parking.

@qalqa
It was parked to the right of the sign, the second bay after the sign. It was parked continuously in the same bay for approx 3 hours.

The problem has come because I realised I'd parked without buying a ticket and purchased a voucher through RingGo using the iPhone app without going back to the car. I didn't spot that the two parking machines on the road had different parking tarrifs.

Normally I'd just pay the first one as it was a mistake on my part not to buy the ticket - but the fact that I've got two tickets in the same location with different details on the PCNs smells like an opportunity to challenge and get it dropped.

The crux of the matter is whether just the street and vehicle description is enough to make the ticket valid or whether all details on the PCN need to be correct. If any detail being in error invalidates it then I'll appeal that the contravention did not occur as stated for the first ticket.

K
hcandersen
Pay and display, as the name implies, requires a motorist to display. Pay-by-phone does not. I cannot see any reference to PBP on the signs or to parking meters, so I need absolute confirmation as to what the sign that regulated your bay actually stated. Pl either post a photo or post up the exact words.

HCA
ineffable
Sign says - "pay at machine or N3 residents permit". I don't have the wording from the machine but it does state that RingGo is a valid payment option and gives the machine reference number.

It's the first PCN that I am considering appealing though and I had not paid by phone when that PCN was issued so not sure that any reference to PBP is relevant.

Issue is - the PCN states that I was in a P&D bay when I was actually in a Shared Use bay. Is that sufficient to invalidate the PCN given that the 11P contravention would be valid in either case?

K
hcandersen
Where you were is material, but not as relevant as the contravention that's being alleged.

The bay you were in requires something to be displayed and therefore the contravention must be a failure to display. Yours isn't, it's "Failing to pay" which IMO is the incorrect contravention. Just think it through. The only evidence that the council has is that there wasn't a voucher on display. And what is the only logical deduction which can be made from this? It's that nothing was being displayed. You cannot conclude that the motorist failed to pay because you might have paid but the P&D ticket is languishing in the car's footwell. Failure to display is not prime facie evidence of failing to pay, but a meter with zero time registered or a nil notification to the CEO's computer that payment has been made by phone is.

HCA
ineffable
I see where you are coming from but if you are right then there's no way that RingGo payments would ever be valid for parking in P&D bays... I know that it is dangerous to assume competence by a council but surely they can't have got something so basic wrong?

What are you basing the statement that the bay requires something to be displayed on? The sign states that I have to pay at the machine but I don't think it mandates that I display a ticket. They will have received notification that I didn't have a Pay By Phone voucher to cover the period when the PCN was issued and I don't have a paper ticket to show so, unless 11P is always invalid where there is a potential to have a paper ticket not clearly displayed, I'm not confident I would win an appeal on those grounds.

So, I now potentially have two arguments:
1 - The bay is correctly described as Pay & Display in which case the ticket is invalid as the contravention should have been '06 Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher;
2 - The bay is incorrectly described as Pay & Display in which case the PCN is invalid as the contravention did not occur at the stated location

Would an '11P Parked without payment of the parking charge' be a valid contravention in a shared use space though?

K
ineffable
Good news, the council have just responded to my letter sent after the initial appeal was rejected. The ticket is being cancelled as the Parking Attendant made an error in the bay description.

Looks like that is sufficient reason for the ticket to be made invalid. This is the council ceding the case though, not a formal decision from the adjudicator.

K
makara
Brilliant result - well done!!
matttheladd
A win is a win and the best thing is that you get to keep your money in your pocket rather than lining theirs!
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.