Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Code 86 East Herts Council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
spring2action
Hard times. sad.gif

Sorry Guys, especially to DancingDad who has already scolded me but I just received yesterday this PCN for not parking in a marked bay.

There were not any bays available so thought it was OK to park there and I had paid and displayed correctly.

Is there any point I appeal this one? It's becoming really trying now. I attach PCN back and front and my pics taken on discovery of the offence.














Incandescent
You're not just beyond the bay markings, you are not even near a bay ! Frankly you are bang-to-rights, and the PCN looks OK to me, so consider paying the discount, but wait and see what the others say.
Bogsy
Was there any signage indicating that you must park inside a marked bay?
DancingDad
BangHead.gif

Did you happen to take a photo of the P&D machine?
Especially the small print.

Any parking info on P&D ticket ? Front or back?
Hippocrates
Who is the enforcing authority?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry893172
hcandersen
The enforcement authority is: the (local) authority by whom the parking place was provided, authorised or designated;
Presumably EHDC.





DancingDad
Frustratiing.
Streetview shows the parking info board but not clear enough to read contravention info.
East Herts have not got a TRO lodged with TPT

The assumption is that they can issue a PCN for parking outside marked bays. But I'd like to be sure.
EDW
ha-ha-ha, nice parking.

What's next

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article769...%20canal-769596


I reckon this can be beat but we need the tmo.


DancingDad
QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 00:02) *


Don't give him ideas laugh.gif

Mind you, as he's moving north, can we expect a Cambridge PCN tomorrow ? wink.gif
hcandersen
OP, the action required by you is to provide the information which is contained in the tariff board. Can you do this?
Any info on the payment m/c might be useful. However, it's the tariff/notice board which counts. I say this because if, as is likely to be the case, free parking is available for certain classes of vehicles, perhaps in specified locations within the car park, then those drivers would have no need to go to the payment m/c and therefore this would not be a fool-proof or acceptable means of conveying conditions of use.
EDW
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 11:10) *
OP, the action required by you is to provide the information which is contained in the tariff board. Can you do this?
Any info on the payment m/c might be useful. However, it's the tariff/notice board which counts. I say this because if, as is likely to be the case, free parking is available for certain classes of vehicles, perhaps in specified locations within the car park, then those drivers would have no need to go to the payment m/c and therefore this would not be a fool-proof or acceptable means of conveying conditions of use.



The tariff board and p&d machine plate info is of secondary importance to that of the Order.
You go to the source and progress downstream from there.
DancingDad
QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 12:23) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 11:10) *
OP, the action required by you is to provide the information which is contained in the tariff board. Can you do this?
Any info on the payment m/c might be useful. However, it's the tariff/notice board which counts. I say this because if, as is likely to be the case, free parking is available for certain classes of vehicles, perhaps in specified locations within the car park, then those drivers would have no need to go to the payment m/c and therefore this would not be a fool-proof or acceptable means of conveying conditions of use.



The tariff board and p&d machine plate info is of secondary importance to that of the Order.
You go to the source and progress downstream from there.


Signage must adequately convey the restriction to the motorist.
It may be on the Traffic Order but has to be signed... and vice versa, they cannot sign if it's not in the order.
Both need looking at.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 15:02) *
Signage must adequately convey the restriction to the motorist.
It may be on the Traffic Order but has to be signed... and vice versa, they cannot sign if it's not in the order.
Both need looking at.

Spelthorne can according to this!:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-new...-double-6905747
spring2action
following on from previous comments, here are photos of the Pay and Display board which the council provided as part of the CEO photos (The actual ticket says: for conditions see notice board):





Any thoughts?
DancingDad
I hate to say it but I reckon take the discount
spring2action
What about the TMO as mentioned by HCAnderson and EDW? Should I request this?

Or is it covered by the following which appears on EHC website:As of 31st March 2008, the council enforces Penalty Charge Notices in compliance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, and its own guidelines. These guidelines are agreed by Councillors, and cover areas where the council considers the use of its discretion in making enforcement decisions.[/i]
DancingDad
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 11:14) *
What about the TMO as mentioned by HCAnderson and EDW? Should I request this?

Or is it covered by the following which appears on EHC website:As of 31st March 2008, the council enforces Penalty Charge Notices in compliance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, and its own guidelines. These guidelines are agreed by Councillors, and cover areas where the council considers the use of its discretion in making enforcement decisions.[/i]


No harm to...but deadline for discount is looming.
TMO is not covered by the statement...that possibly covers the question of who the enforcement authority is
Hippocrates
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 11:28) *
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 11:14) *
What about the TMO as mentioned by HCAnderson and EDW? Should I request this?

Or is it covered by the following which appears on EHC website:As of 31st March 2008, the council enforces Penalty Charge Notices in compliance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, and its own guidelines. These guidelines are agreed by Councillors, and cover areas where the council considers the use of its discretion in making enforcement decisions.[/i]


No harm to...but deadline for discount is looming.
TMO is not covered by the statement...that possibly covers the question of who the enforcement authority is

Which is why I always advocate asking for the TRO from the start.
spring2action
So I shall request the TRO straight away.

Dancing Dad - Previously you said East Herts have not got a TRO lodged with TPT - what exactly are the abbreviations for?
Hippocrates
Traffic Regulation Order. Traffic Management Order is what they are called in London.
EDW
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 12:03) *
So I shall request the TRO straight away.

Dancing Dad - Previously you said East Herts have not got a TRO lodged with TPT - what exactly are the abbreviations for?



Get the order, email them and ask to put case on hold at 50% pending this.
DancingDad
QUOTE (EDW @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 15:04) *
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 8 Apr 2014 - 12:03) *
So I shall request the TRO straight away.

Dancing Dad - Previously you said East Herts have not got a TRO lodged with TPT - what exactly are the abbreviations for?



Get the order, email them and ask to put case on hold at 50% pending this.


or challenge on something..perhaps had parked sensibly without causing obstruction or taking up more then one space and please can they include a copy of the management order with any reply.
Gives breathing space and they do say they will usually re-offer the discount.
spring2action
Dancing Dad,
I have now emailed the council requesting the case be put on hold at 50% asking for confirmation of this as well as giving the circumstances of why and where I parked.

They send an automated response which includes the following:

Currently, we are dealing with PCN enquiries within 2 to 3 weeks.

If you have e-mailed us within the first 14 days of the PCN being issued (the discount period) and we do not cancel the PCN, we will extend another 14 day discount period when we respond to you.


Your PCN will not progress, or the charge increase, until we have considered your enquiry and sent you a response.


So I was concerned to get everything included.

Fingers crossed!
DancingDad
You got your wording this time ??
spring2action
Yes here it is (and circumstances whether relevant or not are true):

Dear Sirs

Since I received your automated reply notifying me of your turnaround period for a response to my email is 2 -3 weeks, I wish to request you put this case on hold at 50% pending your response. Please confirm this.

The circumstances of this case were that I had to drop my elderly mother who is also disabled at the end of Apton Road as she was unable to walk from the car park. I therefore needed to park my car quickly in order to get back to her as she was standing alone on the pavement waiting for me. I believed that where I parked which was next to a marked parking bay was acceptable.

I must point out that I had parked sensibly not causing an obstruction or taking up more than one space.

Please can you include a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order with your reply.

Yours faithfully

DancingDad
I'm going to ask the question.
Has your mum a blue badge and if so, was it displayed ??
hcandersen
Fine. 2 points, one for future reference, one for the order when we see it.
It's not a traffic regulation or management order, it's just an order.. " a local authority may by order regulate places where vehicles may park off-street (the authority doesn't provide the places by order, the order regulates them if they are provided); and
The charging hours of a car park are not the operating hours. Charging hours refers to those matters within the order which deal with paying, operating hours deal with every aspect of the order e.g. obstruction, parking wholly within a bay, no lighting of fires, no trading etc. Your contravention is not related to payment. This is probably a matter of semantics in your case because the time of contravention was within the charging hours which, by definition, must be within the operating hours, but let's see what the order states.
spring2action
Dancingdad - My mum doesn't drive so no blue badge.

HCAndersen - Your points are noted.
DancingDad
Your mum don't need to drive for a BB

Doesn't help for this pcn but look into getting one for her. Check the council website where she lives for details but if she gets disability benefits or has difficulty walking, she probably qualifies.
With one, when you drive her, the badge can be used. You would not have had to rush to park and get back to her, you could have parked on yellow lines..legally.
spring2action
Just received a letter of rejection from EHC as follows:





This letter was also accompanied by The East Herts District Council (off street parking places) (Consolidation) Order No. 1 2011. I attach a copy of the first page and seventh page which has a cross marked by the council against the relevant paragraph. There are 21 pages in total which I haven't attached.





Any thoughts as to whether worthwhile to challenge? Discount remains 14 days from the date of the letter.
2cupsofcoffee
NoR says a Notice to Owner will be sent..............
hcandersen
..which they are absolutely entitled to state and no procedural impropriety arises thereby. It's their letter and within reason they can state what they want.
The restriction is created by the order (assuming the car park is stated by name in col. 1 of the Schedule) and is conveyed clearly on the notice board.
I've no idea why EHDC think that s39 of the RTRA enables them, it doesn't, it simply places conditions on the use of their powers and enables the county council. But the complete introductory para. is a dog's breakfast, they've just listed every section of the RTRA which appears to them to have some bearing on the issue and lumped them together. This is more of an observation than anything else and I don't think there's mileage in it for you.
Objectively, you were parked nowhere near a marked bay and this would be an adj's starting point.
Pay the discount?
EDW
'indicated by markings' is too vague. There should be something like 'delineated with white painted lines' etc.

Markings can mean anything.
hcandersen
C'mon please! Markings are markings and IMO an argument based on this would get as close to getting costs awarded against the appellant as I've seen.
EDW
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 23 Apr 2014 - 22:02) *
C'mon please! Markings are markings and IMO an argument based on this would get as close to getting costs awarded against the appellant as I've seen.



what is a marking?

what is the def. of 'parking place'?

where is the schedule?

Think before jumping to post.

Hippocrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_King_PHC_2011.jpg

BangHead.gif
hcandersen
QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 23 Apr 2014 - 21:07) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 23 Apr 2014 - 22:02) *
C'mon please! Markings are markings and IMO an argument based on this would get as close to getting costs awarded against the appellant as I've seen.



what is a marking? An adj would use the common-sense and common usage of the term. Not every word in an order needs to be defined, most import everyday usage.

what is the def. of 'parking place'? It's in the order and will follow the definition of parking bay.

where is the schedule? Don't know, but as my post was conditional upon the car park being a parking place.....

Think before jumping to post. I do. Not every OP will succeed and IMO we should assist them to weigh the odds and minimise their exposure.


EDW
I have never seen an appeal where they send in the all the bits of the TMO that they need.

DancingDad
Spring2action
What are the exemptions if any for the parking places??
There probably will be some for emergency or council work vehicles but any on boarding alighting ??

I'm reading the rejection which is simply saying why you got the PCN...which you knew anyway and did not deny. What you said was you were parked where you did to get back to your (disabled?) mum and help her home. And that no other parking place was availble....almost anyway.
They do not even mention this. Do not say fine, we've thought on that and you could have parked x or y or wherevere. Or if she has a valid BB we may reconsider or even tough, we don't care. They just ignore it.

There is nothing in the regs that say they need to accept mitigation though Secretary of state recommends they have published policies on this. Even if they do, nothing forces them to accept.
But the regs are very clear that they must consider.
And I'm seeing absolutely no evidence of consideration in that rejection.

If this was past the discount, I'd say go all the way with this on that point. But cannot say it's overly strong on it's own.
Hippocrates
Agree with DD: total failure to consider the mitigating circumstances. Copy and paste job/letter from ex-mother-in-law, wrapped in recycled Andrex. Failure to have shown they must have had regard to Guidance.

What do you think of it so far?:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j....65177938,d.ZGU
EDW
Best make up your mind to pay or fight.
spring2action
Thanks to all for your comments.

DancingDad
Seeing as you asked the question about any mention of exemption in the Order, I attach the following but I don't think the exemptions relate to my situation.







Do you think I should throw the towel in now?
DancingDad
In terms of the contravention, absolutely bang to rights and the last (forlorn) hope that the Order could leave a loophole is dashed.

So from that point of view, pay the discount.

However and this depends how far you want to take it and whether to risk it.

Had you parked on double yellow lines. Escorted your mum into the house, seen her safe and then moved the vehicle, there would be a clear exemption, boarding alighting, even though you could have been blocking traffic etc.
But you did the right thing (as you thought) and did not cause an obstruction but left mum, whipped into the nearest car park, found a place that wasn't causing any obstruction, parked (payed) and ran back to get mum home before she collapsed, fell over or melted in the sunshine.

In that respect, though the PCN was issued correctly, you told the council why and in enough detail that one of the grounds, "Other Compelling Reasons" that should be on the NTO if it's issued may apply. Also known as mitigating circumstances.
Now the council do not have to accept those reasons but they MUST consider them. And though it is not dictated by the regs, adjudicators do like to see some evidence of that consideration in the rejection.
And there is absolutely none.
We could build a case on this and it is winnable but alot depends ultimately on the adjudicator, their mood on the day and your credibility when you sit in front of them.
I know we can build a winnable case but cannot guarantee results. If the council commit other errors, case would be strengthened but ??

And if you parked there for too long and the council can show that..the whole house of cards tumbles... Don't ask how long is too long, it's whatever is needed but you will need to justify that and that will be tricky as we are relying on their failure to consider.

Your choice.
spring2action
DancingDad, if it was you, would you fight it on the grounds of mitigating circumstances not being considered?
DancingDad
QUOTE (spring2action @ Mon, 28 Apr 2014 - 11:36) *
DancingDad, if it was you, would you fight it on the grounds of mitigating circumstances not being considered?


Probably but I am a stubborn cuss and have no worries about councils or visiting adjudicators...and it's not as though I'd be fighting for a fortune..it's a £35 quid gamble between fighting and losing or paying the discount.
I gotta remind you though, you have two other in play and they are more expensive. Camden is winnable, Westminster less so. They add up to an expensive gamble and lots of effort on your part.
Factor that into any decision.

In terms of this actual case. It is winnable but does depend on lots of things as I said before.
It has to be your choice, either way you have our support.
spring2action
I'm prepared to fight this as I cannot willingly hand over my hard earned money to yet another greedy council.
It's actually a £50 gamble once the discount period has gone, 5 days to go and counting.
With your support I will stay positive and hope to win as with the other 2 cases on the go.
So do I wait now for the NtO??
spring2action
The discount period is over now, so do I now wait for the NtO to arrive without any further challenge?
EDW
yes
spring2action
So now I have received the NtO from East Herts Council which I attach here:









So now for the compelling reasons for challenging. Can you please help me with the wording of this?

Should I use the "Other grounds" for challenging the notice? Or another box?

spring2action
Here is my formal challenge as has been referred to previously (not yet sent).

Other Grounds - Grounds of mitigating circumstances not being considered

Had I parked on double yellow lines, escorted my mum into the shop, seen her safe and then moved the car, there would be a clear exemption, boarding, alighting, even though I could have been blocking traffic etc. But I did the right thing and did not cause an obstruction but left my mum, rushed into the nearest car park, found a place that wasn't causing any obstruction, parked, paid and ran back to get mum home.
In that respect, I told the council why and in enough detail that one of the grounds, "Other Compelling Reasons" that should be on the NTO, may apply. Also known as mitigating circumstances. The council MUST consider them. And though it is not dictated by the regulations, there must be some evidence that circumstances have been considered in the rejection. And there is absolutely none. The rejection simply says why I got the PCN, which I knew anyway and did not deny. What I said was I parked where I was, to get back to my disabled mum and help her home. And that no other parking place was available. East Herts Council do not even mention this or say they've thought about that and I could have parked somewhere else. The council has just ignored it. The Secretary of State recommends and has published policies on considering mitigating circumstances. The regulations are very clear that the council must consider. And there is absolutely no evidence of consideration in that rejection.


Is there anything else worth adding to increase my chances of winning this case?
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.