Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parked in business bay Tower Hamlets Assisted alighting
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
GreenEyes
Finally got around to this one. Already received NTO. didn't make any representations yet, as I am planning to go all the way anyway.

Basically husband was taking my mum to A&E as she twisted her foot and it got swollen. She has very limited mobility, walks with a stick.

He parked in a business permit bay (thinking it was normal bay). But there were no other available bays around. He has residence permit so can park upto 3 hours in any tower hamlets, but he didn't pay attention that this was business permit bay.

In his defence he says, there are no businesses around at all, so he didn't expect this to be business bay.

So he parked, took my mother to A&E, sat her down, returned to repark and PCN was already issued. 7 minutes observation.

What are my chances of assisted alighting here? does it apply in business bay?









Mad Mick V
This document indicates resident permit holders can park in residents bays, permit bays and shared use bays (page 59). Also it says parking is permitted in these sorts of bays for up to 3 hours per day in any other zone in Tower Hamlets.

http://www.towerhamletsfoi.org.uk/document...Policy1%203.pdf

BUT this document is from 2008 so there could have been subsequent policy changes.

Worth checking with the parking people at TH.

Mick
DancingDad
Was his resident's permit on display ?

Boarding alighting will depend on Traffic Order for the bay
GreenEyes
yes, resident permit was on display, but its not business permit.. how do I find traffic order for that bay?
so its not general across all borough?
GreenEyes
ok, moving on from bad encounter at PATAS smile.gif

can anybody suggest where I can actually get the TMO? and how long would it take to get it normally? The one I received earlier only lists couple of long streets, so no help.. Have to start appeal process on this one
mashkiach
Council’s principal office
I have taken it from here:http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t61657.html
DancingDad
A phone call to the Highways department can get an email version quite quickly.
A personal visit as Mashkiach says.

What has the one you have got in the way of opening text, don't worry about the schedules (detailing the actual roads) the blurb should define types of bays and show exemptions for them. These are likely to be same for all bays in the enforcement area.

The other approach is to claim the existed boarding alighting anyway and see what they say but I would be happier to base it on something solid.
GreenEyes
thanks will give them a ring tomorrow

the tmo i have says it only applies to scheduled roads.. and not all of the roads are listed, so it would be hard to know if it applies in my case. also no mention of business bays.
DancingDad
Photo and post the first few pages pls Greeneyes...sounds like a strange TMO if the general blurb is missing.
Mad Mick V
At a guess it will be something like:-

The Tower Hamlets (C3. Parking Places Order) 2011

The C3 relates to the CPZ in which Cavell Street appears to be located.

Mick
GreenEyes












So exemption I need is on the last page number 5, but it probably doesn't apply to my street
Hippocrates
You have not posted the correct second page of the PCN but a Newham PCN instead. Please post the correct page as I believe it is non-compliant and has been deemed so by one adjudicator (Chan).

2110029250.

It should look like this if they have not changed it:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry956870

My opinion re the NTO:

I would say it fetters to theft only re one ground and is missing the following regulation: 3(3)(d)(ii)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/3/made


(d)that if representations which have been made—

(i)within the payment period; or

(ii)outside that period but not disregarded,

are not accepted by the enforcement authority the recipient of the notice may appeal against the authority’s decision to an adjudicator
GreenEyes
Oops, haven't realised I posted wrong back of the PCN. This is what happens if you have too many of them smile.gif will post correct one now

Hippocrates
No time to rotate my head but, as I thought, it is flawed. Please see my advice on the linked thread and this is no doubt going to PATAS as well.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry956885

Add this case re the PCN: 2110029250.

QUOTE (GreenEyes @ Tue, 19 Aug 2014 - 00:21) *
Oops, haven't realised I posted wrong back of the PCN. This is what happens if you have too many of them smile.gif will post correct one now


Can you rotate it please?
GreenEyes
What do you mean rotate? It's correct way up in my screen.. Does it come up wrong to you?
Hippocrates
Yes and I cannot correct it. No worries. I see what it contains.
GreenEyes
That's strange because it's correct to me huh.gif huh.gif thanks for the info will check it now

Seen it, it's a good one,you mean that they WILL send NTO? Having just been through traumatic PATAS experience, it seems impossible to win on this point alone though, as it seems minor. Although if it's the law and it makes PI, why is it so difficult to get point across to adjudicator? Arghh
Hippocrates
Not criticising anyone - probably a "technical" problem. biggrin.gif Have met it before.

QUOTE (GreenEyes @ Tue, 19 Aug 2014 - 01:32) *
That's strange because it's correct to me huh.gif huh.gif thanks for the info will check it now

Seen it, it's a good one,you mean that they WILL send NTO? Having just been through traumatic PATAS experience, it seems impossible to win on this point alone though, as it seems minor. Although if it's the law and it makes PI, why is it so difficult to get point across to adjudicator? Arghh

PATAS needs an overhaul......................
hcandersen
IMO, the order applies to waiting restrictions (yellow lines) not parking places, so it's not relevant to the circumstances of this case.
The Policy and Parking Enforcement doc is ambiguous as regards the types of bays in which the holder of a resident's permit may park if outside their 'zone'. Please post the terms and conditions of your permit because you are deemed to know these and are bound by them, the policy doc is merely something which seeks to summarise the council's parking restrictions which in this case are made by the relevant traffic order.
So, can we get back to the order, the permit's Ts and Cs and pics of the bay and can we leave the very narrow point of PCN wording on the back burner for now.
The NTO is deemed served on 11th, therefore day 28 is 7 Sept.
GreenEyes
ok, back to this one, I called Highway department and they dont cover this street. So the put me through TH.

Was a nightmare to get TMO from TH as noone knows what they are talking about and eventually told me to request it in writing.. which I didnt do, as I dont think it will come in time anyway.

being unable to locate Ts and Cs for our parking permit, I found these:

http://www.towerhamletsfoi.org.uk/document...Policy1%203.pdf

on page 46 point 2 it talks about boarding / alighting. But it sounds as if this would apply to entire borough?? Its dated 2008, but its the only one available to Joe PUblic on TH website (although I do know for a fact that in 2011 they had different TMO not mentioning boarding alighting at all)

regarding our parking permit, Im pretty sure that it came with these condition on a piece of paper, thats why we didnt keep it, cause it just looked like a letter rather than Tc and Cs:

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/451-50...nt_permits.aspx
GreenEyes
Here is the rejection, guys. Looks to me like a general letter of rejection in cases where they could not be bothered to read the reps. Doesn't actually reply directly to any of my points. Including request for TMO and notes

GreenEyes




Mad Mick V
So now they admit to it being a shared bay which is both business permit holders and P&D!!!!. Since the vehicle was parked during the period of P&D are we sure the correct contravention has been given?

I would surmise that the CEO saw the residents permit and made the decision that it was not valid for the bay; so by concentrating on permits he/she has completly ignored the shared bay aspect.

IMO the lower penalty contravention code which should have been given and relates to shared space is Code 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" (my bold).

Incorrect contravention= invalid PCN.

Mick
DancingDad
What points did you make pls?
A copy of your challenge would be good.
GreenEyes
DD, trying to locate the letter..
TH changed their appealing system. Used to be by email, so I always had proof that it was sent. Now you copy your text into their form, so I have saved the letter in word doc. They don't even send you confirmation by email that you appealed, so I was worried that it may not even register.

Going for school run now, will post the letter in the evening.

Mad Mick, thanks, sounds good, hope someone can back it up?
Mad Mick V
QUOTE
Mad Mick, thanks, sounds good, hope someone can back it up?


I await agog with antici----pation.

Mick
GreenEyes
Finally my reps guys, hope you forgive me for such a delay, parking tickets keep getting moved to the bottom of my to do list, but still need to be done. Our appeal was meant to be this friday, which I just remembered but will be changing date as hubby got different job now and can only do late evenings



"5th September 2014
Dear Sir or Madam
I would like to appeal the NTO which relates to the PCN no. on the basis that no contravention occurred,
On 07/07/14 at about 14:50 I have stopped at the nearest available parking spot from the Royal London Hospital as I was helping my mother in law who is a pensioner to get to the hospital with broken foot and could not leave her at the kerb side as she needed my assistance to get to A&E. Therefore, assisted alighting exemption should apply.
I attach witness statement which was kindly provided for me.
As soon as I assisted her to the hospital I immediately returned to my vehicle to repark my car, but PCN was already issued.
I am therefore bringing the applicable exemption to your attention. It took me around 7 minutes to get to A&E and back as the lady could barely walk and the parking spot was not very close to A&E but was the nearest one available at the time.
In addition previous adjudicator decisions highlight that assisted alighting can be as long as necessary to enable person to alight to a place where it is safe to leave a person.
I refer to Tower Hamlet’s Parking policy, which is available from Tower Hamlets website:
“The Council's TMOs currently grant exemptions to the following classes of vehicle use: - 2. A vehicle stopping to allow someone to board or alight from the vehicle.
(Page 45, 46 of “Parking and Traffic Enforcement Policy Document” under the “Exemptions to the parking restrictions”)
I sincerely hope that this PCN will be cancelled given the information that has been provided.
Should it not be cancelled, I will be taking my case to Adjudicator, where the just decision will be made. If this is the case, please also consider this as a written request for the CEO notes, TMO and photographs showing PCN attached to my vehicle.

I hope to hear from you soon.
Kind Regards

Mr
"
Walt2
But you made no mention of Mad Mick's argument?

Surely you should finish with something like:
"Even if the Enforcement Authority did not agree with the boarding/alighting exemption, although explained clearly above, the penalty exceeds the appropriate amount and the PCN is, therefore, invalid." Followed by MM's explanation...

Perhaps someone more experienced can advise you further, but why is this not in the PATAS appeal?
DancingDad
Major point to raise for PATAS.
The rejection simply re-hashes the reason for the PCN being issued.
It in no way addresses that your reps claimed boarding alighting. As a minimum given the claim they should explain why it does not apply and consider discretion/mitigation.
Failure to consider as they are obliged to do under the regulations.
hcandersen
OP, I'm worried and would appreciate you putting my mind at rest.

The notice of rejection is dated 24 Sept, you therefore had until 23 October to register your appeal with PATAS.

If you haven't, then a charge certificate for a surcharged penalty is probably on its way to you and you'd have no choice but to pay it.

Have you registered your appeal?
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 18 Nov 2014 - 17:27) *
OP, I'm worried and would appreciate you putting my mind at rest.

The notice of rejection is dated 24 Sept, you therefore had until 23 October to register your appeal with PATAS.

If you haven't, then a charge certificate for a surcharged penalty is probably on its way to you and you have no choice but to pay it.

Have you registered your appeal?


Greeneyes had smile.gif
QUOTE
.................Our appeal was meant to be this friday, which I just remembered but will be changing date as hubby got different job now and can only do late evenings

hcandersen
So on the basis of that comment, which was almost en passant, the OP has registered their appeal, submitted a full appeal on goodness knows what grounds and has received the authority's evidence pack and posts their reps from 5 Sept. What's that about?

Forget the OP asking for an adjournment,if they present evidence which has not been copied to the authority and which was not included in their reps and written appeal then the adj might adjourn.

We seem to not know more than we know.
DancingDad
The reps of 5th Sept is posted (eventually) against a request to see them so we could compare to the NOR.
I suspect (but don't know) that reps to PATAS would have been in a similar vein though possibly including wrong contravention as per MMV's later points.

Put us out of our misery please Greeneyes ?
GreenEyes
sorry for lack of info guys, I am getting really bad with these appeals.

Havent received anything from authority. no evidence pack.

The reps to PATAS are similar to those that I have written but added failure to consider. Didnt add wrong contravention as wasnt sure if that was the case.. So my appeal grounds are contravention didnt occur and PI

can anyone confirm if MMV's point valid? Should I be sending another letter to PATAS with this point?

I also suspect that when we ask to reschedule (tomorrow), it will not be anytime soon, as it will have to be evening time, which is probably the busiest
hcandersen
Will you please stop giving us your editorial and just give us facts and evidence.

You registered your appeal, you received a confirmation letter from PATAS which advised you of the date of your personal hearing, we presume. That letter would have told you that the authority were required to provide you with their evidence at least * days before the hearing.

But it appears that they haven't.

This is grounds for appeal on its own. The authority are required to provide you with a copy of the evidence on which they intend to rely at the hearing. So, when should this be and has it been delivered to you?

Will you please give us letters, dates and notices.
GreenEyes
On the 5th September I made reps to TH, you seen them
on 24ht Sept TH sent rejection notice (scanned above)
21st Oct my appeal was registered at PATAS (I did not keep a copy of my PATAS appeal form, as I never do, but reps are same as on 5th Sept with added failure to consider)
It was set to be heard on 21st November at 10 am (which I have to change now, due to work)

I have NOT received evidence pack from TH.

I would not be relying hard on authoruty sending evidence late, as last time they sent it late and adjudicator didnt consider it to be big deal. It might come tomorrow morning, giving them 3 days before the hearing..
GreenEyes
Still no evidence pack. What would the best action be in this case?
if i postpone the case they will get more time to provide evidence pack.. Can I go on my own, without hubby? Or call Patas and ask if they have evidence pack? Would it be bad if I call patas to reschedule the day before the hearing? Any suggestions?
GreenEyes
ok, being impatient, called PATAS, they still dont have evidence pack either, but they will only call tomorrow afternoon to say whether we need to attend..
Husband still wouldnt be able to attend on friday due to work, but I feel that I would have to as it looks too good a chance to miss. If PATAS dont have the pack then adjudicator might take this late service into account.. The question is, would they allow just me to attend?

Could anyone suggest any recent or best cases with failure to consider and late service? ( i think i should have the latter somewhere, but not failure to consider). If they call us tomorrow that we have to attend, then I would have very little time to prepare.
DancingDad
Call PATAS about evidence pack.

Yes you can attend without hubby, have a signed note authorising you to act on his behalf.

As much notice as possible to re schedule.

If you attend on Friday and no evidence pack has arrived, you win by default.
If PATAS has pack but you don't, they can postpone, give you time to read pack by delaying hearing.
GreenEyes
PATAS dont have evidence pack. what happens if they get it tomorrow? only giving 1 day before hearing? Do i just bring it to the adjudicators decision and hope for the best? Can anyone confirm the point of the wrong contravention code, is it the case?
DancingDad
Failure to consider cases can be found here:
PM me for email copy of the one I have
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1011763

All show similar to yours, failing to consider mitigation.
Remember, adjudicator cannot find on mitigation but can decide whether or not a council performed it's mandatory duty to consider all aspects of a challenge, including mitigation. So if adjudicator says they cannot find on mitigation say "Hey up Lad (lass)!!!"
Read what I put for Zee Aaz in that thread (couple of posts earlier), similar reasoning applies to your case.

On the evidence pack.
If it doesn't arrive before hearing, you win. Argue your right to a hearing and that if council cannot comply with rules they forfeit the right to challenge.
If it arrives late (tomorrow) you can argue same but as a PI as they failed to comply with either mandatory timing or the revised timing allowed by PATAS.
Adjudicator may take pragmatic view and postpone hearing to allow you time to read, still argue the PI but don't expect to win.
GreenEyes
Thanks for the info DD, I will take note of it for future cases, as I hope I wont need it for this one. PATAS called that no need to attend tomorrow as no evidence pack has been provided. They said adjudicator will decide whether to cancel or to adjourn. Can they still adjourn?? Hope not.
GreenEyes
Just an update. Case won as TH didnt produce an evidence pack. Thank you all guys for the support throughout all my cases. Hope there wont be another one soon smile.gif
Incandescent
Very well done ! Take care in future, as they are after your wallet.
DancingDad
Well done Greeneyes.
I think that you would have won anyway but by failing to provide the evidence TH made it certain.

May I suggest that you get hubby to take up collecting stamps instead of PCNs. smile.gif
mashkiach
If you enjoy rubbing it in ask for costs.
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.