Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Need advice desperately WON, congratulations! **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5636 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have a Blue Badge and parked behind the hospital where I had an appointment as there were no spaces in the disabled carpark and a huge queue to get in. I have parked on that same street before as do lots of other people and my badge was displayed correctly. When I came out I found a parking ticket (PCN) and after having had a diagnosis of cancer from the hospital this was an additional terrible blow as I’ve never had a ticket before, and I collapsed in the street.

 

There was a “no loading” restriction on the street for rush hour times but I was outside these times which is what I wrote in my letter of challenge to the council. I’ve had no reply from them and can’t get hold of anyone on the phone. However, when I looked at the ticket again it is a code 01 and not an 02 which I would have expected because of the “no loading” signs. How do I find out why this road is “restricted”; I did not see any signs and it’s a big wide road but only really busy at rush hour and it’s just outside the city centre. If it’s just restricted because of the yellow line then I was within my rights to park because of my badge.

 

I’m having an operation on 16 July and this extra stress is just not bearable. I’m retired and can’t afford to pay parking fines. If anyone can help with information on my chances of beating this ticket I’d be so grateful.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Blue Badge and parked behind the hospital where I had an appointment as there were no spaces in the disabled carpark and a huge queue to get in. I have parked on that same street before as do lots of other people and my badge was displayed correctly. When I came out I found a parking ticket (PCN) and after having had a diagnosis of cancer from the hospital this was an additional terrible blow as I’ve never had a ticket before, and I collapsed in the street.

 

There was a “no loading” restriction on the street for rush hour times but I was outside these times which is what I wrote in my letter of challenge to the council. I’ve had no reply from them and can’t get hold of anyone on the phone. However, when I looked at the ticket again it is a code 01 and not an 02 which I would have expected because of the “no loading” signs. How do I find out why this road is “restricted”; I did not see any signs and it’s a big wide road but only really busy at rush hour and it’s just outside the city centre. If it’s just restricted because of the yellow line then I was within my rights to park because of my badge.

 

I’m having an operation on 16 July and this extra stress is just not bearable. I’m retired and can’t afford to pay parking fines. If anyone can help with information on my chances of beating this ticket I’d be so grateful.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Hello rapunzel

 

write to the LA again and state that they have not replied to your letter as per protocol when dealing with matters concerning members of the public.

 

Also it maybe worth explaining your recent diagnosis ( btw i am in no way trying to patronise or belittle your predicament)

State that as a matter of urgency that this matter be cleared up asap as you have an emergency op and will be in no fit state to deal with this after.

 

Remind them that the contravention did not occur, ask to send photos and pocket book notes from the attendant and copies of the traffic order from the street if they still wish to pursue the ticket ( hopefully some numpty will see sense)

Get a letter from your local doctor and put it in with your letter to the LA

 

 

Also write to the chief executive of the LA, place a copy of the letter from your doctor explain what is happening and ask that he/she step in and cancell as a discretionary measure if need be.

 

 

Hope this helps,

 

Hope you get better soon.

 

Best wishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello rapunzel

 

write to the LA again and state that they have not replied to your letter as per protocol when dealing with matters concerning members of the public.

 

Also it maybe worth explaining your recent diagnosis ( btw i am in no way trying to patronise or belittle your predicament)

State that as a matter of urgency that this matter be cleared up asap as you have an emergency op and will be in no fit state to deal with this after.

 

Remind them that the contravention did not occur, ask to send photos and pocket book notes from the attendant and copies of the traffic order from the street if they still wish to pursue the ticket ( hopefully some numpty will see sense)

Get a letter from your local doctor and put it in with your letter to the LA

 

 

Also write to the chief executive of the LA, place a copy of the letter from your doctor explain what is happening and ask that he/she step in and cancell as a discretionary measure if need be.

 

 

Hope this helps,

 

Hope you get better soon.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

Also me thinks there should be something in the discretionary rules about appealants being in hospitial or have serious problems inasmuch as they cannot conduct an appeal due to ill health.

 

Lamma , green, anymore suggestions with this.!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nero 12 and thanks for your swift response and good wishes. I will do as you say and write to the Council again with the details you suggested. I did ring them just before I read your reply but could only speak to their call centre.(typical) The woman looked at my details and said my case was on hold, presumably because they are dealing with lots of cases. She made a note to say I had rung and was going into hospital and said I would just have to wait until they contacted me. Not easy with the op and up to 5 weeks of radiotherapy to look forward to!

 

I’ve been looking at Forum replies and it seems as if my PCN complies with the law so I can’t challenge it on those grounds but I did see that on the back it referred to serving a Notice to Owner but I’m not the owner as it’s a Motability car. As far as I know the owner and the registered keeper are the same in law but it’s just another example of these PCN’s being unclear.

 

But thanks again.

 

Rapunzel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Untill you get a reply from the Council it is anyones guess why you got a PCN. It could be anything from a problem with the badge (obscured, expired etc) to overstaying 3 hours or causing an obstruction.

 

Hello green and mean. Thanks for responding.

The Badge was correctly displayed, I’m sure of that and it doesn’t expire till December. The PCN says I was observed at 11.57 am and the notice issued at 12.03 so the officer couldn’t have known how long I was there for. I was parked well away from the entrance to the car park and not causing an obstruction but as you say, it’s anyone’s guess what the reasons were and I’ll just have to wait.

Rapunzel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you display the clock correctly set with the time of arrival?

 

I'm pretty certain I did but I was in a bit of a state as I was going for my test results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nero 12 and thanks for your swift response and good wishes. I will do as you say and write to the Council again with the details you suggested. I did ring them just before I read your reply but could only speak to their call centre.(typical) The woman looked at my details and said my case was on hold, presumably because they are dealing with lots of cases. She made a note to say I had rung and was going into hospital and said I would just have to wait until they contacted me. Not easy with the op and up to 5 weeks of radiotherapy to look forward to!

 

I’ve been looking at Forum replies and it seems as if my PCN complies with the law so I can’t challenge it on those grounds but I did see that on the back it referred to serving a Notice to Owner but I’m not the owner as it’s a Motability car. As far as I know the owner and the registered keeper are the same in law but it’s just another example of these PCN’s being unclear.

 

But thanks again.

 

Rapunzel

 

 

Hello rapunzel

 

Send the letters as suggested, if they hastle you any further then PM me I know a few people who maybe able to help further.

You need to concentrate on getting better, never mind the stupid ticket im sure the silly LA can cope without the rotten penalty money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not using the clock correctly would invalidate your badge if that was possibly the case.

 

Hello Green and mean. I've now received a letter from the Council replying to my first letter and saying my informal representation has been rejected and giving me a further 14 days (actually less than 14 days because it's from date of letter which was 10th July) to pay the reduced charge of £35.00.

 

There was a photograph enclosed which shows no time clock on the dashboard but I have spoken to my partner and he remembers getting both badges out of my bag and setting the time clock for me. I have never parked without putting the time clock up at the same time as Badge. It's just habit. I can only assume that it fell off. It was an extremely windy day and because of my disability I have to have the car door wide open to get out, plus it takes me some time to do so, so it's quite possible that the badge slipped off and I didn't notice it. I normally check the car when I'm out to make sure everything's as it should be but that day my mind was on the cancer disgnosis.

 

The photo of my car just shows the windscreen so there's no proof that it really is my car, apart from the colour.

 

I've been reading up on as much as I can about the subject and some non-disabled people have had their appeals allowed because their car park tickets fell off the windscreen or got covered up.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act says:

 

" Every public authority shall in carrying out its functions have due regard to

 

......"(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons."

 

So if non-disabled people can be let off because of tickets falling from where they were placed surely they cannot treat a disabled person less favourably?

 

Other councils, such as Trafford Council say:

 

"We are not out to punish people who make genuine mistakes, to these people we issue advisory notices, which will hopefully help them to understand what is required in the future. We wish to catch people who risk spoiling the scheme for others by deliberately breaking the rules."

 

If Trafford can issue advisory notices for first offences why can't my authority (Liverpool) do so!

 

Sorry this is so long but I wanted to include everything as I'm going into hospital tomorrow, I don't know how long for, and this penalty charge is hanging over me when I should be just trying to be positive about my surgery. I don't know whether I should go ahead and pay this charge while it's £35 as if I leave it and appeal it will go up to £75which I can't afford as I've just retired.

 

Thanks to everyone who's helped me so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Green and mean. I've now received a letter from the Council replying to my first letter and saying my informal representation has been rejected and giving me a further 14 days (actually less than 14 days because it's from date of letter which was 10th July) to pay the reduced charge of £35.00.

 

There was a photograph enclosed which shows no time clock on the dashboard but I have spoken to my partner and he remembers getting both badges out of my bag and setting the time clock for me. I have never parked without putting the time clock up at the same time as Badge. It's just habit. I can only assume that it fell off. It was an extremely windy day and because of my disability I have to have the car door wide open to get out, plus it takes me some time to do so, so it's quite possible that the badge slipped off and I didn't notice it. I normally check the car when I'm out to make sure everything's as it should be but that day my mind was on the cancer disgnosis.

 

The photo of my car just shows the windscreen so there's no proof that it really is my car, apart from the colour.

 

I've been reading up on as much as I can about the subject and some non-disabled people have had their appeals allowed because their car park tickets fell off the windscreen or got covered up.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act says:

 

" Every public authority shall in carrying out its functions have due regard to

 

......"(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons."

 

So if non-disabled people can be let off because of tickets falling from where they were placed surely they cannot treat a disabled person less favourably?

 

Other councils, such as Trafford Council say:

 

"We are not out to punish people who make genuine mistakes, to these people we issue advisory notices, which will hopefully help them to understand what is required in the future. We wish to catch people who risk spoiling the scheme for others by deliberately breaking the rules."

 

If Trafford can issue advisory notices for first offences why can't my authority (Liverpool) do so!

 

Sorry this is so long but I wanted to include everything as I'm going into hospital tomorrow, I don't know how long for, and this penalty charge is hanging over me when I should be just trying to be positive about my surgery. I don't know whether I should go ahead and pay this charge while it's £35 as if I leave it and appeal it will go up to £75which I can't afford as I've just retired.

 

Thanks to everyone who's helped me so far.

Send this ,post it signed for.

 

(your address) ...............................

 

 

...........................

 

...................

 

(postcode ) ...............

 

 

 

.......................................... (name and address of local authority)

 

..........................................

 

..........................................

 

..........................................

 

 

.......................................... (Date)

 

 

PCN No. ……………………..

 

Vehicle Reg.No. ……………………..

 

Date of Issue of PCN ……………………..

 

 

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

It appears that you have not considered my informal appeal.

I have already explained that ( whatever may have happened)

I understand that under the RTA 1991 and the TMA 2004 the secretary of state has given local authorities powers of discretion. I believe this is such a case where discretion should be used. If however you continue to refuse your powers of discretion in this matter, could you please explain why.

 

 

If it is the case that discretion is arbitrary and dependent on the whim of the Appeals Officer on the day then this could clearly constitute discrimination pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

 

 

Therefore could you please enclose a copy of the ( name of La)

Policy document regarding your Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime, and in particular any references to the application of discretion. If you do not have such a policy document then please provide an explanation as to why not, and please therefore provide copies of any Policy Documents which deal with Disability Discrimination.

 

 

Also under the freedom of information could you please provide the following

 

 

1 the number of PCNs cancelled where discretion has been applied at the informal appeal stage;

2 the number of PCNs issued for Blue Badge contraventions;

3 the number of PCNs cancelled after informal representations regarding matters arising from Blue Badge contraventions;

4copies of any adjudication decisions where the failure to correctly display / set clock Blue Badge issue has been an issue.

 

Pleas treat this letter as part of my informal representations with the relevant discount.

 

 

Alternatively you may wish to consider cancelling the ticket on this occasion

 

 

I look forward to your response in accordance with guidelines on responding to communications from members of the public.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

...................................................

 

 

Green please side with me on this mate, this is a money making exercise on the part of the LA. No need aye.

 

 

PS if anyone can improve this letter then please do.

 

many thanx

Edited by nero12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir / Madam,

It appears that you have not considered my informal appeal.

I have already explained that ( whatever may have happened)

I understand that under the RTA 1991 and the TMA 2004 the secretary of state has given local authorities powers of discretion. I believe this is such a case where discretion should be used. If however you continue to refuse your powers of discretion in this matter, could you please explain why.

 

 

If it is the case that discretion is arbitrary and dependent on the whim of the Appeals Officer on the day then this could clearly constitute discrimination pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

 

 

Therefore could you please enclose a copy of the ( name of La)

Policy document regarding your Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime, and in particular any references to the application of discretion. If you do not have such a policy document then please provide an explanation as to why not, and please therefore provide copies of any Policy Documents which deal with Disability Discrimination.

 

 

Also under the freedom of information could you please provide the following

 

 

1 the number of PCNs cancelled where discretion has been applied at the informal appeal stage;

2 the number of PCNs issued for Blue Badge contraventions;

3 the number of PCNs cancelled after informal representations regarding matters arising from Blue Badge contraventions;

4copies of any adjudication decisions where the failure to correctly display / set clock Blue Badge issue has been an issue.

 

Pleas treat this letter as part of my informal representations with the relevant discount.

 

 

Alternatively you may wish to consider cancelling the ticket on this occasion

 

 

I look forward to your response in accordance with guidelines on responding to communications from members of the public.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

...................................................

 

 

Green please side with me on this mate, this is a money making exercise on the part of the LA. No need aye.

 

 

PS if anyone can improve this letter then please do.

 

many thanx

 

You cannot usually make repeated informal represenations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have.

Hello rapunzel

try sending this letter back to the LA( green your probably right about the repeat letter but I have done it)

 

rapunzel also report them to your local gouvernment ombudsmen And send a letter to the chief executive of your Local authority to see if you can get them jobsworths off your back.

 

Post what happens.

 

good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Nero and Green, brilliant letter. If I have time tomorrow I'll get it typed before I go in to hospital. My letter from Council say they won't enter into any further correspondence before NTO but no harm in me writing to them again.

 

I'll be in touch later. Time for bed now.

 

Cheers,

Rapunzel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Nero and Green, brilliant letter. If I have time tomorrow I'll get it typed before I go in to hospital. My letter from Council say they won't enter into any further correspondence before NTO but no harm in me writing to them again.

 

I'll be in touch later. Time for bed now.

 

Cheers,

Rapunzel

Dont forget, report them to the Local gouvernment ombudsmen and the chief exec for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council policy ? who cares ?

See the NPAS 2004 report

 

The Council’s discretion

 

Councils have discretion to decide at any stage in the proceedings not to enforce a PCN

even if, technically, it was correctly issued. Many Councils need no reminding about this

and give real thought to exercising their discretion in cases involving disabled drivers.

Indeed most (though not all) have a policy of cancelling at least the first PCN issued for

displaying a valid badge upside down or in other circumstances where the Blue Badge

holder has contravened inadvertently and it is obvious that no abuse of the scheme has

taken place.

While such practices are sensible and commendable, each case must nevertheless be

considered on its own merits, including the particular facts of the original incident

compared to the one now being considered. As the Chief Adjudicator emphasised in

NG 254:

■ The purpose of the Blue Badge Scheme is to provide exemptions from parking

restrictions and some payments for those with severe mobility problems.

■ There is a general public duty to be sensitive towards those with disabilities and to

recognise that it may take some people longer to adapt to new procedures than

others. For the same reason it may be more difficult for some drivers to check how

their badge is displayed.

■ While it is recognised that there is considerable abuse of the scheme, Councils must

nevertheless always examine the evidence in the particular case to see whether, had

it not been for the minor transgression, the appellant would otherwise have been

entitled to the benefit of the exemption.

Some Councils have put in place a more formal system of issuing a warning notice

rather than a PCN the first time such a contravention occurs. In TR 191 the Council

decided not to contest the appeal when it realised that it had, in error, issued a PCN

which had not been preceded by a warning notice. The appellant’s subsequent

application for costs was refused.

Badge holders must be prepared to comply with the Council’s reasonable investigations

when the exercise of discretion is being considered. In SN 169, the vehicle was parked

with no badge on display. The Council said it would consider exercising its discretion if

the appellant produced a copy of his badge but, despite being a genuine badge holder,

the appellant did not do so. The appeal was dismissed.

With many Councils handling issues of discretion involving disabled drivers so sensibly

and sensitively, it is disappointing that a minority continue to take an extremely hard

line with Blue Badge holders, which many Adjudicators consider to be wholly

unjustified in the context of decriminalised parking.

In CF 242 (an appeal which was allowed following consideration of the evidence

because the contravention had not been properly established), the Adjudicator said:

"Whilst a Parking Attendant cannot ascertain whether the badge is valid when only the photograph

side is showing such that a PCN can reasonably be issued, it is nevertheless surprising when a

Council refuses to cancel the PCN once they are satisfied that the badge is indeed valid and that it

was the badge on display at the time of the incident."

In PL 1189 (appeal dismissed) and PL 1515 (appeal allowed) the Adjudicators found it

necessary to remind Plymouth Council of its power to exercise discretion. Similarly, in

BP 90, where the evidence showed that although the badge had been displayed the clock

had fallen down, the Adjudicator dismissed the appeal but said: "Some Councils have a

policy of exercising their discretion favourably towards disabled motorists for a first contravention

where (as here) the error was unintentional – on the basis that a second similar contravention would

be less likely to receive sympathetic consideration. I do not know whether Blackpool Council have

such a policy, or whether the Appellant would on this occasion be covered by it – but I remind the

Council that, having established that the PCN was correctly issued, they retain a discretion to waive

the penalty charge in appropriate cases."

In PL 1205 the Adjudicator (having allowed the appeal for other reasons) said that "the

Council should not be seeking to issue PCNs to holders of valid disabled permits where it is clear that

some confusion or error has occurred and that no abuse of the scheme has occurred. This is clearly

not what the decriminalised parking enforcement powers were intended for."

NPAS hopes that the minority of Councils who follow such unrelenting policies in

relation to Blue Badge holders will in due course see fit to revise them.

The Adjudicators recognise that Councils have a difficult task in dealing with abuse

of the Blue Badge Scheme. However the complex problems involved in parking

control and enforcement should not have the effect of frustrating the purpose of

the scheme. An open and structured system for the consideration of

representations relating to disability will ensure that Local Authorities are seen to

be actively promoting equal treatment.

 

In order that challenges in relation

to contraventions of the Blue Badge

Scheme can be responded to by

Local Authorities in a robust

manner, Adjudicators recommend

that all Local Authorities ;

1. Ensure that all staff involved in

the parking enforcement process

receive relevant and regular

training in relation to the

operation of the Blue Badge

Scheme and that such training

encourages and supports a

sound understanding of

disability issues.

2. Formulate clear and concise

protocols and guidance for

dealing with representations

based on disability, and ensure

that they are implemented,

monitored and reviewed at

operational level within parking

departments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council policy ? who cares ?

See the NPAS 2004 report

 

The Council’s discretion

 

Councils have discretion to decide at any stage in the proceedings not to enforce a PCN

even if, technically, it was correctly issued. Many Councils need no reminding about this

and give real thought to exercising their discretion in cases involving disabled drivers.

Indeed most (though not all) have a policy of cancelling at least the first PCN issued for

displaying a valid badge upside down or in other circumstances where the Blue Badge

holder has contravened inadvertently and it is obvious that no abuse of the scheme has

taken place.

While such practices are sensible and commendable, each case must nevertheless be

considered on its own merits, including the particular facts of the original incident

compared to the one now being considered. As the Chief Adjudicator emphasised in

NG 254:

■ The purpose of the Blue Badge Scheme is to provide exemptions from parking

restrictions and some payments for those with severe mobility problems.

■ There is a general public duty to be sensitive towards those with disabilities and to

recognise that it may take some people longer to adapt to new procedures than

others. For the same reason it may be more difficult for some drivers to check how

their badge is displayed.

■ While it is recognised that there is considerable abuse of the scheme, Councils must

nevertheless always examine the evidence in the particular case to see whether, had

it not been for the minor transgression, the appellant would otherwise have been

entitled to the benefit of the exemption.

Some Councils have put in place a more formal system of issuing a warning notice

rather than a PCN the first time such a contravention occurs. In TR 191 the Council

decided not to contest the appeal when it realised that it had, in error, issued a PCN

which had not been preceded by a warning notice. The appellant’s subsequent

application for costs was refused.

Badge holders must be prepared to comply with the Council’s reasonable investigations

when the exercise of discretion is being considered. In SN 169, the vehicle was parked

with no badge on display. The Council said it would consider exercising its discretion if

the appellant produced a copy of his badge but, despite being a genuine badge holder,

the appellant did not do so. The appeal was dismissed.

With many Councils handling issues of discretion involving disabled drivers so sensibly

and sensitively, it is disappointing that a minority continue to take an extremely hard

line with Blue Badge holders, which many Adjudicators consider to be wholly

unjustified in the context of decriminalised parking.

In CF 242 (an appeal which was allowed following consideration of the evidence

because the contravention had not been properly established), the Adjudicator said:

"Whilst a Parking Attendant cannot ascertain whether the badge is valid when only the photograph

side is showing such that a PCN can reasonably be issued, it is nevertheless surprising when a

Council refuses to cancel the PCN once they are satisfied that the badge is indeed valid and that it

was the badge on display at the time of the incident."

In PL 1189 (appeal dismissed) and PL 1515 (appeal allowed) the Adjudicators found it

necessary to remind Plymouth Council of its power to exercise discretion. Similarly, in

BP 90, where the evidence showed that although the badge had been displayed the clock

had fallen down, the Adjudicator dismissed the appeal but said: "Some Councils have a

policy of exercising their discretion favourably towards disabled motorists for a first contravention

where (as here) the error was unintentional – on the basis that a second similar contravention would

be less likely to receive sympathetic consideration. I do not know whether Blackpool Council have

such a policy, or whether the Appellant would on this occasion be covered by it – but I remind the

Council that, having established that the PCN was correctly issued, they retain a discretion to waive

the penalty charge in appropriate cases."

In PL 1205 the Adjudicator (having allowed the appeal for other reasons) said that "the

Council should not be seeking to issue PCNs to holders of valid disabled permits where it is clear that

some confusion or error has occurred and that no abuse of the scheme has occurred. This is clearly

not what the decriminalised parking enforcement powers were intended for."

NPAS hopes that the minority of Councils who follow such unrelenting policies in

relation to Blue Badge holders will in due course see fit to revise them.

The Adjudicators recognise that Councils have a difficult task in dealing with abuse

of the Blue Badge Scheme. However the complex problems involved in parking

control and enforcement should not have the effect of frustrating the purpose of

the scheme. An open and structured system for the consideration of

representations relating to disability will ensure that Local Authorities are seen to

be actively promoting equal treatment.

 

In order that challenges in relation

to contraventions of the Blue Badge

Scheme can be responded to by

Local Authorities in a robust

manner, Adjudicators recommend

that all Local Authorities ;

1. Ensure that all staff involved in

the parking enforcement process

receive relevant and regular

training in relation to the

operation of the Blue Badge

Scheme and that such training

encourages and supports a

sound understanding of

disability issues.

2. Formulate clear and concise

protocols and guidance for

dealing with representations

based on disability, and ensure

that they are implemented,

monitored and reviewed at

operational level within parking

departments.

Thanx lamma, green I thought you may atleast conceed on this one mate.

This is precisely what brings DPE into total disrepute. It makes a mokery of the discretionary rules and makes the Local authorities appear to be incompetent at best, unkind, vivdictive , abusive and money grabbing at worst.

I feel very disapointed somtimes that this occurs, especialy as it appears to be only a damn stamp to them!!! Very inkind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx lamma, green I thought you may atleast conceed on this one mate.

This is precisely what brings DPE into total disrepute. It makes a mokery of the discretionary rules and makes the Local authorities appear to be incompetent at best, unkind, vivdictive , abusive and money grabbing at worst.

I feel very disapointed somtimes that this occurs, especialy as it appears to be only a damn stamp to them!!! Very inkind.

 

 

Read this, an adjudication overturned and the lack of discretion deemed as Unlawfull..

 

 

Penalty Charge Notice BC3003710A

The Appellant’s application for a Review of the Decision of the Adjudicator is hereby granted.

The Appellant’s appeal is now allowed on the ground that, on the facts of this case, the Council’s exercise of their discretion to pursue payment of this penalty charge was not a proper and lawful exercise of discretion.

I now direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

I refer the parties to the Adjournment Directions of the Adjudicator, Mr David Binns, dated 24 October 2006, the Decision of Mr Binns, dated 11 December 2006 and my Directions dated 25 January 2007.

In his Decision dated 11 December 2006, although Mr Binns dismissed the Appellant’s appeal (because he was satisfied that the contravention occurred) he stated as follows:

“The information supplied by the Council in relation to the exercise of discretion in cases

of incorrectly displayed disabled persons parking permits, has the effect of fettering the

Council’s discretion. This is likely to give rise to injustice and in the case of Mr

XXXXXXX I am satisfied that it will do so if the PCN is further enforced”.

In the light of that, the Appellant applied for a Review of Mr Binns’ Decision and, despite my Directions dated 25 January 2007, the Council have now stated that they still wish to pursue payment of this penalty charge.

In the circumstances, I will now deal with the Appellant’s application for a Review, which is made on the basis that he did not receive a copy of the Council’s letter of 2 November 2006, which was before Mr Binns, when he made his decision to dismiss the appeal. The Council accept that they did not copy their letter of 2 November 2006 to the Appellant and, consequently, the

Appellant feels aggrieved that the information in this letter should have been taken into

consideration by Mr Binns in reaching his Decision.

The facts of the matter are not in dispute. In that respect, the contravention alleged against the Appellant is that his vehicle was parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without

Page 2 of 3

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BC 05063H

clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge. The Appellant is in fact the holder of a valid disabled badge, which was valid at the time, and, as can be seen from the Parking Attendant’s photographs, the disabled badge was on display on the dashboard of the Appellant’s vehicle.

However, a substantial proportion of it was covered by the Appellant’s personal papers, as a result of which the details on it (ie date and serial number) could not be read from outside of the vehicle. Furthermore, it is also agreed and accepted that the Council cancelled a previous Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) of their own volition in September 2005 because the Appellant had omitted to display his badge properly on that occasion.The Council have a policy that, although a disabled driver will be given one chance, he is not given any further chances and, consequently, the Council decided to pursue payment from him

in this case. In that respect, in the Council’s email dated 5 March 2007, the Council state:

“However I disagree that The Council fetters it’s decision in relation to motorists who are

holders of disabled badges who receive PCNs. Each case is still viewed on its individual

merits prior to considering whether the production of a disabled badge has resulted in a

previous PCN being cancelled”.

The Council always have a discretion whether or not to pursue payment of a penalty charge, even if a contravention occurs. However, that discretion must be exercised properly and fairly in each individual case and any policy, formulated to assist in the exercise of that discretion, must

be flexible and should not fetter the discretion in any way. I have no doubt that the Council would agree with this statement.

However, in the context of this case, they maintain that they exercised their discretion properly and fairly and that their policy of only giving disabled drivers one chance does not fetter this discretion.

With respect to the Council and on the basis of the evidence before me in this case, I disagree. In that respect, when the Appellant first wrote to the Council in this matter, he received a reply from National Car Parks, specifically written on behalf of the Council, dated 20 June 2006. In that letter, National Car Parks state as follows:

“Unfortunately, as the badge has been produced previously on 15 September 2005, I am

unable to consider cancelling the above Notice”.

The very wording of this reply ie. “I am unable to consider” flies in the face of the Council’s contention that their policy is not fettered and is flexible. In my mind, these very words make it clear that, because of this earlier cancellation, there is simply no question of any subsequent PCN being considered for cancellation.

Furthermore, in the Council’s letter of 17 August 2006, having set out the circumstances and the fact that a previous PCN was cancelled, the author of the letter states:

“I cannot consider this case for cancellation”.

Again, the very words used, ie. “cannot” indicates that there is simply no question of

consideration being given to a cancellation in this case.

Furthermore, in their Advisory Leaflet to disabled drivers, which the Council have produced, they

state: “If you have already had one or more penalty notices whilst using this disabled parking badge, we will not cancel this one”.

Page 3 of 3

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BC 05063H

Again, the use of the words “will not” do not recognise the existence of a discretion and are completely inconsistent with the Council’s contention that their policy is nevertheless not fettered and inflexible. I make it clear that, in any case, the Council are entitled to exercise their discretion and that, if that discretion has been properly exercised, an Adjudicator has no power or authority to interfere with it. Furthermore, I also make it clear that I accept that an Adjudicator himself has no similar power to exercise discretion and allow an appeal on the ground of mitigating or extenuating circumstances alone.

However, that discretion, which is vested in the Council, must be exercised fairly and properly in each case. Furthermore, as Mr Binns pointed out in his Decision dated 11 December 2006, the Special Report from the Local Government Ombudsman made it clear that Councils must not fetter their discretion. Indeed, in the case of Walmsley v. Transport for London and Others

[2005] EWCA Civ. 1540, Lord Justice Sedley confirmed that, although a Council may adopt a policy to assist them in the exercise of their discretion, that discretion nevertheless still had to be applied flexibly and must not be formulaic.

In the circumstances and on the evidence before me in this case, I am satisfied that the this case did not exercise their discretion properly, fairly and with flexibility and, accordingly, the Council in exercise by the Council of their discretion was unlawful.

For the above reasons, therefore, I grant the Appellant’s application for a Review of Mr Binns’ Decision dated 11 December 2006, which Decision I hereby revoke. Furthermore,for the above reasons, I now allow the Appellant’s appeal and now direct that the PCN and Notice to Owner be cancelled.

Clifton Barker

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: March 28 2007

Green how many more times do I and lammy have to shout !! It is unlawfull, ruled upon simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this, an adjudication overturned and the lack of discretion deemed as Unlawfull..

Green how many more times do I and lammy have to shout !! It is unlawfull, ruled upon simple as that.

 

Its unlawful not to consider discretion which is not the case here the Council does not feel its appropriate to let the OP off a correctly issued PCN. In the case you quoted the Council stated discretion would NOT be used as the driver had already been let off before .... a completely different scenario. If it was compulsory to use discretion no one would ever pay a fine as everyone could dream up some form of mitigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its unlawful not to consider discretion which is not the case here the Council does not feel its appropriate to let the OP off a correctly issued PCN. In the case you quoted the Council stated discretion would NOT be used as the driver had already been let off before .... a completely different scenario. If it was compulsory to use discretion no one would ever pay a fine as everyone could dream up some form of mitigation.

what are you on about.

It would be correctly pursued if the op subsequently could not provide details of a blue badge. This is not the case a blue badge can be produced this then should be the end of the matter .It is not fake, stolen or othewrwise missused the LA can easly check. It seems however they are choosing not to, to persue this ticket in my opinion becomes vexatious, intimidating unfair and ultimately as I have shown here as unlawful. All with the aim of one thing, money. Double or quits run the risk of appealing and we will double your fine , never mind fairness.

 

Green after deatils of the blue badge have been produced, directives from the secretary of state produced , adjudications galore, and key adjudications that have been overturned at what point in DPE would discretion be used if not here.

Edited by nero12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very helpful to rapunzel

 

green so you advise to shut up and payup, furthermore dont post on here with your sobstory.

 

The OP can follow what ever choice he chooses but the idea that anyone who produces a blue badge after failing to display it should be let off is ludicrous and would make the scheme even less enforceable than it currently is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5636 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...