Hackney Council Parked with a valid ticket, blew off dash after I left car.

[s_i]

Hi,

 

I received a penalty notice as my parking ticket was in the foot well when I returned to my car.

 

Here's the notice & ticket:

 

I then challenged the ticket following an example letter used successfully here

(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?389602-Have-a-local-authority-parking-ticket). This was my challenge description:

 

"I would like to appeal the penalty charge served upon me.

 

Enclosed is a copy of the Pay & Display ticket that I purchased and displayed for inspection. It can clearly be seen that I paid the appropriate fee and that the ticket was valid when the officer inspected my vehicle. Unfortunately, at some point during my absence from the vehicle, the ticket somehow became dislodged from where it had been clearly displayed and fell into the foot well. I accept that your officer could not have known this and acted accordingly.

 

However, now that the ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear that I did not avoid payment of the parking fee or that I had parked beyond time paid for. The only purpose a ticket needs to be displayed is to enable an officer to distinguish between those that have paid for parking and those that have not and those who have exceeded the time paid for. The ticket produced clearly shows that had your officer seen my ticket at the time of inspection that there would be no need to serve a penalty charge notice.

 

The only remaining issue is whether the fact that the ticket was not clearly displayed at the time of inspection warrants the council taking a hard line and upholding the penalty charge. I believe that for the council to take such a stance would be contrary to the advice of the DfT and the Secretary of State.

 

As a valid ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear to any reasonable person that it would not be in the public interest to penalise a person who paid the required fee and did nothing to the detriment of the public interest. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation where paragraph 85 applies than this. I therefore politely request that the council act fairly and proportionately in this matter and exercise their discretion sensibly and reasonably by cancelling this penalty charge. It would be best for all if we can resolve this without the need to seek independent adjudication."

 

I have now received the following response from Hackney:

 

Does anyone have any advice on whether this is worth pursuing - I wouldn't be able to take any time off work, so if that was going to be a requirement for challenging this further, it's not really an option for me. That said, I do feel like this is really unfair and am keen to pursue on principle.

 

Appreciate any help!

 

Many thanks

Simon

[Jamberson]

In my view, probably not worth fighting from here because in doing so you will be giving up the discount, and the chances of winning are slim.

 

It's a pity you didn't post for advice before the sending off that letter. Although you say it was used successfully, I would be surprised if the other PCN was cancelled as a result. You'd have been better off with a simple, apologetic letter acknowlegding the error. Still, not much you can do now.

[s_i]

Thanks, I think you're probably right.

[TheBogsDollocks]

The letter you used was composed by me and it has resulted in many successes, mainly on the pepipoo forum. In your case the council chose to play poker and rejected you with a generic rejection template letter. Notice that their rejection letter does not actually comment on the specifics of your appeal letter. They can afford to play poker but most appellants cannot afford to gamble losing the discount. Not exactly a level playing field is it!

[p3t3r]

Can a payment be made 'under dispute' so as to not lose the discount, whilst the appeal is being looked at?

[Michael Browne]

Can a payment be made 'under dispute' so as to not lose the discount, whilst the appeal is being looked at?

No, payment is looked on as acceptance that the contravention occurred.

[Jamberson]

I don't quite agree Michael. I don't think it's looked on as anything - it's just like a bill being paid, but without any inferences from the fact of payment. Nevertheless, it wouldn't work as a tactic to preserve a discount. You either appeal or pay - doing both is just plain daft!

 

More to the point though - cases and discounts are put on hold while appeals are being considered, so there's no need to pay at all until the appeal decision is known.

[p3t3r]

Yes, doing both is just plain daft, Jamberson!

 

But paying and stipulating that the payment is being made under dispute whilst the appeal is being sorted out should be perfectly fine to do?

 

Payment Under Dispute - for the purpose of not losing the discount should the appeal not be successful.

 

Perhaps I am totally wrong in this. See what others say.

[Michael Browne]

 

But paying and stipulating that the payment is being made under dispute whilst the appeal is being sorted out should be perfectly fine to do?

 

Payment Under Dispute - for the purpose of not losing the discount should the appeal not be successful.

 

.

The moment payment is made the council will consider the matter over, which closes any further avenues of appeal, either formal representation in response to the NtO (which, of course the council would not send) or to adjudication

[Jamberson]

Yes, and they hold it if you appeal anyway.

[TheBogsDollocks]

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Strauss%20v%20Royal%20Borough%20of%20Kensington.doc