Need advice on Tameside Council and appeal

[hhh_88873]

I recently got a ticket for overstaying by 11 minutes on a Tameside Council car park.

 

I was parked, I did overstay, and thats not disputed by me at all.

 

I initially parked at a doctors surgery, arrived in plenty of time for my (then 3 month) sons innoculation jabs.

 

Paid for an hours parking which would have been ample for the purposes of this appointment.

 

My son had the jabs and very swiftly had a bad reaction to them and the doctor told me he did not want us leaving the doctors surgery for another 30 minutes as he wanted to keep an eye and observations on my son for safeties sake.

 

Due to not being medically allowed to leave until the doctor said so, I was legitimately 11 minutes late back to the car and had a ticket.

 

I initially appealed via email explaining that due to completely unpredictable medical reasons I physicaly was not able to return to the car in time.

 

This was rejected and I was told to wait for a notice to owner before I appealed again.

 

I waited for this and in the meantime got an email from the doctor confirming there was no way I could have returned to the car on his explicit instructions.

 

I also included the letter confirming my sons appointment and the parking stub proving I had paid for what usually would have been an ample amount of time.

 

When the notice to owner arrived I again appealed with their form and included the evidence.

 

The council again rejected it saying I should have foreseen the occurrence (this despite the doctor saying it could not reasonably have been foreseen) and put more time on the parking to start with.

 

They did however offer to keep the ticket at the discounted 50% rate for another 14 days.

 

At this point I was under the impression that they are meant to provide means to appeal to the independent ombudsman for parking disputes but they have failed to give me this information or paper work.

 

I rang them and they said I had to wait again until they send out another notice to owner (which funnily enough means it would be after the discount period has expired) and then they will give me the form to appeal to the adjudicator.

 

The information I have read though states that at this point they should already have given me this form and I feel I have a very strong moral case being their own website states legitimate medical reasons which stop you from returning are considered valid grounds for an appeal.

 

Im now in the middle of the discount period wavering as to whether I should give in and pay the £25 or fight the moral battle which the doctors surgery have pledged their support and try to take it further?

[Jamberson]

Have you actually been issued with a document called a Notice to Owner? Or is it titled Notice of Rejection?

 

If they have issued a Notice to Owner, they seem to be not following the correct process which is grounds for appeal in itself.

 

In any case, I would take it to the adjudicator if I were you - can you clarify what document you have and I'll tell you how I'd play it.

[hhh_88873]

First email I got was entitled "notice of rejection of challenge"

Then I got the physical notice to owner to which I replied with the appeal paperwork they gave me.

 

They rejected that appeal thusly - further to your returned notice to owner after careful consideration of the circumstances the council have found no grounds for the cancellation of the charge.

 

The charge was correctly issued. Your vehicle was parked in a pay and display car park but was not displaying a valid ticket as the time had expired.

 

Penalty charges are not issued the moment the parking time paid for runs out and your reasons are therefore not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the charge.

 

When using a pay and display car park the motorist should determine the amount of time required.

 

Such a decision needs to encompass the possibility that an appointment may be delayed postponed or over run for any number of reasons.

 

While the council is not unsympathetic to your circumstances I regret that the delayed appointment and the explanation provided does not alter the fact that a contravention occurred.

 

As a gesture of goodwill the council will allow you to make a reduced payment of £25 If paid within 14 days from the date of this letter.

 

Should the council not receive the payment a notice of rejection will be sent to you at which point the full fee of £50 will be due.

 

The notice of rejection explains how you can appeal to the independent adjudicator should you wish to take it further.

 

 

So they're under the belief that it was a delayed appointment whereas in the appeal I explained quite clearly my son had a reaction and seizure which is a legitimate medical emergency and I was required to remain by the doctor.

 

Seems to me that haven't made any attempt to actually read the appeal

[Jamberson]

I see, so they are basically looking to issue two Notices of Rejection - the one you have, which offers a discount - and if you don't pay, they will issue another asking for the full amount and the option of going to the adjudicator.

 

This is not normal, I don't think. I don't see why they would send two notices - just one, detailing any payment options.

 

Although that might be outside normal protocol, I don't think it's much to go with in terms of impropriety. Your original appeal and the circumstances seem strong enough on their own.

 

I will have to post back later today as I don't have time right now, but I'll tell you what I think this evening.

 

Hi again. So, I'm going to suggest an approach to the adjudicator, which I think has around a 75 percent chance of winning. If you go ahead, you will be forfeiting the £25 discount currently available and will be appealing the full charge. If it were me, I think I would challenge it purely because of the point of principle - but it's your decision to make.

 

I would appeal on the grounds that the council has made a procedural impropriety - because they did not properly consider the basis of your appeal. I would outline the case something like this:

 

Explain the situation - point out that you paid for an hour, when the expected time would be around 10 minutes, so you knew you had plenty of time to spare.

 

Then explain that AFTER the appointment, when you should have been heading off, the bad reaction occurred and that doctor's orders were to stay - this is an unforseen medical emergency and you had no real choice.

 

Bring up your email from the doctor and include a copy of it as evidence.

 

At this point you can bring up, as you put it, "their own website states legitimate medical reasons which stop you from returning are considered valid grounds for an appeal." (Quote it exactly, word for word)

 

Now you get to the nitty gritty - rather than understand that this was both unforseen and a medical emergency, they responded to your appeal by stating that you should have foreseen the occurrence and paid for even more time in advance. This is entirely unreasonable, as medical emergencies are not predictable in advance, and in any respect your actions that day allowed for perhaps 50 minutes surplus paid parking in case of routine delays.

 

Quote their sentence, "Such a decision needs to encompass the possibility that an appointment may be delayed postponed or over run for any number of reasons." - which demonstrates that they are treating the medical emergency as if it were an overrun appointment, which is contrary to the account you gave them to consider. The appointment did no overrun - something else happened after the appointment.

 

And finally, I would then say something like, the Council appears to be ignoring the medical emergency aspect of the case, and wilfully interpreting this as negligence on the driver's part, inasmuch as the driver didn't overpay even more than he did for his parking. This leads to the conclusion that the council is seeking to exploit this unfortunate situation for their own material gain, and not being fair and reasonable to the appellant, including adhering to their own guidelines. By doing so, and ignoring the substance of your appeal, they are acting improperly.

 

-- that's how I'd play it - and I think you have a good chance.

[hhh_88873]

Well Im having to wait for their next letter now, they certainly dont seem to be inclined to furnish me with the paper work required to take it to the ombudsman do they

[hhh_88873]

Ok so update to this, my final appeal to the council has been rejected and they have finally furnished me with tribunal forms.

 

My letter being included with the forms reads as follows.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Please accept this letter as an outline of my case reference above. I apologise for not writing in the enclosed form but having a broken hand at the moment I am struggling to write for long periods.

 

I accept I parked in the car park in question.

 

I accept I over ran the period paid for.

 

I accept I paid for an hour of parking and displayed the ticket correctly.

 

My appeal is based on two points, one of which is covered under appeal section C, whereupon the council have incorrectly interpreted the initial appeal basis and therefore have not correctly responded to the original appeal and secondly based upon 'compelling reasons' of a very simple moral nature that have been proven, accepted and yet dismissed by Tameside Council, demonstrating a complete disregard to a 3 month old babies welfare, and that of a tax paying citizen in the Tameside Borough.

 

The case is outlined as follows.

 

On the 30th December 2015 I parked my company Land Rover in the Mill street car park in Mossley.

 

I paid for an hours parking expiring at 1417 hours and attended an appointment with my 3 month old son to have his inoculation injections.

 

This appointment was at 1315 and we attended on time, with the projected period of the appointment being between 15 and possibly 30 minuted, thus the hour of parking I paid for should have been more than ample to cover all reasonable eventualities.

 

My son had his jabs and while preparing to leave he suffered an extreme reaction to the injections.

 

This reaction was severe and required us to remain at the doctors surgery, with the possibility of needing an ambulance being discussed.

 

I was instructed in no uncertain terms by the Doctor who examined my son to remain at the surgery so my son could be observed for safeties sake.

 

We were forced to remain for my sons welfare and due to this extreme, impossible to predict and unforeseen medical emergency I was physically unable to return to the vehicle until we were permitted to leave the doctors surgery and returned to my vehicle just after 1430.

 

We found that a mere 11 minutes after the ending of my paid time, a ticket had been issued on my vehicle.

 

Obviously I appealed to the council, providing evidence of the appointment and the circumstances regarding my inability to return to the vehicle.

 

Tameside Council have rejected the appeal on the basis that a scheduled appointment should be foreseen to run over for a number of circumstances.

 

However in the rejection of this appeal Tameside council have asserted that I should have been able to foresee a delay caused by an entirely unforeseeable medical emergency.

 

Herein lies the procedural impropriety, Tameside Council simply are ignoring the medical factor of this case and attempting to gain financially through an entirely unforeseeable event.

 

I quote directly from the response from the council.

 

"Such a decision needs to encompass the possibility that an appointment may be delayed postponed or over run for any number of reasons."

 

This demonstrates that the council are treating the medical emergency as if it were an overrun appointment, which is contrary to the account I gave them to consider. The appointment did not overrun - something else in the form of an unforeseen medical emergency happened after the appointment.

 

This not only shows a procedural impropriety in the councils response, it shows a deeply disturbing disregard to the welfare of a small baby wherein the council would prefer to gain the money from a ticket, than be reassured to the welfare of a defenseless 3 month old child.

 

I ask openly, is this the actions of a caring responsible council, or rather a blatant money grab from a parent who was distressed and upset at the time already and quite frankly having an extra 20 pence on the car parking was the last item of concern on the immediate agenda.

I believe this also shows a complete and utter failure on the part of the council to act 'reasonably'.

 

By acting so they are ignoring the actual basis of my appeal and therefore acting improperly.

 

I also ask that this case be considered under the outlined guidance of 'compelling reasons' where upon the council should act morally and consider a more lenient stance in a case where evidence has been shown and accepted and was genuinely out of my immediate control.

 

 

I await any further response,

 

Yours Sincerely,

[Jamberson]

Great. I might drop the paragraph starting "I ask openly" - otherwise, it's good.

[hhh_88873]

well I got my response from the adjudicators

Office today .

 

Appeal allowed, ticket and fees cancelled.

 

Reasons given were the council had "reconsidered" the evidence I submitted and decided "in discretion" that it no longer wanted to enforce the pcn and therefore did not contest the appeal.

 

So here's my question. If they could reach the right decision now, with no further evidence being submitted other than had already been given, why could they not reach that decision without me needing to take it further?