Southwark Council Blue Badge

[menigma]

Hi all

 

Some advice on this problem:

 

Today 09/09/07 I parked in a residents bay in Southwark on my mums disabled badge as I had taken her to the Tate Modern Gallery. All other disabled bays were full.

 

Upon returning to the vehicle I found a traffic warden standing by my vehicle. When I asked him what he was doing he stated that 'you can't park in a residents bay in Southwark with a blue badge'. Having worked in Southwark Street for over a year, that was news to me.

 

When I asked where it states this he pointed to a timeplate which said 'Residents Permit Holders C1 Mon-Sun 8am - 8pm'. He said that it does not say that blue badges can park. I pointed out that it did not say that blue badge holders could not park. His response to this was ' just make it easy on yourself and pay the £50 fine before it goes up'. I am a taxi driver and see more timeplates than most people. I can't think of a single timeplate in any borough where a residents bay displays blue badge eligibility (if I am wrong I have no problem being corrected).

 

I then got in the car after telling him to I would appeal any ticket in response to his clam of having all the details and he would send the ticket anyway and I drove away without the PCN being placed on the vehicle. As I was stationary he took a picture of the badge and the bay.

 

Upon returning home I went to the Department of Transport website for blue badge holders and saw this page : Department for Transport - Parking in Central London for Blue Badge holders

 

which displays a map of boroughs not honouring the blue badge scheme. To save time they are Kensington & Chelsea, Westminister, City of London and the southern end of Camden (these boroughs do provide Disabled bays). Southwark appears to honour this scheme.

 

I am sitting here feeling as though this guy just tried it on. Have I missed something here? All responses and thoughts welcome.

 

M

[green_and_mean]

If you read the booklet your mum got with her badge it does not say you can park in Residents bays. Some Councils do allow it but its not a part of the scheme just an extra perk by individual Councils.

 

Department for Transport - The Blue Badge scheme - Explanatory booklet

 

Just in case you have lost the booklet.

[menigma]

Crumbs!!

 

I just read the booklet and it says Islington Residents bays...oooops.

 

Am I screwed even though he did not place the PCN on the vehicle?? (holding on to hope)

 

Thanks for the speedy reply.

 

M

[green_and_mean]

If he didnt put it on the car then you wasn't issued a PCN, if you are worried about it you could try ringing the Council next week and explain situation and ask if they think it was issued rather than wait for the Notice to owner but they probably wont tell you for Data protection reasons.

[menigma]

He most definently did not place the ticket on the vehicle and he does not have photographic evidence to prove this.

 

Thanks again for the speedy reply.

 

M

[jampot]

This could get tricky, as the PCN has to be served - which is either affixed to the vehicle, or handed to the owner.

 

He will have written up notes regarding the PCN at the time, and if he has lied in his notebook, and stated that he handed it to you during that conversation, then it is your word against his.

 

Who will the adjudicator believe? Anyone's guess...

[menigma]

I doubt an adjudicator could uphold a his word against mine scenario. The burden is on someone to prove my liability. If this was allowed virtually no tickets would be overturned (bar incorrect details) and wardens could simply make up tickets to reach quotas.

[green_and_mean]

This could get tricky, as the PCN has to be served - which is either affixed to the vehicle, or handed to the owner.

 

He will have written up notes regarding the PCN at the time, and if he has lied in his notebook, and stated that he handed it to you during that conversation, then it is your word against his.

 

Who will the adjudicator believe? Anyone's guess...

 

Or on the other hand he could have just walked off and not issued the PCN as the driver returned.

[green_and_mean]

I doubt an adjudicator could uphold a his word against mine scenario. The burden is on someone to prove my liability. If this was allowed virtually no tickets would be overturned (bar incorrect details) and wardens could simply make up tickets to reach quotas.

 

The burden off proof is upon the council to prove their case but to prove otherwise the motorist cannot just say they lied. If this was not the case no PCNs would ever be collected every motorist could just say they were not there or on the yellow line bus stop etc. Photographic evidence is now used to tip the balance in the Councils favor but not needed to prove the case.

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/Hayward-v-Croydon.pdf

Is a good example of the burden of proof used in adjudication. PCNs are generally cancelled for incorrect signage, mitigating circumstances and proof of loading /unloading, rarely does the word of the PA enter into the argument.

[menigma]

The burden off proof is upon the council to prove their case but to prove otherwise the motorist cannot just say they lied.

 

PCNs are generally cancelled for incorrect signage, mitigating circumstances and proof of loading /unloading, rarely does the word of the PA enter into the argument.

 

I totally agree with you with your first point. The point I was making was without proof, which seems to be photo evidence nowadays, there is no way a judgement can be made against an individual on word alone.

 

My case (if anything happens of course) is not made on word alone. Let the council prove I received an issued PCN.

 

M

[jampot]

Or on the other hand he could have just walked off and not issued the PCN as the driver returned.

 

Considering the OP quotes the PA as saying:

 

"just make it easy on yourself and pay the £50 fine before it goes up."

 

I assume his intention was to serve a PCN. Sure, maybe some PAs would possibly walk away, it doesn't really sound like this one felt in that sort of mood, to be honest...

[jampot]

My point is, the PA could claim that he handed the ticket to the OP, since the OP returned during the completion of the ticket.

 

There wouldn't be any reasonable way that the PA could be expected to photograph himself giving the OP the ticket, so it *may* be 'accepted' that he did so. If the ticket was completely written, signed, and ready to affix - it would be totally natural to hand it to the OP during the conversation - especially as the OP agrees that a conversation took place. It wouldn't be too big a stretch of the truth for the PA to claim that the ticket was correctly served.

 

As I understand it, the case would be decided 'on balance of probabilities', NOT on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - so you neither side would have to PROVE anything, although proof to the contrary would obviously blow either side's case apart.

 

Of course you should contest this as strongly as possible, if the PCN really was not served on you - since anything else would be utterly unjust... I just wanted to make the point that it may not be as clear cut. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, merely pointing out the argument that a sneaky PA might use to 'claim' that he correctly served the PCN.

[menigma]

Thanks for the comments Jampot. I do not feel they were unreasonable.

 

After much researching this case falls under the 'drive away' scenario. The follwing is an excerpt from Mr Justice Calvert-Smith ruling in the high court. The full document is available at:

 

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/R%20(TfL)%20v%20Parking%20Adjudicator%20Judgment.pdf

 

'Effectively I am asked to rewrite the Code and to issue guidance to adjudicators in the future that their way of interpreting section 5(1) must change. I have considered this carefully. Parking regulations and their enforcement affect a vast number of the citizens of London, and of course, picking up what I was informed of earlier, most of the rest of the country as well. All currently understand that if you drive away before a ticket is actually put on the windscreen, through the window of your car or into your hands, and you have not inflicted violence or the threat of violence on the attendant, effectively you have, in spite of contravening the parking regulations, got away with it. That understanding seems to me to be so well-established that now is not the time for the court to make a declaration which reverses it: in particular, as I made plain when I went through the chronology, bearing in mind that a week after leave was given to bring these judicial review proceedings, the claimant seems to have been supporting the exact opposite stance to the one currently claimed. Had the matter been litigated soon after the passage of the Act it may be that there would have been a different result.'

 

Bring it on Southwark!!!

[green_and_mean]

Thanks for the comments Jampot. I do not feel they were unreasonable.

 

After much researching this case falls under the 'drive away' scenario. The follwing is an excerpt from Mr Justice Calvert-Smith ruling in the high court. The full document is available at:

 

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/R%20(TfL)%20v%20Parking%20Adjudicator%20Judgment.pdf

 

'Effectively I am asked to rewrite the Code and to issue guidance to adjudicators in the future that their way of interpreting section 5(1) must change. I have considered this carefully. Parking regulations and their enforcement affect a vast number of the citizens of London, and of course, picking up what I was informed of earlier, most of the rest of the country as well. All currently understand that if you drive away before a ticket is actually put on the windscreen, through the window of your car or into your hands, and you have not inflicted violence or the threat of violence on the attendant, effectively you have, in spite of contravening the parking regulations, got away with it. That understanding seems to me to be so well-established that now is not the time for the court to make a declaration which reverses it: in particular, as I made plain when I went through the chronology, bearing in mind that a week after leave was given to bring these judicial review proceedings, the claimant seems to have been supporting the exact opposite stance to the one currently claimed. Had the matter been litigated soon after the passage of the Act it may be that there would have been a different result.'

 

Bring it on Southwark!!!

 

The law is being changed to allow all PCNs to be sent in the post making drive aways pointless. More and more Councils are now moving towards CCTV enforcement of stopping and no loading restrictions because of motorists exploiting this loophole anyway..

[menigma]

The law is being changed to allow all PCNs to be sent in the post making drive aways pointless. More and more Councils are now moving towards CCTV enforcement of stopping and no loading restrictions because of motorists exploiting this loophole anyway..

 

Have to disagree with the loophole comment. The rules for the validity of PCN's was clearly laid out and no one seemed to notice that it did not cover what happens if the driver returns and departs before being issued correctly with a PCN and a reasonable decision was made by adjudicators and upheld by a high court justice.

 

Such a shame that Councils cant invest in CCTV which actually identifies the real criminals on their streets but take a cracking picture of numberplates.

 

M

[green_and_mean]

Have to disagree with the loophole comment. The rules for the validity of PCN's was clearly laid out and no one seemed to notice that it did not cover what happens if the driver returns and departs before being issued correctly with a PCN and a reasonable decision was made by adjudicators and upheld by a high court justice.

 

Such a shame that Councils cant invest in CCTV which actually identifies the real criminals on their streets but take a cracking picture of numberplates.

 

M

 

It is a loophole exploited by many who blatently park on restrictions often outside work places and busnesses knowing full well they can run out and drive around the block every time a PA arrives. The fact that it had to go to the high court displays that the original wording was ambiguous and not that clearly defined. The High Court made a ruling based on an interpretation of 'was prevented from serving the pcn' deciding it was physical prevention rather than driving away which was not I beleive the original intent of the legislation just poorly conceived wording. It does not make sense that a driver who is genuinely parked in contravention can escape the consequences by speeding away often nearly causing an accident to escape a PCN. I cannot think of any other offence or contravention in law that can be escaped by running away.

[menigma]

It is a loophole exploited by many who blatently park on restrictions often outside work places and busnesses knowing full well they can run out and drive around the block every time a PA arrives. The fact that it had to go to the high court displays that the original wording was ambiguous and not that clearly defined. The High Court made a ruling based on an interpretation of 'was prevented from serving the pcn' deciding it was physical prevention rather than driving away which was not I beleive the original intent of the legislation just poorly conceived wording. It does not make sense that a driver who is genuinely parked in contravention can escape the consequences by speeding away often nearly causing an accident to escape a PCN. I cannot think of any other offence or contravention in law that can be escaped by running away.

 

Some persistent offenders are taking the michael and no sane person could agree otherwise in the same respect that some traffic wardens are dishonest (google Nkem Ifejika before you come back on that one). But these are issues which range from one extreme to the other. Does the person who overstays by 5-10 minutes due to a delay in doctors/banks etc. deserve a £60 fine (and it is a fine no matter what anybody says) after paying for parking in good faith and being unavoidable delayed. Of course not as the penalty is disprortionate to the offence. You would be in an extreme minority if you agreed.

 

The high court upheld the position that driving away was not a prevention of issuing a PCN as long as threats of or actual violence did not cause the prevention. Whether it irks you or not, this is how it currently stands and as you state this is to be changed. If you honestly feel that an individual is going to stand there and have £60-80 taken out of their pocket in the full knowledge that by getting into their car and leaving without endangering the PA they will pay nothing, then that is naivety in the extreme. The 'causing an accident' comment is grasping at straws to say the least.

 

I can't think of a single other contravention where running away does not lead to consequences. But due to the attitudes of councils the vast majority of the public do not see a drive away as a serious offence. When the borough of Kensington and Chelsea set a target of 306,000 parking tickets (838 a day) and 150,000 clampings (410 a day) they are including this as a budget forecast for crying out loud not road safety as most councils insultingly state is the purpose of their parking attendants. When councils become the beacons of light and virtue they claim and don't offer prizes and incentives to prolific issuers maybe the public may change their attitude. No rational person believes in a free for all when it comes to parking as that would be disatrous, especially in London. But no rational person believes that parking controls are not an extension of local taxation.

 

Before taking the high ground about breaches of civil contravention, what does it say about the attitude of Westminister Council when it allows a warden (contractor or not) to continue to patrol its streets after being criminally convicted of assaulting a car driver (source:current issue of Private Hire and Courier magazine). I can not think of many circumstances when you or I would retain our employment after a violent criminal conviction in the course of your normal employment. Wonder if he was a prolific ticket issuer...................

 

M

[green_and_mean]

If you honestly feel that an individual is going to stand there and have £60-80 taken out of their pocket in the full knowledge that by getting into their car and leaving without endangering the PA they will pay nothing, then that is naivety in the extreme. The 'causing an accident' comment is grasping at straws to say the least.

M

 

I have personally seen drivers in London speed off nearly having an accident all they have on their mind is escaping the penalty forcing passing cars to break or swerve to avoid them. Motorists wait at the side of the road for all other traffic offences to be dealt with so why should parking be any different? Comments about dishonest PAs having nothing to do with the validity of parking enforcement whatsoever. The Police are constantly being sued for false arrest, having officers sacked for theft etc, even shooting innocent people would the same argument not apply and law enforcement be stopped?

Councils set targets based on the amount of cars in contravention within the borough. Of course its a budget forcast as the money is received by the council and payed out again so needs to be included in the budget. In the case of contractors a contract needs to be agreed and in house the financial budget set. You obviously need to forcast the amount of tickets you expect to get to ensure you have the correct amount of staff employed to enforce and process the tickets. It would be foolish to employ a team of 50 PAs if only 20 tickets got given out a day or having 2 PAs try to enforce the entire town if hundreds of cars are parked in contravention. That is why budgets are set based on PCNs issued the year before, traffic surveys and other trends.

Councils do not and have never offered incentives to staff for issuing tickets the practice was introduced by contractors in order to get staff to work harder but was abused by some PAs and later withdrawn.

The London authority with the second highest amount of parking tickets last year was Tfl (467,523 parking PCNs) who do not enforce permit zones, CPZs, Pay and Display or car parks, cannot use the money to bolster council tax as they don't collect it and is enforced by Met Police staff. This clearly proves that PCNs are not all made up by dodgy councils or PAs just to raise money unless you think the Met are corrupt to?

[patdavies]

Motorists wait at the side of the road for all other traffic offences to be dealt with so why should parking be any different?

 

Utter nonsense.

 

1) Parking is not a traffic offence - it is a contravention, not a criminal matter.

 

2) You don't see many motorists parked up waiting to be dealt with just after a speed camera, do you? I think your use of all is a little disingenuous.

 

The reason that motorists wait at the side of the road for attended enforcement of offences is the fact that there is a legal power for a constable to stop a vehicle - a power that doesn't extend to PAs (despite what some of them may think)

[menigma]

I have personally seen drivers in London speed off nearly having an accident all they have on their mind is escaping the penalty forcing passing cars to break or swerve to avoid them. Motorists wait at the side of the road for all other traffic offences to be dealt with so why should parking be any different? Comments about dishonest PAs having nothing to do with the validity of parking enforcement whatsoever. The Police are constantly being sued for false arrest, having officers sacked for theft etc, even shooting innocent people would the same argument not apply and law enforcement be stopped?

Councils set targets based on the amount of cars in contravention within the borough. Of course its a budget forcast as the money is received by the council and payed out again so needs to be included in the budget. In the case of contractors a contract needs to be agreed and in house the financial budget set. You obviously need to forcast the amount of tickets you expect to get to ensure you have the correct amount of staff employed to enforce and process the tickets. It would be foolish to employ a team of 50 PAs if only 20 tickets got given out a day or having 2 PAs try to enforce the entire town if hundreds of cars are parked in contravention. That is why budgets are set based on PCNs issued the year before, traffic surveys and other trends.

Councils do not and have never offered incentives to staff for issuing tickets the practice was introduced by contractors in order to get staff to work harder but was abused by some PAs and later withdrawn.

The London authority with the second highest amount of parking tickets last year was Tfl (467,523 parking PCNs) who do not enforce permit zones, CPZs, Pay and Display or car parks, cannot use the money to bolster council tax as they don't collect it and is enforced by Met Police staff. This clearly proves that PCNs are not all made up by dodgy councils or PAs just to raise money unless you think the Met are corrupt to?

 

The reason that people stop for traffic offences is that you are stopped by the police and it is a criminal offence not to stop or attempt to evade with penalties ranging from arrest,points on your licence, loss of licence and ultimately incarceration. None of this applies to parking tickets as it falls under civil law where the worst outcome is a bailiff knocking on your door demanding several hundreds of pounds. I would also like to point out that at no time did I say it is correct to evade parking contraventions, but in the current set up it is totally understandable. I also made it quite clear that I believe their needs to be parking controls as it would be, as quoted, 'disastrous'. To compare the job of traffic wardens to Met police officers is quite frankly absurd and displays the miniscule strength of your argument. Of course their are dishonest police officers and no I would not argue that the Met is acutely corrupt. But I never stated that the majority of traffic wardens are either.

 

I am a taxi driver and I see appalling standards of driving. Virtually none are caught. No doubt that there are idiots out there who seem to think that not paying £60-80 is worth smashing up a car worth thousands. That does not compute with me.

 

It has been revealed in TV, Web and newsprint expose' that attendants are pressurised to hit targets. To deny that is not seeing the woods for the trees. Attendants not hitting targets are given warnings about their performance. Well let me see. Penalty notices are the deterrent to parking incorrectly. If an attendant only manages 12 tickets when his/her target is 15 then the deterrent is working. Does everyone who deserves a ticket get caught? No. But I bet you don't walk into the local police station everytime you exceed the speed limit and ask for the three points to be attached to your licence. Councils do not want the deterrent to work as it directly affects their income. Traffic wardens are on commission for every ticket issued. Is that not an incentive? And I would argue that the borough of Croydon takes a higher level of manpower to patrol than the City of London as its area must be at least 10-15 times the size.

 

Contractors work for and on the behalf of the respective councils that awards the contract. I seem to remember that public outrage forced Westminister to force NCP to remove the cars etc on offer. To seperate NCP from the City of Westminister is akin to saying that officers in an army have nothing to do with their soldiers.

 

When you receive a notice from Tfl through the Met it is usually accompanied by photographic evidence which is either on the notice or is backed up by photo evidence. You are normally bang to rights. Odd though isn't it that a body which covers the whole of london under the Tfl umbrella is still outstripped by the city of westminister in the ticket stakes. To state that dishonest PA's have nothing to do with the validity of traffic enforcement is a statement of George W Bush proportions. Of course it has nothing to do with it, they are DISHONEST, ergo liars.

 

M

[patdavies]

At the risk of being seen to split hairs, persons who enforce decriminalised council parking (ie issue PCNs) are Parking Attendants.

 

Traffic Wardens are different and have different powers. including controlling traffic; they are employed by the Police. Their tickets are FPNs and are a criminal matter; dealt with by Magistrates' Courts

 

A small point maybe, but significant. A PA cannot stop you driving off and doing so before the ticket is issued voids the PCN. A TW can prevent you driving away, and even if you do, the FPN can be posted later.

[menigma]

Good point Pat.

 

Anybody reading my post please take 'warden' as meaning parking attendant.

 

M

[green_and_mean]

At the risk of being seen to split hairs, persons who enforce decriminalised council parking (ie issue PCNs) are Parking Attendants.

 

Traffic Wardens are different and have different powers. including controlling traffic; they are employed by the Police. Their tickets are FPNs and are a criminal matter; dealt with by Magistrates' Courts

 

A small point maybe, but significant. A PA cannot stop you driving off and doing so before the ticket is issued voids the PCN. A TW can prevent you driving away, and even if you do, the FPN can be posted later.

 

 

Thats not strictly correct as Tfl red routes are policed by Met police traffic wardens and PCSOs despite being civil enforcement. It was a Traffic warden who issued the PCN that was the subject of the recent drive away case.

[green_and_mean]

When you receive a notice from Tfl through the Met it is usually accompanied by photographic evidence which is either on the notice or is backed up by photo evidence. You are normally bang to rights. Odd though isn't it that a body which covers the whole of london under the Tfl umbrella is still outstripped by the city of westminister in the ticket stakes.

M

 

The vast majority of Councils use photographic evidence now.

 

Tfl polices a few red routes mostly fast moving clearways a completly different scenario from the West end one of the most densley populated areas in the country, where enforcment consists of CPZs with permit parking, car parks, pay and displays and Yellow line offences so a higher PCN count is not at all surprising.

[JonCris]

As a result of recent case law if the ticket is not placed on the car (photographs or not) then the ticket is void & unenforceable