Author Topic: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long  (Read 3619 times)

0 Members and 210 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« on: »
Hi all,


Got another one.


My wife is a blue badge holder. We applied for a virtual blue badge meaning we can park in bays where we would normally display a BB but don't have to in the borough. To be honest the usage of the virtual blue badge is unclear and maybe why we got the PCN.


We parked in a residential bay marked HW where we are allowed to park but we received a ticket when we came back to the car. We should be able to park there for unlimited time.


At home, a few roads away, we are either parked in a disabled bay or residential bay for unlimited hours with no badge displayed and have had no issues.


I have previously applied for a residential permit but was denied due to already having the virtual blue badge permit.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #1 on: »
Never heard of a virtual BB as the BB is not a council scheme But if you hold a BB for that council then you are correct on street there is no time limit and should challenge on that basis 

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #2 on: »
The veterans will be along to help more, I'm sure, but since I'm familiar with the area I'll weigh in here. There are a couple of bays right up by the corner of the Heathway that aren't actually HW permit bays, they're 1 hour short-stay bays. GSV below:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPpsjtxzosaG7PXD7?g_st=ic

For reference, I believe virtual BBs are something LBBD does to stop BB holders having to pay for a CPZ permit when the BB entitles them to park without one, but also avoids you having to leave your BB in your car for extended periods (e.g., overnight) and risk having your car broken into and BB nicked. The virtual BBs replace the paid residents permit but are only valid for your CPZ.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #3 on: »
The veterans will be along to help more, I'm sure, but since I'm familiar with the area I'll weigh in here. There are a couple of bays right up by the corner of the Heathway that aren't actually HW permit bays, they're 1 hour short-stay bays. GSV below:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPpsjtxzosaG7PXD7?g_st=ic

doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

For reference, I believe virtual BBs are something LBBD does to stop BB holders having to pay for a CPZ permit when the BB entitles them to park without one, but also avoids you having to leave your BB in your car for extended periods (e.g., overnight) and risk having your car broken into and BB nicked. The virtual BBs replace the paid residents permit but are only valid for your CPZ.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #4 on: »
doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

However, OP states they were relying on the virtual BB (presumably because they were under the impression they were in the applicable resident bay?) and evidence photos from the PCN show the physical blue badge wasn't on display, which is what has thrown a spanner in the works, I think.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #5 on: »
doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

However, OP states they were relying on the virtual BB (presumably because they were under the impression they were in the applicable resident bay?) and evidence photos from the PCN show the physical blue badge wasn't on display, which is what has thrown a spanner in the works, I think.

Op needs to confirm what bay they were parked within
Any council photos?

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #6 on: »
Hmm. I see the issue now. It looks like I was parked next to both signs but closer towards the one that is not a residential.

To be honest I never realised there were separate parking conditions for that little strip - in google maps you can see the bays are separated but the dotted line that is supposed to separate them is barely visible. However that line doesn't exist at this moment in time (I think), so it looks like one big bay for 4 cars.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #7 on: »
Hmm. I see the issue now. It looks like I was parked next to both signs but closer towards the one that is not a residential.

To be honest I never realised there were separate parking conditions for that little strip - in google maps you can see the bays are separated but the dotted line that is supposed to separate them is barely visible. However that line doesn't exist at this moment in time (I think), so it looks like one big bay for 4 cars.

Check that on the ground and get photos to show non-existent divider if you can?
I doubt the poor lines just about visible in streetview would pass muster with an adjudicator but streetview is historical and may not be accepted as evidence of what is there now.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #8 on: »
People shold not get tied up with the virtual BB vs physical one For if the council operate a scheme that really only has one purpose, to prevent theft, then providing you have a registered virtual BB that must be taken as a BB on display then providing you are entitled to park in the bay then no time limit. If in a bay you are not entitled to park in then it will come down to the markings

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #9 on: »
People shold not get tied up with the virtual BB vs physical one For if the council operate a scheme that really only has one purpose, to prevent theft, then providing you have a registered virtual BB that must be taken as a BB on display then providing you are entitled to park in the bay then no time limit. If in a bay you are not entitled to park in then it will come down to the markings
Dagenham are sparse with info on their virtual badge scheme, ie where you can use.
Haringey are a little more forthcoming and basically say that the virtual replaces the physical BB within the area, as said, primary purpose seems to be to be crack down on BB theft.
https://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/parking-permits/disabled/resident-Blue-Badge/about

While it is always iffy to assume that one London Borough uses same rules as another, they should and if the Virtual BB is limited more then a physical BB, they should say.
From what I can find, the only added conditions for Dagenham are it is linked to a specific vehicle and only for use in their own CPZ.

Taking all on board I would challenge on:--
I have a virtual courtesy BB, details of which can be checked against vehicle registration.
This equates to the physical BB being displayed and as such, the contravention stated cannot occur.
I also have to query the clarity of the road markings, it being unclear whether I was parked within a resident's permit bay or a short stay bay. Both are unlimited time for BB holders but is confusing to the diligent driver.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #10 on: »
We parked in a residential bay marked HW...
No you didn't:





The sign was adjacent to the car, so an adjudicator could be skeptical of any claims that the signage was inadequate.

One thing that is odd is that if you look at the map tile here, the two bays (limited waiting and HW) are not next to each other, there's a gap which is likely meant to accommodate the dropped kerb that's been put in for number 315 here.

One argument might be that the residents' bay isn't where it purports to be, and the bay should have been removed because legally it doesn't exist, and the signage mislead you. On the flip side, your car was right next to the limited waiting time plate.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #11 on: »
I submitted the following for my challenge:

"I have a virtual courtesy BB, details of which can be checked against vehicle registration.
This equates to the physical BB being displayed and as such, the contravention stated cannot occur.
I also have to query the clarity of the road markings, it being unclear whether I was parked within a resident's permit bay or a short stay bay. Both are unlimited time for BB holders but is confusing to the diligent driver."


I received the following rejection today:

I refer to your challenge against the above Penalty Charge Notice, which has now been considered in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to you because your vehicle was observed parked in a parking space for longer than the maximum period during prescribed hours.

I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made the decision to not cancel your notice. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along with the options available to you at this stage.

The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as they witnessed the vehicle ‘parked for longer than permitted’. The contravention covers a number of circumstances in which a vehicle waits for longer than the permitted period.

The Council limits the time a motorist may park their vehicles in certain parking places, this is to ensure there is a constant turnover of places available to the public. We expect motorists who make use of a parking place with a time limit to return to their vehicle on or before the time of expiry.

The Notice was issued as the vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ bay for longer than the maximum period allowed. A vehicle is permitted to park without payment in this type of bay for a maximum period of 1 hour. Once this time has expired, the vehicle must be moved and may not return to the bay for two hours. There is a sign above the bay, which gives clear details of these restrictions.

Disabled badge holders / permit holders are not exempt from this contravention.

I must therefore still request payment of £30.00 before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this letter. If payment is not received within this time the full amount of £60.00 will be due.

The full penalty charge of £60.00 is now due to be paid before the end of the period of 28 days, beginning with the date that this letter is served on you.
If you accept the decision in this letter and do not intend to make a formal representation, the penalty is reduced by 50% to £30.00 if payment is made to the council within 14 days from the date this letter is served on you. If you want to pay, please see the “How to Pay” section at the end of this letter.
If you disagree with my findings and would like to make a formal representation to the Council, you should wait until you receive a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner will be sent after a period of 28 days.

The Notice to Owner gives you the opportunity to make a formal representation against the Penalty Charge Notice, however, in doing so you will lose the right of discount and will be required to pay the full amount of £60.00 if your representation is rejected. Should your representation be accepted, the Penalty Charge Notice will be cancelled.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #12 on: »
The council are wrong they must allow an exemption for vehicles displaying a BB

Exemption from prohibitions on waiting beyond a specified time
7.—(1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 35, 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act if–

(a)the order includes a provision prohibiting the waiting of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road either–
(i)beyond a specified period; or
(ii)where less than a specified period has elapsed since a previous period of waiting by the same vehicle in that road, and
(b)the prohibition does not apply to all vehicles except disabled persons' vehicles.
(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #13 on: »
The council are wrong they must allow an exemption for vehicles displaying a BB

Exemption from prohibitions on waiting beyond a specified time
7.—(1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 35, 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act if–

(a)the order includes a provision prohibiting the waiting of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road either–
(i)beyond a specified period; or
(ii)where less than a specified period has elapsed since a previous period of waiting by the same vehicle in that road, and
(b)the prohibition does not apply to all vehicles except disabled persons' vehicles.
(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.

What he said.
There has to be an exemption for BB holders
And being as they haven't objected to the use of the Virtual BB. ie said it doesn't count outside of permit bays (or similar) I now regard this as close to a 100% certainty as we see.

Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
« Reply #14 on: »
I would definitely wait for the Notice to Owner in this case.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order