Author Topic: High St Romford parked by necessity  (Read 537 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2025, 12:03:23 am »
So sorry, I thought I had mentioned that I emailed the council parking dept on the address I have used before and it bounced back. It just seems the council are making it harder to get photos from a non - postal issued PCN. IF I remember correct they issue a webcode for those to view video/photo evidence. If you try to view pics through that this is what you get:

https://i.postimg.cc/cL1BP89X/view-3.png

BTW IS this : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

all statutory guidance ? [I was looking at the section Challenges - also known as informal representations - If a challenge is received within the discount period and subsequently rejected, the Secretary of State recommends that the enforcement authority should consider re-offering the discount for a further 14 days to incentivise payment. [If irrelevant here please delete, I will repost elsewhere]. Has this ever been raised and challenged with LBH ?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2025, 01:06:19 am by John Doe Man »

John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2025, 01:32:25 pm »
The only response I had from Havering Council was:

Thank you for contacting us. Your reference number is **********.

We are currently experiencing a high volume of enquiries and are responding in the order they are received. We will reply to your enquiry as soon as possible. 

There is no need to contact us again regarding this matter during this time.

We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Kind Regards, 
Traffic & Parking Control


I feel I may be better challenging on the grounds the parking policy on th e grounds of procedural impropriety as you noted because also the policy states the point I made earlier plus under the Traffic and Parking Control
Installment Procedure
There are several errors including the court debt registration fee of £7 whereas it is £10 as stated on the council web page. Should this be significant ?

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3662
  • Karma: +78/-4
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2025, 03:45:57 pm »
£10 is the current debt registration fee.

If you challenge the PCN and they reject you are in for the full penalty as Havering has decided to ignore guidance.

We can't double check for pics as you've not posted details.

But it isn't acceptable for them to withhold pics that they then produce to enforce the full penalty and not give you a chance to review at discount - this could amount to at least a recommendation to cancel at the tribunal.

You were in a zone banned to motorised vehicles (bar taxis) so don't go in there again.


John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2025, 01:42:21 am »
Quote
author=stamfordman link=topic=8600.msg97262#msg97262 date=1762530357]
£10 is the current debt registration fee.

According to the Havering Council Parking Policy it's £7 [among other errors that need correction]

Quote
If you challenge the PCN and they reject you are in for the full penalty as Havering has decided to ignore guidance.


Been there once before, it hurts.

Quote
We can't double check for pics as you've not posted details.


There are no pics - I looked up the link earlier and none there still and due to limits down that road Google can't drive down there. If I still have any from my dashcam I could post them, I will check

Quote
But it isn't acceptable for them to withhold pics that they then produce to enforce the full penalty and not give you a chance to review at discount - this could amount to at least a recommendation to cancel at the tribunal.


That sounds right to me - They have held pics back before I remember once them putting a very vague pic on a PCN when they had clearer ones

Quote
You were in a zone banned to motorised vehicles (bar taxis) so don't go in there again.

Strangely the policy rule G36 does allow for illegal parking in special circumstances:

MC36 - Where the motorist claims there was no legal place to park.
MAY ACCEPT REPRESENTATIONS
 Only in the most exceptional of circumstances and where those circumstances.
can be clearly and unequivocally evidenced by the motorist and proof positive
provided
 

Im not sure if it will apply though.


[/quote]

John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2025, 02:06:17 pm »
I've been looking at this PCN again and I'm wondering if there is an even simpler procedural impropriety I missed earlier. On the front the payment period is given as "within" 28 days and the rear "on or before" 28 days which to me conflict.

Any thoughts please ?

https://i.postimg.cc/dtmWwMBF/pcn-front2.png

https://i.postimg.cc/Wbn7xG2x/pcn-rear-2.png

John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 02:48:52 pm »
Please ignore the previous post as I was misreading the context of the wording.Forgive me if I have misunderstood a paragraph of the text of the rear of the PCN indicated below that does not seem to make grammatical sense. I wonder if someone with more experience could please read it and tell me if it is correct as surely the NTO cannot specify how PCN representations are made if it is sent following the PCN.

Thank you

https://i.postimg.cc/rs2WhsJt/pcn-rear-3.png

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4133
  • Karma: +92/-38
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 05:31:06 pm »
The Regs:

3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

John Doe Man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #22 on: Today at 10:22:23 am »
Thank you for posting the relevant regs that if read carefully and a few times to a layman make a degree of sense but could've been written better, however the version on the Havering PCN makes no sense at all to the layman [well to me as a layman] There is no reference to the regs and I thought the text on a PCN/NTO had to be easily readable to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.