Author Topic: High St Romford parked by necessity  (Read 5573 times)

0 Members and 277 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #15 on: »
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 »

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #16 on: »
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 ?

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #17 on: »
£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.


Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #18 on: »
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]

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #19 on: »
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

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #20 on: »
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

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #21 on: »
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.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #22 on: »
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.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #23 on: »
Just a quick query, I requested images from the Borough Council for the PCN 2 days before [05.11.25] the penalty increased by 50% [07.11.25] and just received a stock reply and ref. no and the amount seemed to be fixed at 50% on Sunday [17.11.25] so I logged on today and it increased to £160. Have Havering Borough Council legal grounds to do so or are they out of line ?

Their reply to my email:

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


Thank you for helping.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #24 on: »
Havering do not re-offer the discount when rejecting reps. Of course this means that anybody rejected can take them to London Tribunals at no additional cost as the penalty remains the same, but Havering have to pay the adjudication fee and prepare an evidence pack. So maybe they've made a rod for their own back. The sheer bovinne stupidity of some London councils beggars belief.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #25 on: »
Yes you are correct they do not which was what puzzled me but I took [a reasonable] assumption the penalty was on hold until they either produced the images or reported there were none as the penalty remained at £80 then suddenly shot up randomly. I know they are short staffed and nearly bankrupt but last year the parking dept made about £6 million pounds !!

I have until Friday to submit a rep - should I submit a rep referring to their error here ?

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #26 on: »
What error?

The penalty is £160 but a lesser amount may be paid within the period of 14 days beginning on the date of contravention. You cannot extend this unilaterally simply by making requests of the council e.g. photos etc.

Photos are not required but are usual practice.

I have until Friday to submit a rep

Why? You may submit reps at any time before a NTO is served. All the 28-day period does is to set the earliest date on which a NTO may be served, the latest date being 6 months after the PCN.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #27 on: »
The error as I see it [and I may be wrong here]is that I sent the email requesting images on 05.11.2025 and received a reply the same day stating There is no need to contact us again regarding this matter during this time.which any reasonable person would assume to mean they were processing the request.The last day to pay the 50% discount was 07.11.2025 but the penalty remained at 50% [£80]up until about 16/17.11.2025 leading me to believe it was frozen until they produced the images [at least].

I believe by doing this they have deprived me of, If I choose on seeing the images the opportunity of paying the PCN at the lower rate.

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #28 on: »
You're free to assume what you like, that's up to you and you're free to make reps accordingly.

Go ahead, they might even provide photos with any rejection and then you'd be able to take the matter to adjudication at no additional cost above the applicable rejection rate and argue in front of an adjudicator with no extra risk.
Love Love x 1 View List

Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
« Reply #29 on: »
You may as well try a challenge saying you don't think the contravention occurred but you were waiting for the council's evidence to check before challenging and you feel they have acted unfairly.

They have a duty to act fairly.

This will prolong matters.

Then if they reject at full penalty as they say they will you just continue to the tribunal via the NTO.

If the contravention is solid the tribunal can make a recommendation to pay the discounted penalty but it's not binding.

Separately you can complain through other channels about the picture/no discount offered issue.