Author Topic: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"  (Read 380 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« on: February 29, 2024, 06:05:32 pm »
Hi Folks ~

Any advice / case precedents most welcome ~

Alleged contravention date: SUNDAY 14 Jan 2024 ~
Alleged TIME of contravention: 12:21 ~

Code 40 "Parked in a designated disabled persons parking place without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge" ~

Leeds City Council PCN ~

The vehicle was parked in a disabled bay, with badge & clock showing ~ 

The CEO issued the PCN on the grounds the clock was wrong (It was set to 13:30) and thus, the entire badge was "Invalid" ~

My consumer advocate made an initial representation with 4 questions (NONE of which were addressed) the final observation the advocate made was that the bay is a dedicated disabled space, and had the driver parked in a regular bay, the clocks setting would have been achedemic, as the Leeds.gov website clearly states ... ~

“With a blue badge you can park on-street for free and without time limit at both metered and 'pay and display' sites” ~

... and thus was being punished for parking in a disabled bay ~

https://imgur.com/a/QgOtmU0

 ~ So this is a valid badge, displayed correctly, in a disabled bay, on a Sunday ... but because there exists a time restriction element, the badge clock being incorrectly set renders the contract in breech ~

Attached & linked to here, their reply to my advocate: ~

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4ji0p9m5gibm94dwprh9u/2938B7D6CD3A.PDF?rlkey=n1r8w1q3huinyonnsd6simxb7&dl=0

As you can see, LCC appear to be implying that rather than the clock being set 1hr 10 mins later than ticket issue time, that the vehicle had been parked there for 23 hours !!

NTO has now been received (Owner is not the driver)

Any advice gratefully accepted, or for further info please just ask ~

THANK YOU













« Last Edit: February 29, 2024, 06:14:05 pm by UKdave »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Pastmybest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2024, 03:16:36 pm »
At the end of the day the clock was wrong, but the rejection fetters their discretion a PI that can win, and is there a need to display a clock we need a GSV and the council photos also the PCN and NTO i think there should be enough to win this but Leeds are stubborn
Like Like x 1 View List

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2024, 03:44:01 pm »
Hi, and thanks for your help, I really appreciate it

What is a PI?
What is a GSV?

What does "the rejection fetters their discretion" mean?

Link to PCN: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u6ddgendjdmy95uscskhu/PCN-Jan-2024.pdf?rlkey=6tto1ku586amgjlgh7rl2ht49&dl=0


Link to NTO: https://imgur.com/a/6t14TIz

The linked-to photos in the OP ARE the councils photos (except the street sign indicating the time restriction, that was mine)

Thanks so much
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 04:38:50 pm by UKdave »

John U.K.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2024, 05:17:19 pm »
Quote
What is a PI?

Procedural Impropriety - serious mistake or omission by the Council durinmg the process of enforcement.

Quote
What is a GSV?
Google Street View - see https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Like Like x 1 View List

Pastmybest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2024, 05:44:13 pm »
The council always have the option to cancel the PCN for any reason or just goodwill, as it is absurd that the vehicle be left for 23 hours then a simple mistake was made and they could accept that
so to say the PCN was issued correctly so they have no alternative other than to enforce fetters the discretion they have

The sign says disabled only and requires a BB but unless the TRO (traffic regulation order requires this) and also the display of the clock then the clock is irrelevant

Then if the TRO requires the display of the clock then the sign must make that clear

none of the arguments are strong on there own but cumulatively they might swing it.

They have won in the past and if an adjudicator is sympathetic to the mistake it gives them a reason to allow an appeal
Like Like x 1 View List

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2024, 05:48:28 pm »
Ah, OK thank you

Please forgive my ignorance

Since Google took the street view scans in March 2021, this location has been designated as Disabled bays, as per the OP photos, so there was / is little point in linking thru to the 'old' Google Street View, but here it is anyway:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/MVndY12tdq9iqFc39

When you say "Then if the Traffic Regulation Order requires the display of the clock then the sign must make that clear" do you have any examples / photos of signs that make it clear a clock is required. I suspect LCC will simply say a clock is required any time there is a 'time restriction' on a parking bay, as in this case. Where can I read the TRO to the contrary?

THANK YOU
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 06:27:13 pm by UKdave »

Phantomcrusader

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2024, 10:36:32 am »
If the CEO believed you had parked for more than 4 hours the pcn should be a code 30 "parked for longer than permitted". The bay is a limited waiting bay albeit restricted to disabled badge holders only. Your badge is valid therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. The badge and parking disc (clock) are separate entities. I can find no regulation that says an error with the clock does by default invalidate the badge. Most councils refer to these regs for interpretation and as you can see a disabled badge and parking disc have their own meanings. Ergo a badge is not a parking disc and vice versa.

There is also an equality issue. Regular limited waiting bays don't require the display of a clock. By making disabled people set and display a clock is treating them different to able bodied people who park in a regular limited waiting bay and it creates a situation where disabled people have a higher chance of making an error such as the clock falling off or being set incorrectly. Timings should be based on CEO observations the same as a regular limited waiting bay. There is no need to give the disabled the extra burden of setting and displaying a clock.
Like Like x 1 View List

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2024, 12:50:57 pm »
Ahhh, thank you

So let me understand this

There are several angles here but the one most likely to get a result is a PI (the CEO put code 40 when they are now saying the contravention was a code 30)

LCC response states:

In this case the clock card indicated that the vehicle was parked at 13:30 or 01:30 which indicates that the vehicle was parked for longer than 4 hours at 12:21 when the PCN was issued

Is an incorrect contravention code sufficient grounds for an Procedural Impropriety appeal?

Thanks again ... I really appreciate your insight


Phantomcrusader

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2024, 04:01:41 pm »
The code/contravention description matters here because had code 30 been used the penalty would be £50.00 and not the code 40 £70.00. the statutory ground of appeal you tick for your represenations is "the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case".

Post a draft of your representations here before sending so we can give feedback.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2024, 04:05:15 pm by Phantomcrusader »

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2024, 04:17:34 pm »
Excellent Thank You ... I will

Any other observations?

These were other points made by my advocate, which were not addressed in LCC's response

List any & all steps currently taken by Leeds City Council to ensure images uploaded as ‘evidence’ in ALL fine-bearing traffic violation cases are not AI generated / altered. CEO’s are incentivized based on PCN volume, thus we hold it is LCC’s duty in 2024 & beyond, to ensure ANY photographic evidence supporting a fine-bearing penalty, like a PCN, is not AI generated, including time stamps. If no such steps are [yet] in place, please admit that in writing

IF the PCN was issued ONLY on an incorrectly set time clock, please explain how the CEO knew the drivers disabilities do not include dyscalculia & thus they would struggle to tell the time

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2024, 02:43:20 pm »
Hi Folks, thanks for your great advice so far, I really appreciate it

As requested, below is a draft of my representation based on your advice:



I am in receipt of your NTO and note the contents

In her rebuttal letter to my advocate, your appeals officer Elaine Lowe stated:

"... In this case the clock card indicated that the vehicle was parked at 13:30 or 01:30 which indicates that the vehicle was parked for longer than 4 hours at 12:21 when the PCN was issued"

As this is now the stated position of LCC in this case, the contravention code is clearly incorrect

The contravention code for over staying is Code 30, which carries a penalty of £50 ... not code 40, which carries a penalty of £70

For these reasons the PCN was incorrectly issued on TWO of your "specified grounds":

1)  "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" ~ £70 charged instead of £50

2) "There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority" ~ PCN was issued under Code 40, instead of overstay code 30, which Elaine Lowe clearly stated was the contravention



If anyone has any suggestions or observations I would be most appreciative. If what is written above will be good enough, please say so & I will fill the representations form accordingly

THANK YOU

« Last Edit: March 15, 2024, 04:50:18 pm by UKdave »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2024, 06:31:10 pm »

I am in receipt of your NTO and note the contents

In her rebuttal letter to my advocate, your appeals officer Elaine Lowe stated:

A tad pompous!

I refer to your NTO dated **** and the authority's letter dated rejecting the driver's informal representations.

Would do IMO.

But before going further, where are the initial reps? You refer to four questions but questions are not grounds of representation.

And IMO (and PastmyBest as I understand it) the PI is their statement that because the PCN was issued correctly - in the context of what the CEO observed and believed - that this fetters the authority's discretion 'I have no alternative etc.' Tosh.

And as the driver was wholly in the wrong* by not setting their clock correctly, something which their informal reps apparently rather glossed over, then observing this and accepting that a mistake was made would not go amiss because it doesn't alter the fundamentals.

I am making representations on the grounds of PI and that the 'penalty exceeded ...circumstances of the case', the circumstances being as follows.

..but where are the initial reps?

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2024, 06:59:56 pm »
Hi HC

I appreciate your input

I now have MUCH stronger grounds than mere fettered discretion

The appeals officer went on record as saying the PCN was issued because the car had been parked too long

That's not a code 40, its a code 30 ... and there's my PI

A second but related PI is the charge was {therefore also} wrong

But you're right, questions are not representations

FYI one of the questions was: "IF the PCN was issued ONLY on an incorrectly set time clock, please explain how the CEO knew the drivers disabilities do not include dyscalculia & thus they would struggle to tell the time?"

A perfectly reasonable question, but unanswered because in attempting to address & reply that issue they would scupper their own case. In the end, the appeals officer did exactly that anyway by stating the time clock indicated the car had overstayed, a code 30, not a 40 as issued

I shall stick to the obvious TWO PI's

Thank You 

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2024, 09:34:31 pm »

That's not a code 40, its a code 30 ... and there's my PI

IMO no it's not, this would be the 'contravention did not occur'.

FYI one of the questions was: "IF the PCN was issued ONLY on an incorrectly set time clock, please explain how the CEO knew the drivers disabilities do not include dyscalculia & thus they would struggle to tell the time?"

A perfectly reasonable question, but unanswered because in attempting to address & reply that issue they would scupper their own case.

IMO, it's a nonsense question. The CEO issued the PCN on the basis of what they observed and was perfectly entitled to do so. The issue of for how long arises from the authority's response, you have no idea whether this is supported by the CEO's notes or whether these simply recorded the objective facts i.e. the clock showed 01.30/13.30, and the car was in contravention, as indeed it was! If the driver suffered from the condition referred to, then this should have been asserted in the reps in the context of exercising discretion: however, it would not be a statutory defence.

*- assuming of course the traffic order requires the display of a clock and it wouldn't be the first time we've seen traffic signs out of sync with traffic orders.   

UKdave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Leeds City Council PCN Sunday Disabled bay Time clock "wrong"
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2024, 09:59:55 pm »
Thanks for your input again, I appreciate it

OK, so what IS your advice?

IF you read the entire thread you will see that 'Phantomcrusader' made the following observation:

Your badge is valid therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. The badge and parking disc (clock) are separate entities. I can find no regulation that says an error with the clock does by default invalidate the badge. Most councils refer to these regs for interpretation and as you can see a disabled badge and parking disc have their own meanings. Ergo a badge is not a parking disc and vice versa.

This contradicts your position that "objective facts i.e. the clock showed 01.30/13.30, and the car was in contravention, as indeed it was!"

I'm just looking for a consensus I can move forward with

In my humble uneducated opinion, a 100% legally parked car, clearly showing a disabled badge, parked in a disabled bay, on a Sunday ... is not 'in contravention' of anything. It is a FACT that, had the car been parked in a non-disabled bay, there would have been no contravention as the clock setting would have been immaterial

LCC are attempting to fine a person because they correctly parked in a disabled bay. Had they taken up a non disabled regular bay, no action would have been taken. This is IMO clearly punishing a disabled person for nothing more than seeking out a disabled bay

Anyway, back to my lead question HC ...

What is your advice?

Thanks