Author Topic: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours  (Read 57 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

sc2509

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
While having a moan with my neighbour about the unfair CEOs in our area, he mentioned he too has been a victim of their behaviour. He has already submitted an informal challenge which has been rejected and received a NTO today. He wanted some advice on how to proceed so I mentioned the helpful people here might be able to assist.

I've asked him to dig out the original PCN so will upload that when I have it. This is the informal rep that he made:

Quote
Dear Sir/Madam
I write to you in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice issued to my vehicle on Sunday 03rd March 2024.
 
I have been a resident on this road for 34 years, and have had a resident’s permit since the introduction of the CPZ and on the day of the penalty charge. I am well aware of the restrictions on the road that I live on and on this particular occasion I had intentionally moved my car forward to the drop kerb opposite my next door neighbour’s driveway to facilitate the transfer of my disabled father in law who had been staying with us into the vehicle. There is no other reason for me to park on the double yellow line where there was plenty of parking space available in the marked bays at the time the alleged contravention occurred.
 
I had left the hazard lights on which the CEO failed to observe, and momentarily re-entered the house to assist my father in law who is wheel chair bound, and upon returning to the vehicle a few minutes later saw the PCN had been issued. He had in his possession his blue badge which would have allowed him to have the vehicle parked there for 3 hours, however as we were merely loading passengers we did not feel it was necessary and the increased risk of having the badge stolen with the car unlocked and unattended. Please find attached a copy of the badge.
 
We would greatly appreciate if the above can be taken into consideration in reviewing this PCN.

This is the NTO that he received:



GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MmBJf1dv4JdgJqbC7

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Please post up Newham's rejection.

sc2509

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
(Post from Enceladus which I accidentally removed):

It seems to me that the informal representation is quite clear that you were boarding a disabled passenger in a wheelchair who also happens to have a blue badge. Boarding or alighting passengers are permitted exemptions to the DYLs. Their own rejection letter admits that this is a permitted exemption "........... or if you had stopped briefly to pick up/drop off passengers."

The display of the BB is irrelevant, it wasn't required. Loading or unloading is irrelevant. Breaking down and producing an invoice is irrelevant. A cut and paste boiler plate rejection, I wonder is it a poor AI attempt.

The letter shows that they believe you claimed you were loading and has failed to consider that you were boarding a disabled passenger for which you were entitled to sufficient time to get him into his chair, get him out of the house etc. Anything strictly necessary. So long as you didn't stop for tea or take the dog for a walk in the park.

You'll have to submit formal representations against the NTO and then appeal to the Adjudicator. but be aware that the bill will be the full £130 if you lose. It'll be down to your credibility, does the Adjudicator believe that, on the balance of probability, you were boarding a disabled passenger and the BB certainly helps with that. Actually since the discount window has expired you're in for £130 anyway so you might as well appeal to the Adjudicator if it comes to it.

The NTO seems to be very quick after the rejection. Maybe too quick. Please post up the rest of it.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2024, 10:11:13 pm by cp8759 »
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

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

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
@sc2509 this is the sort of idiotic PCN that are the whole reison d'etre of this website.

Here's a draft representation:

Dear London Borough of Newham,

The alleged contravention did not occur because my vehicle was not parked, my vehicle was temporarily stopped in order to allow the boarding of a disabled passenger, who required assistance from the adjacent premises. I attach a copy of his blue badge for your records. The vehicle was not stopped in contravention and the penalty charge must therefore be cancelled.

The wording in the informal rejection that references broken down vehicles and loading or unloading appears to be the result of some rather sloppy copying and pasting of templated paragraphs.

Furthermore there is some rather infelicitous wording in your informal rejection that speaks of "times in which we are prepared to make an exception to this rule", but the rules are not made by you, they are made by Parliament. The author of the notice of the informal rejection also seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that it is somehow up to the council to decide to waive the penalty or not, this is not the case: either a contravention occurred or it did not and where a contravention the council must cancel the penalty; there is no discretion about this.

The only real question is whether you wish to incur the £25 tribunal fee before cancelling the penalty.

Yours faithfully,


Send it online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page, if they're stupid enough to reject one of us will sort out the tribunal appeal for you.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Love Love x 1 View List

sparxy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • [ib90xi8p]
    • View Profile
Quote
A cut and paste boiler plate rejection, I wonder is it a poor AI attempt.

I think AI does a better job at punctuation than this letter. According to Copyleaks, it believes it is human text, not AI.

sc2509

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for your help @cp8759 and @Enceladus

We submitted the rep using the draft below. Now let's wait and see!