3. Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay  (Read 951 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« on: »
Hi,

I'm a Redbridge Residents Permit holder and got a PCN for being 'PARKED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE PARKING CHARGE' (Code 11) within my parking permit zone. I now understand from the rather confusing signage that this was because I was parked in a pay-by-phone bay, which isn't covered by my resident permit.

However, the PCN was misaligned, causing the penalty charge and reduced amount to be unreadable on the paper slip. I lodged an online appeal to the council on the following grounds:

1. The Penalty Charge amount is not readable on the PCN
2. The parking signage is at best confusing. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH and wrongly thought I was allowed to park in the allocated bays.

However, this was rejected by the council on the following grounds: "The details of the notice have been checked and found to be valid because the vehicle was parked in a Residents Bay/Zone without displaying a valid resident or visitor's permit"

My resident permit was clearly displayed, and the council rejection is therefore unrelated to the alleged offence, which was regarding failure to pay the pay-by-phone parking charge.

Considering all the above, is it worth waiting for the Notice to Owner to be received for the full charge and then make a formal representation on procedural grounds? Or should I just leave it there and pay the reduced amount within the 14 days?
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #1 on: »
For meaningful advice please to have a read of
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/

and post up here copies of
all sides of
the PCN,
your challenge,
the Council's response
and a GSV link to the location.

Only redact your name & address from docs, leave everything else in.
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #2 on: »
Thanks John, attaching the PCN and other evidence below
















The street view location is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/w93fy5ntbcTNeeez9


The PCN Challenge Submission receipt e-mail was as follows:
Quote
PCN Challenge Submission
Dear Mr
Your challenge has been received
Your challenge was submitted on Mon 21/10/2024 13:32. 
Your case reference number is: TF00527024.
What happens now
Your case will now be placed on hold and will not progress while the matter is under review, we will endeavour to respond within 56 days.
If your challenge is successful, the PCN will be cancelled and no further action will be necessary.
If we do not accept your challenge, provided we have received your informal challenge within the discount period of 14 days, we will give you a further opportunity to pay at the discount rate.
If you challenged outside the 14 days the full amount of the PCN is payable. If you do not then pay the PCN within 28 days, you will receive a document called a Notice to Owner explaining the next stage of the challenge process, which is a representation.
Penalty Charge Notice: AF08108997
Vehicle registration: RJ67ZSF
Title: Mr
First name:
Last name:
Address:
Email:
Reason for challenging the PCN?: Procedural Impropriety. 
1. The Penalty Charge amount is not readable on the PCN 2. The parking signage is at best confusing. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH and wrongly thought I was allowed to park in the allocated bays.
Evidence attached: PCN.jpeg, Redbridge.jpeg, holders.jpeg


And the response was:



Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #3 on: »
Considering the absence of any reply after posting all the evidence, I will probably pay the PCN despite the multiple procedural and signage issues affecting it.
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #4 on: »
I think I'd wait for the NTO and make reps quoting their rejection and providing proof of your permit.

Redbridge is pretty useless and they should pay the price for messing this up.
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #5 on: »
Yes, but is the fact that their response to my challenge was factually incorrect enough to get the PCN cancelled by a formal appeal?
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #6 on: »
It's a lower level penalty so the punt is £40 but they will probably reoffer the discount if they try and wriggle out of their mangled first stage rejection.

So I would go on and respond to the NTO quoting their rejection and enclosing your permit. But see what others say.

Are you the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct.

As for the signage it is confusing - it's a permit parking zone so why they've marked the bays opposite the P&D ones as permit only I don't know and the sign with the arrow is silly. There is also a permit parking end sign on the back of the entry sign by the start of the P&D bays.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5614475,0.0375096,3a,38.1y,184.38h,80.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5dxntsrr8CBOyq91rAWKMg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D9.700912199378322%26panoid%3D5dxntsrr8CBOyq91rAWKMg%26yaw%3D184.37677113750902!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #7 on: »
Thanks. I am the registered keeper and the log book is up to date. I would only send a copy of my permit as I permanently need the original to park in my zone. Bearing in mind, the permit can clearly be seen on display in one of the PCN's online pictures.

Also worth noting, I parked my car there on 08/10 before going abroad on the 9th. Many other cars were parked alongside in the same bays.The PCN was issued on 17/10, and I found it upon my return on 20/10, partly damaged by the rain. The questionable state of the pay-by-phone parking signs leads me to suspect they were covered at the time I parked, and carelessly uncovered at some later date while I was away. I have no direct evidence for this, but might this increase my chances of getting the PCN repealed?
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #8 on: »
Maybe speak to neighbours if you know them about signs.

I think you have enough to proceed and certainly you are entitled to have a go at the rejection. But see if others chip in. 
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #9 on: »
So I got the NTO and made a further representation on the following grounds:

Quote
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.


1. The Penalty Charge amount is mis-aligned and not readable on the printed PCN (attached)


2. The pay-by-phone road signage is at best confusing, with quote location not being readable (attached)


3. My PCN Challenge Submission (submitted on Mon 21/10/2024 13:32 with case reference number TF00527024 for the above reasons) was rejected for the wrong reason: "The details of the notice have been checked and found to be valid because the vehicle was parked in a Residents Bay / Zone without displaying a valid resident or visitor's permit.". This is incorrect. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH, and my resident permit RE00091599 (Applicant: 35873) was clearly displayed (as can be verified in the PCN's online pictures). I'm also attaching a close-up picture of my permit, as clearly displayed under my car's windscreen.


Evidence(s): scan of the PCN, picture of my permit clearly visible on windscreen, and picture of one of the 2 pay-by-phone signs delimiting the zone, where the location number is almost totally obscured and the phone number partially obscured (see first picture above). 



TBH, my car was actually parked closer to the second sign (see second picture above), where the location number is only partially obscured but still not obvious to read. I didn’t send that picture due to the limitation of 3 attachments.



This is the Notice of Rejection of Representation I received (bold marks added by me for highlight):



Quote
Thank you for your formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). After careful consideration of the details provided we do not feel that there are sufficient grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. This letter is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection of your representation.



We have rejected your representations because your vehicle was seen parked without payment.



The officer observed your vehicle parked in a pay and display area without a valid Ringo session. It is clear from the officer's photographs that your vehicle was parked adjacent to the sign which clearly advises the restrictions. The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.



Your residents permit is only valid in a permit area or shared use permit area, not a pay and display area.



I have noted your comments and mitigation and whilst there was and administration error with the informal challenge letter, this does not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.



You now have the following options;



* Pay the outstanding amount of £80.00 within 28 days of the date this letter was served (the date it was delivered).



* Or you can appeal to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicators (ETA, part of London Tribunals) using the enclosed appeal form. This must be done no later than 28 days of this letter being served. An Adjudicator, who is independent of the Council, will then consider your appeal and make a final decision about whether your appeal should be allowed or rejected by the Council. Their decision is legally binding on both you and the Council. 
Should the Adjudicator reject your appeal you will be liable to pay the full penalty charge of £80.00, as at this stage you are unable to pay the 50% reduced amount.



Information on how to pay your outstanding penalty charge balance can be found on your PCN or on the parking section of the Council's website www.redbridge.gov.uk.




The signs aren’t clear as can be seen from the pictures above, and the image I provided was only about 20 meters from where I was parked.



So I intend to proceed with the formal ETA appeal on the following procedural grounds:



1. Misaligned printed PCN amount


2. Poor condition and readability of both pay-by-phone signs


3. ‘Administration error’ with the informal challenge response letter rejecting for the wrong reason (failure to display permit)


4. ‘Administration error’ with the Notice of Rejection of Representation stating that ‘The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.’, which is contrary to photographic evidence.




Any further recommendations?
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #10 on: »
3. ‘Administration error’ with the informal challenge response letter rejecting for the wrong reason (failure to display permit)


4. ‘Administration error’ with the Notice of Rejection of Representation stating that ‘The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.’, which is contrary to photographic evidence.

'Administration error', my a**e. They'll be laughed out of the tribunal. Let us ascribe headings and punchy appeal grounds pl, you're too kind!
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #11 on: »
Thanks H C, what punchy appeal grounds would you suggest?
Logged
Re: Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay
« Reply #12 on: »
So that's my draft... Any further recommendations welcome!





I am appealing to this PCN due to a number of readability issues and procedural errors on part of the council.





I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH and genuinely thought the pay-by-phone bays were also covered by my permit (attached). The poor maintenance state and readability of the pay-by-phone signs that delimit the bays (attached) go a long way to explain this mistake. In effect, the council is now proposing to install mixed pay-by-phone/resident permit bays on the other side of the street, which will only increase the confusion.





On 21/10/2024, I made an informal appeal to the PCN on the following grounds of Procedural Impropriety:

  • The Penalty Charge amount is not readable on the PCN (attached)
  • The parking signage is at best confusing. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH and wrongly thought I was allowed to park in the allocated bays (attached signage and permit pics).

The Council’s response from 22/10/2024 (attached) rejected this first appeal for the wrong reason: “The details of the notice have been checked and found to be valid because the vehicle was parked in a Residents Bay / Zone without displaying a valid resident or visitor's permit.”.  As stated in my appeal,  I am a resident permit holder for the zone. The PCN online images also confirm my permit was correctly displayed.





I hence decided to wait for the NTO and lodged a formal representation on 20/11/2024, on the following grounds of Procedural Impropriety:

  • The Penalty Charge amount is mis-aligned and not readable on the printed PCN (attached)
  • The pay-by-phone road signage is at best confusing, with quote location not being readable (attached)
  • My PCN Challenge Submission (submitted on Mon 21/10/2024 13:32 with case reference number TF00527024 for the above reasons) was rejected for the wrong reason: "The details of the notice have been checked and found to be valid because the vehicle was parked in a Residents Bay / Zone without displaying a valid resident or visitor's permit.". This is incorrect. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH, and my resident permit RE00091599 (Applicant: 35873) was clearly displayed (as can be verified in the PCN's online pictures). I'm also attaching a close-up picture of my permit, as clearly displayed under my car's windscreen.

The Council’s Notice of Rejection of Representation from 21/11/2024 implies that “It is clear from the officer's photographs that your vehicle was parked adjacent to the sign which clearly advises the restrictions. The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.”, which is again incorrect. The image I provided is from one end of the affected bays, and both signs are in a poor state of readability.





At no point does the notice of rejection address the printed PCN’s misaligned and poorly readable amount. And it dismisses the further procedural impropriety of the informal challenge response by an “whilst there was and(sic) administration error with the informal challenge letter, this does not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.”..





These amount to further Procedural Improprieties on top of the previous ones, and are adding insult to injury.





Considering all the above, I believe my appeal should be allowed by the council, if only to hold them responsible for the ongoing quality and fairness of their parking enforcement procedures.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Redbridge resident holder parked in pay-by-phone bay