Author Topic: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay  (Read 1278 times)

0 Members and 140 Guests are viewing this topic.

Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« on: »
Good evening. My missus received the below ticket when dropping our daughter off at school last week. She wouldn't drive ordinarily but needed the car and couldn't get a spot in our usual bays. The school is between 2 parking zones, C1 at one end, for which we have a permit, and C2 at the other which was the only available space at the time. The time between observations was 5 mins, school starts at 08:45 and she got back just as he had given the ticket. I had similar last year (with a different code) when dropping my daughter off at swimming and was advised by H C Anderson this should be covered by a "blanket waiting restriction" - Southwark did reject this argument, and everything else, until it went to tribunal but it was eventually overturned because the ticket itself was incorrect so I wasn't able to test if the waiting restriction itself was valid in their eyes. Is this argument still valid with this type of ticket in a marked bay? If so, I know Southwark do tend to just reject regardless but could you advise on how best to word my response in the hope they won't take this all the way to tribunal?

Thanks!



Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #1 on: »
You already won that Castle leisure centre PCN on the assisted alighting exemption (although it didn't apply there, but there we go).

This time it does apply as this is an on-street parking place. Remind us - how old is kid and how long and how far was the assisted drop-off.

An issue here is that the CEO did give 5 mins observation.

Code 19 is a lower level penalty we sometimes see councils give in the wrong zone where you have a permit for another zone as here. It's a lower level penalty of £110 instead of £160.



« Last Edit: July 08, 2025, 08:56:04 pm by stamfordman »

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #2 on: »
Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. My daughter is 9, year 4, and the drop off point is 4mins/.2miles roughly each way, it's about a close as you can get in a bay.

Thanks, Tony

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #3 on: »
Hi,

Is it worth submitting a challenge to the pcn on the grounds of assisted drop off? I am sure they will reject it and no point taking it to tribunal if there's only a slim chance of success.

Thanks.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #4 on: »
Isn't there a closer drop-off point say on yellow lines? The exemption applies on these too.

But yes you should try a challenge.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #5 on: »
Unfortunately not, most of the roads are narrow and 1 way around that area. There weren't any C1 bays spare etc. At the time that was pretty much as close as she could get without blocking traffic. I'll try the appeal and see what happens, thanks.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #6 on: »
Post a draft here first.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #7 on: »
The time between observations was 5 mins, school starts at 08:45 and she got back just as he had given the ticket

And she said to him and he said to her?

As far as we know, none of the specific circumstances surrounding the car with an 'invalid permit*' parked in a C2 bay was known to the CEO who therefore issued a PCN. Perfectly understandable.

*- if a C1 wasn't valid in a C2 bay then strictly it cannot be a code 19 which is predicated on the display/holding of something which at some time was valid. But I wouldn't worry too much about this at the moment.


Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #8 on: »
I was wondering whether to make an issue of the code 19 but I've not seen this argued at the tribunal.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #9 on: »
Draft below, tried to keep it brief, have included examples that were provided to me in the past and the links. I understand why it was issued and it's not the CEO's fault, I would just appreciate if Southwark would cancel if possible and not to have to go down the tribunal route. It's worth a try while they will still allow the discount at least:


I’m challenging PCN JK16709240  on the basis of the assisted alighting exemption.

I parked briefly in a C2 bay on Sanctuary Street to help my 9-year-old daughter, who attends Cathedral School, out of the car and walk her to the gate. We have a C1 permit but no C1 bays were available at the time, and stopping in Redcross Way would have blocked this narrow one-way street.
I was away from the car for under 10 minutes, solely to assist her. I returned as the PCN was being issued and moved the vehicle immediately.
This falls under the accepted exemption for assisted alighting, especially involving young children, and has been upheld in similar tribunal cases, including:

Roy Gould v Shepway District Council (SH 05045K, 24 February 2008) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FLhLGP1wFnqPTGDJek3GKXuAUClSxU7i/view
Wajid Khan v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2160230738, 30 June 2016) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t3IPfXcxF0FkUHrS2N6KDkzrElZ4SVU3/view
Nasima Begum v London Borough of Redbridge (2220685150, 2 November 2022) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QkJe3v7ZdTObVDGKXdk9V-jEvx3xO8uj/view
Asim Bhuta v London Borough of Newham (2220099690, 22 March 2022) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZduk-P1Dujhkgcma1wYsU2rarGkkx2w/view
Nabil Rohman v City of Westminster (2230560708, 10 February 2024) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNMXTXDU79DbHX41ugCoA9Ei844QtvhY/view
Noor Ali v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2230556595, 23 March 2024) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_Jl23NgxEmRdVvG63KB1LPSBcXLJf5z/view

I ask that the PCN be cancelled on this basis.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #10 on: »
How does she usually go to school - if this was unusual to drive rather than walk then say so.

Lose the 10 minutes - just say a few minutes.

Lose the examples at this stage.

See what Mr Andersen says but I would be inclined to add:

I am puzzled by the code 19 contravention and wording - is our C1 permit valid in certain circumstances in C2?
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #11 on: »
Normally we just walk, but she needed the car and so was going straight on from the drop off.

I was adding the examples in the hope of avoiding this just being rejected and having to take it further - under what's probably a naive view that if they can see other examples where this was overturned at tribunal they would save themselves the bother of taking this further and let this one slide.

Not sure on the argument re code 19 - it just states that I parked in a residents' bay with an invalid virtual ticket. I assume when they checked my reg it would've come up that mine was a C1 permit and I was in a C2 bay so they issued the ticket accordingly and with a discount. Had I not had a C1 permit then it would have presumbably been a different code and a larger fine.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #12 on: »
I'll tweak it later.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #13 on: »
Morning, my 2 week discount period ends today so I'll look to submit my response soon before I forget. I can just amend my original response with your suggestions, thanks.

Re: Southwark, 19, Parked in residents' bay
« Reply #14 on: »
FYI I submitted the following:

I am challenging PCN JK16709240 on the basis that the vehicle was parked solely for assisted alighting.

My daughter, aged 9 (year 4), attends Cathedral School on Redcross Way. On this occasion, we were running late and unable to find a space in the C1 zone (for which we hold a valid permit). This was not our usual routine — we normally walk — but I needed to accompany her safely to the school gate.

Redcross Way is a narrow one-way street, so stopping in the road was not viable. The C2 bay was the closest safe option, and the vehicle was moved immediately after I returned.

This falls under the accepted exemption for assisted alighting, especially involving young children, and has been upheld in similar tribunal cases, including:

Roy Gould v Shepway District Council (SH 05045K, 24 February 2008) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FLhLGP1wFnqPTGDJek3GKXuAUClSxU7i/view
Wajid Khan v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2160230738, 30 June 2016) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t3IPfXcxF0FkUHrS2N6KDkzrElZ4SVU3/view
Nasima Begum v London Borough of Redbridge (2220685150, 2 November 2022) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QkJe3v7ZdTObVDGKXdk9V-jEvx3xO8uj/view
Asim Bhuta v London Borough of Newham (2220099690, 22 March 2022) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZduk-P1Dujhkgcma1wYsU2rarGkkx2w/view
Nabil Rohman v City of Westminster (2230560708, 10 February 2024) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNMXTXDU79DbHX41ugCoA9Ei844QtvhY/view
Noor Ali v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2230556595, 23 March 2024) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_Jl23NgxEmRdVvG63KB1LPSBcXLJf5z/view

I would ask that you cancel the PCN at this stage to avoid unnecessary escalation.

==================

I'll update once I receive a response, thanks.