Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Podling on March 21, 2024, 09:54:11 pm

Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Hippocrates on April 01, 2024, 11:00:43 am
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1527.0;attach=5603;image

This is interesting as cp and I are helping a person regarding a PCN issued in September which has the old wording on it re served rather than occurred concerning the 28 days.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: mrmustard on April 01, 2024, 10:28:19 am
However, I have seen it a few times from Islington recently, enough times to make me think it is a new policy, looking back it wasn't offered on a November rejection as well as the recent one below. I was always going to the tribunal so it was an irrelevance but it did make my choice of action simple to explain, nothing to lose, everything to gain.

(https://i.ibb.co/g7yLGRR/no-discount.png) (https://ibb.co/YW2F6LL)

The discount is like a bribe, it is a red herring. What motorists should do at the start is decide if they have a reasonable argument or not and then fight to the end if they think they do. Half of my cases end up at the tribunal, if I wet my knickers about the discount every time I would lose half my cases as I wouldn't take the risk.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Incandescent on April 01, 2024, 09:40:52 am
Nottingham used to be particularly rapacious on this, but we haven't seen one of their bus lane PCNs for some time now.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: cp8759 on April 01, 2024, 02:24:01 am
I shall follow what you say, but this is a concession, not a right, correct ? If it was in some guidance for all London councils I'd be a lot happier as then it is in the public domain and hence grounds for an appeal on its own if refused.
Guidance is not law, but where a challenge has been made within 14 days a London authority not reoffering the discount to tempt an OP to pay is as rare as rocking horse poop, I don't recall such a thing happening since before lockdown. Even if you look at the rest of England and Wales, I can only recall one such case in the last 2 / 3 years.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Incandescent on April 01, 2024, 12:55:45 am
There is "wriggle room" on the basis of continuous contravention, but councils always refuse informal challenges. Are you willing to stand your ground and wait for the Notice to Owner ? At NtO stage, the discount option is lost and also is not available at the adjudicators.
@Incandescent well that's not really true, as all authorities in London will reoffer the discount if a challenge is made within 14 days of the date of issue of the NTO. Please stop scaring people into paying earlier than needed. Unfortunately it's too late for this OP as you scared him into paying.
I shall follow what you say, but this is a concession, not a right, correct ? If it was in some guidance for all London councils I'd be a lot happier as then it is in the public domain and hence grounds for an appeal on its own if refused.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: cp8759 on March 31, 2024, 09:51:35 pm
There is "wriggle room" on the basis of continuous contravention, but councils always refuse informal challenges. Are you willing to stand your ground and wait for the Notice to Owner ? At NtO stage, the discount option is lost and also is not available at the adjudicators.
@Incandescent well that's not really true, as all authorities in London will reoffer the discount if a challenge is made within 14 days of the date of issue of the NTO. Please stop scaring people into paying earlier than needed. Unfortunately it's too late for this OP as you scared him into paying.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Incandescent on March 27, 2024, 02:36:21 pm
There is "wriggle room" on the basis of continuous contravention, but councils always refuse informal challenges. Are you willing to stand your ground and wait for the Notice to Owner ? At NtO stage, the discount option is lost and also is not available at the adjudicators.
"Continuous contravention" has won in the past at the adjudicators, but it is not a dead-cert. So you'd be taking a double-or-quits gamble.  If you're happy with that then carry on.
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Podling on March 27, 2024, 12:27:56 pm
Update: I paid the first fine as that one wasn’t really in contention, however if there’s genuinely wriggle room on the 2nd I’d love advice!
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Podling on March 26, 2024, 09:52:20 am
Bumping this as I’m running out time for the discounted rate 🙏
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Podling on March 21, 2024, 11:33:19 pm
Hey, sure thing, attached!


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Hippocrates on March 21, 2024, 10:01:40 pm
Hi.  We need the PCN all pages less personal details.
Title: Islington, code 12 parked in a residents bay without permit, Brecknock Road
Post by: Podling on March 21, 2024, 09:54:11 pm
I would sincerely appreciate assistance with my case, thank you in advance! I posted this in the Pepipoo forums and they’re down and I’m running out of time until the fines increase… basically I accidentally parked in an Islington bay without realising and was issued two parking ticket (I have a CAMDEN permit)

I believe my correspondence with Islington summarises things best but essentially I asked them to cancel the two tickets by referencing a tribunal case that’s supported me, they came back and said no.

Now my issue is that they didn’t address that this is two tickets for one continuous contravention.

I have until April 4th to pay the tickets before they increase!

My initial message is below and their reply is attached!

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to contest two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) IZ2945829A & IZ29522606 issued for the same continuous parking contravention in Brecknock Road on 04/03/2024 & 05/03/2024, under the authority of Islington Council. As a recent resident, I inadvertently parked in a bay not covered by my Camden Council parking permit, due to unfamiliarity with the distinct parking regulations of the area. This letter serves to acknowledge my oversight in this matter, while also appealing for your discretion in the cancellation of both PCNs. It was a single mistake made during my adjustment to the new area's parking system. In support of my appeal, I would like to reference Tribunal case 2110189461, which dealt with similar circumstances of multiple PCNs issued for what was essentially one continuous parking contravention. The ruling in this case underscored the importance of fairness and proportionality, principles I believe are relevant to my situation. Given this precedent, issuing two PCNs for a singular error seems disproportionate. I respectfully request that both charges be considered in light of this guidance, recognizing the honest mistake made due to recent relocation and genuine efforts to comply with local parking regulations. I am fully committed to respecting and adhering to the parking rules henceforth. I hope this appeal conveys my intent to rectify the mistake and prevent future occurrences. Enclosed, please find a copy of my Camden Council parking permit and my proof of address and other documents that support my case. I am ready to provide further clarification or information as needed. Thank you for considering my appeal. I trust that a fair and reasonable decision will be reached, reflecting the unique circumstances of this case

[attachment deleted by admin]