Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: pepipoo on August 04, 2024, 03:53:59 pm
-
The back of the PCN is clear on no discount when challenged - I take it we've not sure Havering is acting OK here.
I think this is the location and there is no current loading restriction only double yellows.
(https://i.imgur.com/BPi5KPy.png)
-
Thanks.
Dreadful reasoning - FFS what the hell has moving traffic got to do with matters(as it falls outwith the scope of the report), what contribution does moving traffic make to the numbers, do the council seriously think that they can draw such a distinction between a change in policy designed to reduce expenditure and one intended to raise revenue etc. etc?
OP, pl post the back of your PCN.
Without sight of the back of the PCN and unless you or someone else can get photos of the signs and lines as they are now then you're asking us to give advice in a vacuum.
Thank you for your thoughts H C, I feel the same frustration as I would usually ensure I do everything I need to gather evidence and photos etc. I'm not able to at this point, so I am likely to go ahead with the payment as it feels like I don't have enough counter evidence to make an appeal.
The back of the ticket:
(https://i.imgur.com/00FzwZm.jpeg)
-
There's no requirement for an authority to re-offer the discount provided this is done having regard to the Guidance. Their parking figures and experience might indeed lead them to conclude that it should not be offered - I don't buy into the 'at their discretion' nonsense which is prevalent because this calls for the exercise of judgement by officers but without the required detailed framework which would make decisions rational as opposed random.
But Members didn't have relevant data upon which to base their decisions- assuming this was confirmed by the Cabinet or council. They received a report which failed in its most simple task: it failed to identify the issues arising from the Guidance, in particular their scope, and develop rational arguments within this boundary.
The KC's opinion is at odds with the errors in the report(why is the KC always referred to as King's Counsel, did the author think that spelling the title in full added extra gravitas to the opinion??), I wonder whether they know how their opinion has been used?
I'll look at the two referenced reports i.e. Budget Options 2023 and Budget Setting 2024.
IMO, the report lacks reference to Legal Implications. Councils are required to take advice from their legal officers not external legal opinion, no matter how well qualified. I cannot find this reference which normally forms part of every report, for example:
Legal Implications - the Head of Legal Services' opinion is contained within the report or whatever.
Whether the above has any effect on the OP's dilemma will depend on how far the issue is taken i.e. to adjudication or not. An d this rather depends on photos!
-
Problem is if Havering get away with it, they'll all be at it. Will we see any changes in the regs ? I doubt it with this new government.
-
Thanks.
Dreadful reasoning - FFS what the hell has moving traffic got to do with matters(as it falls outwith the scope of the report), what contribution does moving traffic make to the numbers, do the council seriously think that they can draw such a distinction between a change in policy designed to reduce expenditure and one intended to raise revenue etc. etc?
OP, pl post the back of your PCN.
Without sight of the back of the PCN and unless you or someone else can get photos of the signs and lines as they are now then you're asking us to give advice in a vacuum.
-
There is a recent decision by Havering Council not to re-offer the discount on any initial representations to a PCN.
Do you have a reference pl.
'Having regard to' means, if I remember correctly, that if recommendations in the guidance are not accepted there must be a fair and lawful basis for so doing, after consultation with the council's legal department.
The guidance states that if unsuccessful reps are made against the PCN within 14 days then 'Local authority advised to reissue 50% discount'.
Can't remember where I saw this, but it will be in council records somewhere. There was a consultation too early in the year.
There is this on their PCN reps page.
https://www.havering.gov.uk/parking-2/parking-tickets-traffic-fines#:~:text=From%2022%20July%202024%2C%20if,right%20to%20make%20a%20representation.
and
https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s74951/181.%20Parking%20PCN%20Discount%20Non-key%20Decision%20July%202024-Final.pdf
-
There is a recent decision by Havering Council not to re-offer the discount on any initial representations to a PCN.
Do you have a reference pl.
'Having regard to' means, if I remember correctly, that if recommendations in the guidance are not accepted there must be a fair and lawful basis for so doing, after consultation with the council's legal department.
The guidance states that if unsuccessful reps are made against the PCN within 14 days then 'Local authority advised to reissue 50% discount'.
-
We don't have the info needed to properly challenge this which is why I said ask them for their pics.
If I were challenging this I'd say:
I am challenging on the grounds that the 02 loading contravention did not occur. As far as I am aware there are not loading restrictions at this location - I did not see signage to this effect when I stopped to briefly collect items from a shop here.
I am unable to check your CEO's pictures as they do not seem to be online but I trust my challenge is correct and look forward to your cancellation of this PCN.
Frankly it would be miserable if they didn't give the discount if they can stand the contravention up but see what others say.
Thank you for your suggestion - I have requested them, but not received a message back yet. I'll update if there are no photographs attributed to my PCN.
Yes it does seem outrageous that the payment is being forced on to most individuals who wouldn't have the capacity to look into a proper challenge and might have any representations rejected.
-
About as helpful as a nail in my thumb:
* Please enter the reasons for your challenge in the box below:
-
There is a recent decision by Havering Council not to re-offer the discount on any initial representations to a PCN. The sole reason is to save money in staff considering reps and responding to them, (99% rejections needless to say). They say the decision and noting the Statutory Guidance in the discussion, means "they have had regard to the Statutory Guidance" for the TMA2004. Of course for reps against the LLA & TfL Act 2003, there is no guidance anyway.
I'm hoping this will come back to bite them when the staff they hope to save cannot be saved because they are all involved in preparing evidence packs for appeals to London Tribunals. What did Burns say ?
"the best laid plans o' mice and men gang aft a-gley"
-
We don't have the info needed to properly challenge this which is why I said ask them for their pics.
If I were challenging this I'd say:
I am challenging on the grounds that the 02 loading contravention did not occur. As far as I am aware there are not loading restrictions at this location - I did not see signage to this effect when I stopped to briefly collect items from a shop here.
I am unable to check your CEO's pictures as they do not seem to be online but I trust my challenge is correct and look forward to your cancellation of this PCN.
Frankly it would be miserable if they didn't give the discount if they can stand the contravention up but see what others say.
-
Havering says:
From 22 July 2024, if your challenge or representation against a Penalty Charge Notice is rejected, you won't be offered the discounted charge to pay.
But further down it still says:
If we receive your challenge within the discounted period the discounted charge will be offered to you again if we are unable to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Do we really think they are scrapping the discount reoffer for rejected informal challenges? And not having CEO pics available compounds unfairness.
https://www.havering.gov.uk/parking-2/parking-tickets-traffic-fines/2
-
I have checked Havering's traffic orders and it doesn't seem to be that there are loading restrictions in that location.
We really need their pictures - suggest you contact them and ask for the images the CEO took.
What were you collecting.
I was collecting food!
Unfortunately, I think I will have to pay this PCN as I am about to travel and haven't been able to return to the area to get any photos. I don't think I have enough to throw in an appeal unless there is a good suggestion otherwise?
-
I have checked Havering's traffic orders and it doesn't seem to be that there are loading restrictions in that location.
We really need their pictures - suggest you contact them and ask for the images the CEO took.
What were you collecting.
-
So let's get this right. You parked to go shopping on double-yellow lines. These need no signs, so there were none for you to look out for. Did you not notice these DYLs which mean No Waiting 24x7 ?
The PCN says the restriction is also No Loading, but GSV latest is August 2021, and shows there is no no-loading restriction, so a No Loading restriction may have been brought in since them. So if you are to take this further with us, you'll need to do some legwork and take photos of the street where you parked so we can look for yellow kerb blips and a sign giving the times of the loading restriction. If they are double kerb blips, it is No Loading 24x7.
I get the distinct feeling reading your narrative that you just decided to chance your arm, but lost; true or false ?
Incidentally, you should be able to view the CEO's photos on their website by quoting PCN Number and car reg.
Incandescent thank you for your input - I feel I was quite transparent that I made a silly mistake and didn't allude to anything else; but if it's important to you to establish what is true or false - the mistake I made was taking a chance on parking incorrectly.
The website shows no photos when I input my details - I'm not sure what that means.
Havering is not my local area so I will see whether it is possible to return to check signage etc. I can see how that would be important to establish.
-
So let's get this right. You parked to go shopping on double-yellow lines. These need no signs, so there were none for you to look out for. Did you not notice these DYLs which mean No Waiting 24x7 ?
The PCN says the restriction is also No Loading, but GSV latest is August 2021, and shows there is no no-loading restriction, so a No Loading restriction may have been brought in since them. So if you are to take this further with us, you'll need to do some legwork and take photos of the street where you parked so we can look for yellow kerb blips and a sign giving the times of the loading restriction. If they are double kerb blips, it is No Loading 24x7.
I get the distinct feeling reading your narrative that you just decided to chance your arm, but lost; true or false ?
Incidentally, you should be able to view the CEO's photos on their website by quoting PCN Number and car reg.
-
What is the vehicle reg/VRM.
I can't see any loading restrictions on the latest maps view.
Thank you for the input. I couldn't either, but not sure if that is sufficient to chance an appeal.
Apologies, vehicle reg is here:
(https://i.imgur.com/pICkQkw.jpeg)
-
What is the vehicle reg/VRM.
I can't see any loading restrictions on the latest maps view.
-
Hello all, thanks in advance for any help.
Infuriatingly silly mistake on my part - parked up in front of a shop to collect something without looking at specific restrictions. PCN issued within a minute by the attendant and he was taking photos of my car as I left. Havering have just removed the option of the discounted rate if I attempt an appeal, which means I'd need to be confident of grounds if I wanted to try.
(https://i.imgur.com/XYNdn6N.jpeg)
Google maps location (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iXULGYbytDXstT9W9)(white van is where I parked)
I wasn't able to examine signage etc as I left the spot. I also can't view the attendant's photos as this has not been issued by post.
I'd be grateful for any thoughts on whether I could successfully appeal this on any grounds. Thanks!