Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: dbcc33 on October 13, 2024, 05:29:26 pm
-
but i got asked:
Can you please confirm if you wish to attend a video hearing for the cost application or if this can be decided as a postal case which means you do not have to attend"
-
There is no hearing - you just ask for costs. But you have to do this as soon as possible and not weeks later.
-
@stamfordman is it better to attend a cost application hearing in person or just let it to postal vote?
-
I said it is a high bar.
You could add that Harrow knows your father is disabled and has a BB and also behaved unreasonably with the BB mishap as well as ignoring the exemption and appears not to have taken the case on its merits and has acted unreasonably in past cases.
-
Let me put a view:
I am satisfied [that although the vehicle was parked and unattended at the location on the balance of probabilities and] having heard the Appellant' oral evidence that this exemption [to assisted alighting] has been established.
That's it, and IMO not the stuff of a costs award.
Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses.
(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;
(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
-
ive also found these previous cases
-
• 2240406329 – Appeal allowed where brief absence to escort a child was accepted under the boarding/alighting exemption.
• 2240435225 – Tribunal rejected Harrow’s view that assisting a child before boarding nullified the exemption.
• 2240372023 – Disabled passenger escorted into a hotel; exemption upheld despite Harrow’s refusal to recognise it.
• 2030235349 – Assisting a wheelchair user into a bank ruled exempt; council incorrectly focused on loading.
not sure if those will add any weight to a cost order
-
thanks for your view @stamfordman, keen to understand what others also think.
ive drafted this just in case (see what you think), but am not hopeful...more than the cost/time, im thinking how the council could be deterred from taking these things always to the end even when they shouldnt- even tho the adjudicator accepted the evidence was there from outset, she doesnt seem to have told them off for any procedural impropriety. i can tell you though that he decided in literally 1 minute, ie it wasnt really a hearing, the outcome was a given ie obvious.
btw if i do go through with this, i assume i just upload this to the portal? or is there a different way to submit it?
To the Adjudicator
Re: Case Reference 2250042794
I respectfully submit an application for a cost order under Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, based on the following grounds:
• Unreasonable Conduct by the Council:
- The Council failed to consider the exemption under Article 11 at any stage of the process, despite it being raised from outset.
- An incorrect legal test was applied by the Council, requiring visual confirmation of alighting, which is not supported by the wording of the Order.
- The Council’s conduct prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily.
• Findings of the Adjudicator:
- The exemption under Article 11 was accepted by the Adjudicator as having been satisfied through the evidence.
- The Council failed to engage with the substance of this evidence throughout its enforcement and appeal responses.
• Request for Preparation Time Order:
- I have invested considerable unnecessary time (circa XX hours) preparing the appeal in response to the Council’s unreasonable stance, including reviewing legislation, compiling evidence, requesting advice and drafting submissions.
- Based on the prescribed hourly rate of £45, I request a Preparation Time Order of £XX.
I trust that the Tribunal will give this application due consideration in light of the findings and the avoidable expenditure of time caused by the Council’s actions.
Yours faithfully,
-
It doesn't cost anything to ask for costs but it's a high bar and probably won't succeed. I think it's worth a go given the adjudication.
---------
Case reference 2250042794
The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of parking in a permit holder only space at the location.
The Appellant has attended the hearing and given evidence.
The Council relies upon photographic capture of the vehicle, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation, and correspondence.
The Appellant contends that she should benefit from an exemption contained within the relevant Order. She has contended from the outset that, at the relevant time, she was assisting her father, who holds a valid Blue Badge. She contends that she was escorting her elderly father to his home and unload his shopping into his home. This took a number of trips back and forth, and he could not do this due to his serious health difficulties. As soon as he was safely inside his house, she returned to the vehicle.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The footage relied upon by the Council shows the vehicle parked and unattended at the location.
Article 11 of the Order which creates the restriction sets out an exemption if a vehicle is waiting, "for so long as may be necessary to enable that person to board or alight from the vehicle or load thereon or unload therefrom their personal luggage.".
I am satisfied having heard the Appellant' oral evidence that this exemption has been established.
I therefore allow this appeal.
-
Great, thank you so much for your help.
@stamfordman, judging by your comment that harrow should not have contested, do you think there are grounds for a cost order? i wasn't going to bother unless anyone here thinks its worth it - they did fail to even consider the exemption at every stage which the adjudicator alluded to but didnt comment on any procedural impropriety.
-
Seen. ;)
-
Does anyone know how i can tag H C Andersen so he sees this?
-
Case number is 2250042794
Thanks All
-
Well done - case number please, as may assist others.
-
Good - but this should not have been contested by Harrow.
-
Good news update !
Just wanted to update you all that i just had my hearing and the adjudicator allowed the appeal within less than 2 minutes.
So wanted to relay thanks, particularly to HC Andersen for a well crafted response, because although i was all geared up to explain my story, she didnt actually need much more from me at all.
-
thanks,
apparently the next available date isnt until the end of july so it has been rescheduled to then.
hope they dont cancel last-minute again.
-
They must rearrange it to fit in with you - there should be no problem as they sit 6 days a week. Call them and say from when would suit you.
-
So today i received a voicemail from london tribunals to say my hearing tomorrow is cancelled and will be rescheduled to a date in a couple of weeks that i cant make !
Do i have flexibility to change this given they decided to cancel so last minute?!
-
just a quick nudge on this - is there anything else im expected to do before the hearing?
-
is there any notification or instruction before the hearing?
the order of submissions has been.
1. i registered the appeal
2. council uploaded evidence 1.5 weeks ago.
3. I uploaded my appeal yesterday (as posted plus BB plus medical evidence) and receive auto- confirmation.
Does anything else happen before now and the tribunal or i just expect someone to phone me at the time?
-
Yes you must attend the hearing in some way. They also do Microsoft Teams.
-
@Andersen
I uploaded what i posted before (which was a very subtle variation of your very helpful template) to the tribunal portal under " additional evidence".
Hopefully that was the right thing to do and i didnt need to upload somewhere different?
the tribunal is set for May 1st.
I'm assuming its best to attend the telephone hearing rather than have it heard based on just the paper evidence?
I dont know if im supposed to hear back anything before that date or not?
-
What's the current situation with your appeal?
-
thanks @Enceladus
i looked into that but the police told me if someone is willing to smash a window then they are clearly capable of cutting a bike lock.
the council should take responsibility - ive never liked the idea of advertising " hey - look at me - im disabled and vulnerable"!
in this digital age it is completely primitive to have a piece of cardboard on display.
-
@dbcc33
Unfortunately it appears that theft of blue Badges is endemic in the country. Made worse by the then government cancelling the need to prosecute blue badge abuse amd compile prosecution statistics, after fiscal 2021. Even before then the majority of Councils did not prosecute anybody or a handful at best. If people can use/abuse lost and stolen badges but there is no meaningful checking and prosecution then there is no deterrent.
Consider buying one of these security devices (https://bluebadgeprotector.co.uk/products/blue-badge-protector-double). At least it might encourage the criminals to go elsewhere.
-
So i was wondering if it was possible for someone trawling these threads to identify vulnerable BB holders to target?!
Not on this forum unless you misguidedly showed your name and address somewhere on the thread. Car reg cannot be used to find out name and address, nor PCN Number. However, clearly somebody of malicious intent within the council parking department can obtain your address. Other aspect, of course, is whether you have discussed this case with others you know.
Actually locations where PCNs are issued are posted here - we insist on them - and they can be outside someone's house. But it's very unlikely anyone is looking here for BBs to steal. There are plenty on display in many streets.
-
Ive deleted the previous link and relinked with viewing access (not editing access only) hopefully this resolves the issue
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=9okyxgtznin7kbvu2s1oeusn8&st=kr0v4988&dl=0
-
However, clearly somebody of malicious intent within the council parking department can obtain your address.
[/quote]
wow - that happens?!
no haven't discussed this with anyone else. and i did redact the documents but since it was able to be uploaded without redaction maybe its too easy to unredact.
-
So i was wondering if it was possible for someone trawling these threads to identify vulnerable BB holders to target?!
Not on this forum unless you misguidedly showed your name and address somewhere on the thread. Car reg cannot be used to find out name and address, nor PCN Number. However, clearly somebody of malicious intent within the council parking department can obtain your address. Other aspect, of course, is whether you have discussed this case with others you know.
-
hi all,
Wasnt sure whether to start a new thread or not but last night my car was broken into outside of my dads house specifically to steal my fathers BB!!! passenger side window smashed where bb displayed and nothing else stolen!
i dont need advice on what to do as already notified police and council BUT i was just wondering about the coincidence of uploading the BB here together with the PCN with the location and then this happening at the same time ! hopefully just a coincidence but its the first time this has ever happened and it just happened to be while i was posting here!
So i was wondering if it was possible for someone trawling these threads to identify vulnerable BB holders to target?!
Anyway, needless to say it was easier for me to arrange replacement of my smashed window than it was replacement of the BB but now im really worried about being targeted in future. ie if they had stolen valuables obviously you dont leave valuables, but with a BB, they expect you to have it on display which it seems makes you a target for burglars !!
This all tells me that actually the council should have a better process like a virtual badge or QR code that wardens can scan rather than a piece of card vulnerable to dropping off and being stolen.
I'm still reeling from this and now makes me hesitant to even display it but this leaves my father with no way of travelling whatsoever- hes now stuck and i have to postpone hospital appts because we wont be able to park close enough given with Easter the council will take forever to replace.
And btw it cost more to replace my car window than a PCN!
Is there anyone i can write to at the council to tell them that asking to display makes the car a target for criminals?!
Is this kind of crime on the rise?! I wonder what anyone could do with it given everyone reports it as stolen and i presume it gets cancelled/revoked straight away !
ugh everything to do with my car and caring for dad goes from bad to worse. it's not being disabled thats the issue. its societal treatment thats disabling!
-
How about this as final version?
I was thinking of also appending the formal representation again, together with the BB and medical evidence just for completeness.
Summary of events.
Parked;
Assisted father to house;
Returned to collect his items (from boot of car) and delivered them to his house;
Returned to car, sat in driver's seat and noticed PCN.
Do not know whether the PCN was served during the assisted alighting or unloading phases, but I submit that each was an exemption from the restriction and therefore the PCN should be cancelled.
I refer the adjudicator to the council's evidence, in particular this statement:
'In order for the boarding/alighting exemption to apply, activity must be seen taking place. The Civil Enforcement Officer noted the vehicle parked and unattended.'
I also refer to the council's references to previous PCNs which, although gratuitous as regards this PCN, give ample supporting evidence that I have a disabled father whom I transport regularly and who holds a Blue Badge which, between the two of us, manages on very rare occasions to dislodge on to the seat/footwell because the demands placed upon me when assisting my father can give rise to mistakes.
On this occasion, between us we didn’t display the badge correctly and were this to be the basis of my appeal then I could not take issue with being deemed to be in technical breach of conditions.
But in this case my appeal (as regards the contravention) is based upon the exemption under the Traffic Management Order of alighting, in this case assisted alighting, which brings the council's statement above into focus. As I understand it, an exemption is an exemption. It is not mitigation or a request to exercise discretion but an exemption. I respectfully suggest that this may be exercised as and when the conditions are met. I ask the adjudicator to infer from the council's statement that they are seeking to modify its application, by misstating the position in law, rather than examining a claim to satisfy themselves that it applies. I respectfully suggest that dismissing a defence of assisted alighting without proper scrutiny of the owner's assertion is improper and would be a procedural impropriety in itself as well as, in this case, rejection of a legitimate exemption based upon a false legal premise. I find it difficult to believe that the council have applied their framework against me alone and therefore had they checked their records and other adjudication decisions I believe that it could be stated that, to use their words, 'they have been advised on a number of occasions of the necessity and importance and assessing representations against the correct legal framework'. To reiterate, the council also failed to consider the exemption both at informal and formal appeal stages.
I also suggest that this applies in respect of the procedural improprieties within the Notice of Rejection. As I understand it, the basic mandatory wording regarding the 'Duties of an Enforcement Authority as regards representations made' have remained unaltered since the Regulations were first issued in 2008, since when adjudicators have stressed to authorities the necessity and importance of conveying the meaning of these duties correctly. In my case the NOR states:
'You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to..'
It then refers to the owner's statutory right to appeal and their power to issue a Charge Certificate under this umbrella condition.
However, the regulations stipulate that the applicable period is no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service, not from. I understand that adjudicators have consistently found that whether the effects of the 'extra day' are beneficial to the driver or not (and they cannot be as regards the adjudicator's power to not register appeals made late, even by one day) misstating these mandatory provisions is grounds for allowing appeals for procedural impropriety.
I respectfully ask the adjudicator to find that the contravention did not occur and that there have been procedural improprieties by the authority and therefore allow my appeal.
-
OK thanks both. Will use that plus your original wording.
-
As per Incandescent and your order of events:
Parked;
Assisted father to house;
Returned to collect his items (from boot of car) and delivered them to his house;
Returned to car, sat in driver's seat and noticed PCN.
Do not know whether the PCN was served during the assisted boarding or delivery phases, but I submit that each was an exemption from the restriction and therefore the PCN should be cancelled.
-
Everything you did was part of "assisted boarding activity". How could it be otherwise when your father is incapable of carrying the shopping, so two trips to his house are obviously necessary as part of the assistance.
-
Thanks both,
@Andersen I want to make a slight correction to the order of events:
Parked; failed to display BB in prescribed manner; assisted vulnerable father to their house;
Returned to retrieve the shopping (unloaded the bags from the boot, did not go to front of car)
After leaving shopping inside, returned to the car to drive off, noticed the PCN.
So actually i don't know whether the PCN was issued whilst assisted alighting or while onloading. In theory it could have been either, but looking at the time of issue, it maybe more likely it was during the latter. But in theory it could have been there when i returned for the shopping but didn't notice it.
That's why im asking whether i mention unloading or not here?
btw re settling, i mean make sure he was sat down with coat and shoes off. Not having a cuppa tea! same with shopping, unloaded the bag onto his table (not reorganising the kitchen cupboards!)- both of which were needed as he cant do himself.
But OK, i get what you're saying, don't volunteer more detail unless i get asked. that's fine.
-
OP, as I understand the sequence of events:
Parked; failed to display BB in prescribed manner; assisted your vulnerable father to their house;
PCN issued;
You returned to retrieve shopping and noticed the PCN;
You can give this as the context.
But IMO, the defence against the PCN is assisted alighting because this is what was happening while it was being issued.
The defence of assisted alighting applies only for the time necessary to assist the person, so IMO don't introduce matters around settling him in etc. because you don't know how these might be received. By all means give this if you're asked.
-
my other question is do i upload everything i put at formal appeal again ie the medical evidence etc or i presume they will get that from the previous uploads and the council pack?
Well in theory the Council's evidence pack should include everything you sent to them, so you shouldn't need to send the documents again. So check, have they omitted anything?
Regardless I would be inclined to include/upload all documents, unredacted, that I want to bring to the Adjudicator's attention, so I can more easily refer to them. And they can be more easily located.
I know you are not relying on a Blue Badge exemption from the parking restrictions and you are relying on the boarding / alighting exemption. Regardless I would include pictures of both sides of the Blue Badge as it lends credence to your assertion that the passenger being alighted was indeed disabled. It makes you more credible and not just making it up to get out of paying the penalty.
And I wish you good luck.
-
my other question is do i upload everything i put at formal appeal again ie the medical evidence etc or i presume they will get that from the previous uploads and the council pack?
-
How about this?
I removed the line about "metaphorically between 2 stools" as i didnt understand it and added a line about the council failing to consider the exemption at informal/formal appeal stages.
The other thing i was wondering is what about unloading - if you recall there were 2 trips, one to assist dad into the house and the other to unload the shopping. the latter is missing here though i dont know how much it matters. i did include it at formal appeal though.
Thanks
I refer the adjudicator to the council's evidence, in particular this statement:
'In order for the boarding/alighting exemption to apply, activity must be seen taking place. The Civil Enforcement Officer noted the vehicle parked and unattended.'
I also refer to the council's references to previous PCNs which, although gratuitous as regards this PCN, give ample supporting evidence that I have a disabled father whom I transport regularly and who holds a Blue Badge which, between the two of us, manages on very rare occasions to dislodge on to the seat/footwell because the demands placed upon me when assisting my father can give rise to mistakes.
On this occasion, between us we didn’t display the badge correctly and were this to be the basis of my appeal then I could not take issue with being deemed to be in technical breach of conditions.
But in this case my appeal (as regards the contravention) is based upon the exemption under the Traffic Management Order of alighting, in this case assisted alighting, which brings the council's statement above into focus. As I understand it, an exemption is an exemption. It is not mitigation or a request to exercise discretion but an exemption. I respectfully suggest that this may be exercised as and when the conditions are met. I ask the adjudicator to infer from the council's statement that they are seeking to modify its application, by misstating the position in law, rather than examining a claim to satisfy themselves that it applies. I respectfully suggest that dismissing a defence of assisted alighting without proper scrutiny of the owner's assertion is improper and would be a procedural impropriety in itself as well as, in this case, rejection of a legitimate exemption based upon a false legal premise. I find it difficult to believe that the council have applied their framework against me alone and therefore had they checked their records and other adjudication decisions I believe that it could be stated that, to use their words, 'they have been advised on a number of occasions of the necessity and importance and assessing representations against the correct legal framework'. To reiterate, the council also failed to consider the exemption both at informal and formal appeal stages.
I also suggest that this applies in respect of the procedural improprieties within the Notice of Rejection. As I understand it, the basic mandatory wording regarding the 'Duties of an Enforcement Authority as regards representations made' have remained unaltered since the Regulations were first issued in 2008, since when adjudicators have stressed to authorities the necessity and importance of conveying the meaning of these duties correctly. In my case the NOR states:
'You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to..'
It then refers to the owner's statutory right to appeal and their power to issue a Charge Certificate under this umbrella condition.
However, the regulations stipulate that the applicable period is no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service, not from. I understand that adjudicators have consistently found that whether the effects of the 'extra day' are beneficial to the driver or not (and they cannot be as regards the adjudicator's power to not register appeals made late, even by one day) misstating these mandatory provisions is grounds for allowing appeals for procedural impropriety.
I respectfully ask the adjudicator to find that the contravention did not occur and that there have been procedural improprieties by the authority and therefore allow my appeal.
-
thanks stamfordman.
OK - that's what takes the time, getting him in without falling - his bedroom is downstairs so he lives in a microenvironment and once in and seated with the shopping unloaded he's ok to shuffle just at ground level (ie no steps etc) where everything is within reach.
-
I would go with HC Andersen's write-up - you can add that assisted alighting was not considered at informal/formal stages too. This will come down to whether the adjudicator finds you a credible person, which I'm sure they will.
One thing occurs to me - not maybe to overegg your father's disability as the alighting exemption here depends on you leaving after necessary time and I presume he was ok to leave.
-
sorry, known what?
I was merely talking about the badge dropping off.
I noticed when i returned to drive off. I didnt notice when i returned to offload shopping as i went to the back of the car not the front. I am not certain of exact timings.
Had the CEO hung around im sure he would have seen, but i didnt see anyone only the pcn.
I was asking if we should highlight that the exemption was not considered at all during any appeals or if you think this is irrelevant?
-
and we get penalised repeatedly for as you say genuine mistakes which very occasionally happen as that is life.
No. Stick to your defence of assisted alighting..which means you cannot park but must stop, assist, return and move if a BB is not visible. And surely you would have known had you returned as soon as practicable after assisting, wouldn't you!
I don't know the details because I wasn't there. But the facts only fit the defence if unfortunately the CEO appeared while you were assisting because if what you did was park, think you'd displayed the BB, left your vehicle, albeit assisting your dad, and then stayed with him then your defence collapses because you did not display the BB as required and therefore only have mitigation, not a statutory defence.
But the PIs should withstand scrutiny and succeed anyway because they're objective.
-
also I don't know if anyone bothers to read or understand the medical evidence, but from that alone It proves that he needs help from having cognitive and physical impairments (brain bleeds, multifactorial breathlessness and balance issues etc) irrespective of the BB i.e. there are lots of disabilities and his are multiple and severe.
if they gave him a disabled bay outside his home it wouldnt be an issue, but because he is too disabled to drive, and i drive him he doesnt get one, and we get penalised repeatedly for as you say genuine mistakes which very occasionally happen as that is life.
-
Thanks so much to both Stamfordman and Andersen.
I'm not sure i understood everything in Andersen's response but I got the gist!
The question i have is do i need to include my formal appeal in this appeal as well or will the adjudicator read that before reading this one?
The part that i think i would like to emphasise more strongly is that they didn't even at all consider the exemption at either formal or informal appeal. they've only considered it now and said it wasnt seen so not allowed. so would it be made stronger to highlight that they failed to consider the exemption at all all the way through.
-
I refer the adjudicator to the council's evidence, in particular this statement:
'In order for the boarding/alighting exemption to apply, activity must be seen taking place. The Civil Enforcement Officer noted the vehicle parked and unattended.'
I also refer to the council's references to previous PCNs which, although gratuitous as regards this PCN, give ample supporting evidence that I have a disabled father whom I transport regularly and who holds a Blue Badge which, between the two of us, manages on very rare occasions to fall metaphorically between two stools and literally on to a seat or into the footwell. It happens rarely, but it has occurred because the demands placed upon me when assisting my father can give rise to mistakes.
On this occasion, between us we managed to not display the badge correctly and were this to be the basis of my appeal then I could not take issue with being deemed to be in technical breach of conditions.
But in this case my appeal (as regards the contravention) is based upon the exemption under the Traffic Management Order of alighting, in this case assisted alighting, which brings the council's statement above into focus. As I understand it, an exemption is an exemption. It is not mitigation or a request to exercise discretion but an exemption. I respectfully suggest that this may be exercised as and when the conditions are met. I ask the adjudicator to infer from the council's statement that they are seeking to modify its application, by misstating the position in law, rather than examining a claim to satisfy themselves that it applies. I respectfully suggest that dismissing a defence of assisted alighting without proper scrutiny of the owner's assertion is improper and would be a procedural impropriety in itself as well as, in this case, rejection of a legitimate exemption based upon a false legal premise. I find it difficult to believe that the council have applied their framework against me alone and therefore had they checked their records and other adjudication decisions I believe that it could be stated that, to use their words, 'they have been advised on a number of occasions of the necessity and importance and assessing representations against the correct legal framework'.
I also suggest that this applies in respect of the procedural improprieties within the Notice of Rejection. As I understand it, the basic mandatory wording regarding the 'Duties of an Enforcement Authority as regards representations made' have remained unaltered since the Regulations were first issued in 2008, since when adjudicators have stressed to authorities the necessity and importance of conveying the meaning of these duties correctly. In my case the NOR states:
'You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to..'
It then refers to the owner's statutory right to appeal and their power to issue a Charge Certificate under this umbrella condition.
However, the regulations stipulate that the applicable period is no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service, not from. I understand that adjudicators have consistently found that whether the effects of the 'extra day' are beneficial to the driver or not (and they cannot be as regards the adjudicator's power to not register appeals made late, even by one day) misstating these mandatory provisions is grounds for allowing appeals for procedural impropriety.
I respectfully ask the adjudicator to find that the contravention did not occur and that there have been procedural improprieties by the authority and therefore allow my appeal.
Some thoughts.
-
I've deleted your name and email but your name will appear on the tribunal register of cases.
Harrow behaving very badly.
I'm sure Mr Anderson will be along with his thoughts.
-
btw of the 4 previous pcns they selected the 2 most relevant and even then the second one was a completely different location and a different issue re clock which was rightly won at tribunal.
the only previous one where badge fell off was years ago. and guess what this happens when you have a disabled person - 1 or 2 out of hundreds is hardly bad behaviour.
also im not appealing on badge falling off, im appealing based on alighting/unloading so the previous pcn is irrelevant,
-
@stamfordman - sorry i thought id redacted my personal info but the one you uploaded still has it in - please could you redact name and email?
i cant find it in dropbox - they all look redacted - strange!
-
Obviously they ought to lose on this:
(https://i.imgur.com/yr2K4Hr.png)
And bringing up past PCNs is obnoxious.
(https://i.imgur.com/1viMKvq.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/jCBh9tz/2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/vx7fxQx5/Untitled.jpg)
-
Hi All
So it seems they have contested. I have attached their evidence pack.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=tmpa21fgivlt7u60u9qsrtbex&st=8edo6yf0&dl=0
See files evi a to e uploaded today 10/4/25
Could do with some help drafting the counter appeal. Tribunal is on May 1st.
Thanks
-
If they contest you can add Mr Anderson's other points to your appeal. I expect they won't contest.
-
@stamfordman
I have registered for the tribunal.
I selected 2 boxes - 1. the contravention did not occur and 2. procedural impropriety to cover all the angles discussed and asked for a telephone hearing.
I just wrote that i rely on my formal representations in the summary box for now.
Hope that's all ok.
-
Don't upload anything yet - just register the appeal online (there should be a code on the rejection letter) and ask for a personal or telephone hearing.
You can load material later and it looks like there are several things but there's no rush.
Harrow may not contest it anyway.
-
Thanks H C Andersen, although am not sure I udnerstand all the technicalities of what you are saying.
You are saying in addition to reiterating my initial appeal, i should also point out the procedural improprieties on
a) mis-stating 28 day, CC issue etc
b) failure to consider my representations (actually not once but twice - i mentioned it at informal appeal albeit as an addendum, but put it front and centre at formal appeal and they still ignored).
which of all of these is most likely to get accepted - ie what is the correct order they should be listed?
-
Procedural i proprieties abound!
Wrong statement of your right to appeal - for info these are no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service or such longer period as the adjudicator may allow;
As regards a Charge Certificate, the mandatory warning is that if after the [correct] 28-day period the penalty has not been paid and an appeal has not been made then the authority may serve(not issue, serve) a Charge Certificate.
By misstating the 28-day period initially and then by referring to this misstatement in the context of a CC the authority have failed to include 2 of the mandatory elements in a NOR.
..and IMO they've not considered your reps either. Consideration isn't just thinking about them but, as stated in the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance requires that:
The authority should give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision [to reject] on a representation,...
IMO, they have failed to do so because their rejection is predicated on their misinterpretation of the law and misreading of your reps.
-
how about if i upload this:
To summarise, I was alighting a disabled passenger and unloading his shopping and that is a valid exemption to the parking restriction since I had to escort him to his house and return. The BB mishap is simply mitigation and evidence of disability, it is not required for the exemption and is irrelevant to the allegation.
Therefore, I rely on my submissions at formal representation in the first instance.
“I parked briefly to escort my elderly disabled dad & unload his shopping into his home & left the parking space as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping (the purpose of this trip). He is physically/cognitively impaired with restricted mobility & at risk of falls (medical evidence & BB enclosed) & needs assistance with daily tasks. I invited you to accept the assisted alighting/unloading exemption in my informal challenge but was ignored so I am now formally claiming the exemption(s). London Tribunals allow many appeals for assisted alighting/boarding of vulnerable/disabled people to/from premises where it takes time to do so safely according to their needs. Loading is also exempt. I also requested discretion re: my dad’s BB mishap (displayed but likely dislodged by him while alighting). Neither assisting my dad into his home nor unloading the shopping took longer than necessary, so whether under the grounds of assisted alighting or unloading, the PCN should be cancelled.”
-
ok thanks both - will do that. So no point talking about fettering discretion etc? it's not even true what they said about multiple previous times (there maybe only 1 relevant!).
-
Register an appeal with the London Tribunals. You have no financial incentive to do anything else. For now put "detailed submission to follow" in the evidence box.
Your formal representation is fine to use as a submission to the Adjudicator in my opinion, but maybe it can be re-written/re-ordered to make the case stronger as @stamfordman has suggested.
And to restate the obvious. The Blue Badge falling on the floor is mitigation, but the BB is also firm evidence that the passenger is disabled.
You were alighting a disabled passenger and that is an exemption to the parking restriction since you had to escort him to his house and return. You also had to unload his shopping and deliver it to his house.
Alighting and escorting a disabled passenger is a valid exemption to the parking restriction, as is unloading so for those reasons display of the BB was not required and is irrelevant to the alleged allegation.
-
As I said I would have claimed the alighting exemption in the first sentence but you've done enough for this to carry through to appeal at the tribunal.
To reiterate, assisted alighting is an exemption.
The blue badge mishap is mitigation, which the tribunal cannot consider but is useful context.
No discount reoffered so you can just register the appeal and best to opt for a telephone hearing.
(https://i.ibb.co/9Nkf7Vf/image.png)
-
Hi All
I've just received the NOR from Harrow
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=tmpa21fgivlt7u60u9qsrtbex&st=rqa21se0&dl=0
Interestingly, they have completely ignored my exemption appeal and focused entirely on the BB discretion and their insinuation that this is repeated behaviour is a massive exaggeration.
The last PCN was cancelled as they did not contest before tribunal because it was a no right turn sign that they admitted was turned the wrong way so i could not have seen it (ie completely irrelevant) and the one previously was won at tribunal for failing to display the clock with the BB in a time restricted area because there was no provision in the tRO that the clock had to be shown. So while a BB issue, is different from this one.
I MAY have had one many many years ago that was cancelled at their discretion for BB falling off but given i've been driving my dad around for almost a decade now as a BB holder and in hundreds of parking occurrences maybe 1 previous many many years ago may have been similar doesnt really qualify for repeated behaviour.
regardless, isnt this what is termed as fettering discretion?
in any case, i have nothing to lose to proceed to tribunal now on the exemption issue which they have ignored at both informal appeal and formal appeal.
the question is should i put anything about fettering discretion or is this irrelevant at tribunal. Any advice from those in the know much appreciated!
-
thank you for the info. Yes i did upload both sides of the BB and i also uploaded many pages of medical evidence (hospital letters) to should he has many disabilities and illnessess and has breathlessness and balance and falls issues. i uploaded both at informal challenge too.
-
For future reference you don't have to use the Council's text input box. As you have discovered there are character limitations and quite likely formatting is also removed, even simple new paragraph markers.
Simply put in the text box something like, 'See uploaded letter of representation'. Type up your letter of representation and then print it to a PDF file. Or print it out and scan it back in to PDF. Make sure you name the PDF file appropriately eg. representation_PCN_LLnnnnnnnA.PDF and upload it as (additional) evidence.
And let's be clear, you were alighting a disabled passenger. You were also unloading his shopping. The blue badge wasn't ever required to board or alight your disabled passenger. The blue badge does however add credibility to your assertion that the person being alighted is disabled and needed assistance and nor could he deal with his own shopping.
Did you upload a copy/photos of both sides of the Blue Badge with your formal representation against the NTO? I ask because in theory it will be a different council officer, somebody within the council's parking enforcement management, who should consider your formal reps. You can't rely on them looking at evidence submitted with the informal representation. Although hopefully they will.
If it comes to it then you should appeal to the adjudicator where you should have a good chance of winning. Don't just give up and pay.
-
heres the version i submitted (same essence just slightly shorter to stay within the character limit online).
I parked briefly to escort my elderly disabled dad & unload his shopping into his home & left the parking space as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping (the purpose of this trip).
He is physically/cognitively impaired with restricted mobility & at risk of falls (medical evidence & BB enclosed) & needs assistance with daily tasks.
I invited you to accept the assisted alighting/unloading exemption in my informal challenge but was ignored so I am now formally claiming the exemption(s).
London Tribunals allow many appeals for assisted alighting/boarding of vulnerable/disabled people to/from premises where it takes time to do so safely according to their needs. Loading is also exempt.
I also requested discretion re: my dad’s BB mishap (displayed but likely dislodged by him while alighting).
Neither assisting my dad into his home nor unloading the shopping took longer than necessary, so whether under the grounds of assisted alighting or unloading, the PCN should be cancelled.
-
yeh i agree, i was just conscious that some of the other previous comments mentioned not to be too harsh, so thought setting the scene first and then reminding them was a slightly softer approach.
if there are no more suggestions i will upload this version and keep you posted of their reply.
-
Looks OK - my version is firmer in asking for the alighting exemption up front to focus their minds. But yours should do the same.
-
How about this as a the final version? I tried to merge the various comments/versions using stamfordman's template.
Dear Harrow,
I parked briefly in this location to escort my elderly disabled father and unload his shopping into his home and left the parking place as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping, which was the purpose of this trip.
He is physically and cognitively impaired with restricted mobility and at risk of falls (medical evidence enclosed) and needs assistance with daily tasks (including alighting the car, entering the house, carrying shopping).
I invited you to accept the exemption of assisted alighting/unloading in my informal challenge but this was ignored, so I am now formally claiming the exemption(s) in my representations.
As the authority is aware there are numerous allowed appeals at London Tribunals for such assisted alighting or boarding of vulnerable or disabled people to and from premises and where it takes the time needed to do so safely in accordance with their needs. Loading is also exempt.
I did also invite you to use discretion regarding my father’s Blue Badge mishap (which was displayed but likely dislodged by the BB holder while alighting) which would also have given me parking permission, and may have been seen had the CEO checked the side window.
I am certain that neither assisting my father into his house nor unloading the shopping took longer than necessary and therefore submit that whether under the grounds of assisted alighting or unloading, the PCN should be cancelled.
I look forward to your acceptance of my representations.
-
ok thank you for clarifying. I have lots of medical assistance to show his medical/mobility needs so i will enclose that with the representation as i did at informal reps (can always present more at tribunal if needed)
-
The critical thing to understand about the tribunal is that adjudicators can't consider mitigation such as the blue badge issue; they can only allow appeals based on law and alighting/boarding and loading are exemptions not mitigation, although both must usually be proved with evidence, especially where assistance is needed meaning you have to leave the car unattended, or you have to fetch a preordered load from somewhere.
So to lay this on thick you can say the below.
--------------
I parked briefly in the parking place to escort my elderly disabled father to his home and left the parking place as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping, which was the purpose of our trip.
As the authority is aware there are numerous allowed appeals at London Tribunals where such assisted alighting or boarding of vulnerable or disabled people to and from premises takes place and where it takes the time needed to do so safely in accordance with their needs.
As the authority is also aware, loading is also an exemption and I had to return to the car to get my father's shopping after assisting him to his home.
etc as before.
-
Thanks Stamfordman,
Is this because you think assisted unloading is less likely to be accepted than assisted alighting?
Is it not important to state that i think my father MAY have knocked off the BB upon alighting- i recall someone suggested they should make allowance for this.
So assisted alighting and unloading should be exempt, but even if they dont accept that then they should consider that we did display the badge but it got knocked off during alighting by a BB holder.
-
I would go with what I've suggested but amend this line. This covers the exempt activity without volunteering detail about the shopping. If they really want to force you to the tribunal over the 7 mins observation time you can tell the adjudicator you couldn't both escort and carry shopping.
Or you can put that detail in now - see what others say.
-----------
I parked briefly in the parking place to escort my elderly disabled father to his home and left the parking place as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping, which was the purpose of our trip.
-
Thanks Stamfordman,
The house was very close so a non-disabled person could get in in say 1 min (2 mins in and out), but my dad takes 3X as long as me at least so 1 min for us is 3 mins for him.
The first journey was with him so lets say 3-4 mins to get him inside and then i had to get the shopping --- no i didn't cook but i unloaded, so that could have easily added another 2-3 minutes.
So maybe 3-4 mins each time. ie no more than 8 mins total.
-
I think this will do. How far to the house? Could also mention a second visit to get shopping which also is reasonable as part of the assistance provided you didn't start cooking... You could also include a medical note rather than say it could be supplied if they want it.
-----------
Dear Harrow,
I invited you to accept the exemption of assisted alighting in my informal challenge but you ignored that, so I am now formally claiming the exemption in my representations.
I parked briefly in the parking place to escort my elderly disabled father to his home and returned to the car as soon as he was safely inside with his shopping, which was the purpose of our trip.
As the authority is aware there are numerous allowed appeals at London Tribunals where such assisted alighting or boarding of vulnerable or disabled people to and from premises takes place and where it takes the time needed to do so safely in accordance with their needs.
I did also invite you to use discretion as we had a mishap with displaying my father’s Blue Badge, which would also have given me permission to use the parking place.
My father is physically and cognitively impaired and needs assistance alighting the car and getting into the house. I enclose his Blue Badge again. Should you want any information on the nature of my father’s disabilities (he has restricted mobility and is at risk of falls) I would be happy to supply them to support the assisted alighting exemption.
I look forward to your acceptance of my representations.
-
Thanks Stamfordman - appreciated - especially since it's the Xmas hols coming up !
-
I'll redo this for you but not today - will aim for tomorrow.
-
How about this as a formal representation?
I had parked at this location to drop-off my disabled father, assist him into his home (first journey) and unload his shopping (second journey) as he is physically and cognitively impaired and at risk of falling (medical evidence enclosed) and needs assistance with basic activities of daily living.
I was entitled to park there as per the exemption of transporting a Blue Badge holder (BB enclosed), which I checked was displayed on the dash and estimate that both trips took no longer than 8 mins cumulatively.
As I was focused on my father’s wellbeing due to his restricted mobility, I did not realise until I returned to my car to drive away that half of the BB has fallen into the footwall (other half was displayed), and can only guess that my father may have knocked it down while exiting the car as I recall him dragging his walking stick across the dash.
Had the CEO checked the side window he may have seen the fallen BB (there are no side photos).
I am certain that neither assisting my father into his house nor unloading the shopping took longer than necessary and therefore submit that whether under the grounds of assisted alighting or unloading, the PCN should be cancelled. If neither exemption is accepted, then I would request that the authority exercise discretion on the BB mishap.
@stamfordman and @andersen - any pointers would be much appreciated !
-
I’ve now received the NTO
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=tmpa21fgivlt7u60u9qsrtbex&st=wnpmrhd5&dl=0
-
Obs period is not the issue if, as you say, you took your father to the destination, returned as quickly as permissible and then similar for the load.
The obs take as long as they take.
-
Thanks/ Do you know of any of these that have been successfully appealed that had a 7min or more observation period? as the others in the examples seem to have shorter times
-
Agreed - I know you want to avoid paying full price but they rely on people caving in. Just wait for the NTO.
-
My suggestion is for the NTO.
-
Yes log book up to date.
I didnt realise i could send another challenge now. How do i do that? via email? is it worth submitting something along the lines of HCA's template or better to just wait for nto.
Basically if there's anything i can do within the 14 days that makes it more likely for them to preserve the discount at the formal appeal stage then maybe its worth doing....
-
There's nothing you can do other than send another challenge but Harrow will probably tell you to wait for the NTO.
Is the logbook up to date with correct address.
-
OK thanks, so now i don't do anything until the NTO ?
-
It seems clear they don't want to cancel because they are aggrieved about a previous cancellation but you said they were different circumstances.
I would wait for the NTO and we'll help you draft reps.
-
Thanks HCA, that's very helpful.
with regards to going over it i was just thinking about how to avoid this in future (other than buying a holder that is!).
-
OP, whatever happened happened and I can't see any point in trying to change this.
Perhaps....
On the day in question I was accompanying my father on a shopping trip or whatever it was;
We returned to *** where he lives and I parked:
We had several bags of shopping and therefore I had to make two journeys, the first to assist my father the second to collect and unload his shopping.
I would estimate that both trips took no longer than ** in total.
As a matter of habit we placed his BB and I thought that this had been displayed but accept that this wasn't the case and that part had fallen into the footwell.
I didn't find the PCN until I came to drive away - I can see why from the CEO's photos which show the PCN obscured when approaching the car from the rear. But whether this was issued during my first or second trip I don't know.
I can say that neither journey took longer than necessary and therefore I would submit that whether under the grounds of assisted alighting or unloading the PCN should be cancelled. In addition, if neither of these exemptions is accepted I would ask that the authority exercise discretion on this occasion.
Wait for others.
-
yes exactly that stamfordman, i could either assist my dad into the house or carry shopping into the house - i could not have done both together hence the 2 trips, sorry if that wasnt clear on my original post but i didnt mention offloading shopping as well as him. in hindsight again should have done the other way round as if i did shopping first then dad would have still been in car.
-
Bear in mind the context also includes blue badge entitlement. If Harrow reject formal reps I'm inclined to think an adjudicator would take this into account as bolstering the alighting exemption but as said the exemption does need careful wording to stick to no longer than necessary.
Returning to get shopping is good as that shows assistance could not involve also coping with shopping IMO. And no doubt unloading is also an exemption...
See also a case I posted - the adjudicator also considered time to get a child into their shoes and coat was OK and was part of process.
-
well this is what i dont actually know because i didnt notice (but then didnt look for) any pcn until at the end when i returned to drive off. it could have happened as you said but it could also have been there when i returned the first time but didnt see it because i only went to the boot not the front.
all i know with certainty is that is that i wasnt away from the car that long in total- so maybe few minutes each time. in hindsight i should have looked at the exact time of pcn issue as soon as i saw it, but as i was in a rush i drove off and only opened the pcn later on. so i cannot recall exact time points. Only that i dont think i took over 7 mins for each activity but doing everything, assisting alighting and offloading shopping could have in total exceeded that time.
is it not possible that the ceo observed when i was assisting dad into the house and the issued ticket when i was unloading shopping?
in any case does it matter? the question is whether or not i have a strong case for exemption or whther it is weakened by the shopping issue. fwiw i can prove he needs assistance with shopping. that was the reason i drove him back. we went to do his shopping.
-
I am not doubting your account, but pl recognise and somehow address in any reps - you've yet to receive a NTO- the issue of 2 separate journeys and a return to the car before a PCN had been served.
IMO, a more likely sequence of events was:
You parked and assisted your father. No CEO and no obs;
You returned to your car to collect shopping; still no CEO or obs;
CEO appears while you were unloading shopping.
-
first i assisted him into the house and sat him down, then i returned to the car and unloaded this shopping from the boot and set the shopping in his house and then returned my large empty shopping bag to the boot, before getting in to drive off and that's when i noticed the pcn. ie the total time away from the car was including off loading the shopping as well as him.
-
plus unload his shopping and then return to the car.
?
His shopping was in the car to which you returned or you took his shopping with you when helping him to the house and then distributed this within his house?
If you returned to the car to unload goods then this is a separate excepted activity.
-
Thank you both for your very helpful answers.
My case is similar to the taxi drivers in that my dad is 85 frail and disabled needing assistance (which can be medically proven).
What is the more tricky part is that I took the minimum time needed to do what i had to do which was assist my dad into the house making sure he didnt fall and into his room safely helping with coat and shoes, plus unload his shopping and then return to the car. So i suppose this case will rest on whether they consider unloading the shopping an essential assistive task or not. He needs it doing as he cant do it himself but i dont know how this will be perceived.
But thats the truth and i dont know if the 7 min observation period counts against me although the photos only show 1 min but the ticket says 7.
-
Here's an assisted alighting case decided this week.
--------------
2240372023
Reasons At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked, waiting, loading or unloading in restricted street when a waiting, loading/unloading restriction is in force.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that is that he is a licenced private hire vehicle driver and was setting down a disabled passenger at the Premier Inn Hotel and had to assist him to the premises. The Appellant adds that when he returned, he explained this to the civil enforcement officer, who does not record this.
Picking up and setting down of passengers is permitted at this location. It should normally take no longer than two minutes but slightly longer must be allowed in the case of the elderly, disabled or very young, who may have to be escorted to nearby premises.
I have had the opportunity of hearing the Appellant personally and accept what he tells me.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I find as a fact that, at the material time, picking up/setting down within the meaning of the exemption was taking place and thus a contravention did not occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
-
OP, assisted alighting is presumably an exemption in permit bays. The passenger's frailty is only part of the argument, the rest is whether you took only as long as necessary to assist them to their destination and then return to the car to move it out of contravention.
Stamfordman's wording is succinct and addresses the required elements.
So I suggest you make the statement if you decide to continue and flesh out with something like:
As regards the passenger's need to be assisted, he is my ** year-old father who suffers from ****. I was escorting him to **** where I left him while I returned promptly to the car. (if true). It is this last part which only you can answer.
One could take the view that if you placed the BB then you intended to stay for a while, which doesn't meet the assisted alighting conditions. But this could be countered by saying that you placed the BB because this would avoid what happened in this case which is that the CEO saw the car and nothing else as you were engaged in assisting your father away from the car.
-
Assisted alighting - safely escorting your father to home and returning to car, taking only so long as necessary. See recent adjudicated cases below on boarding but alighting is the same.
The NTO is issued at £110 but they often reoffer the discount if they reject to try and stop you taking it to the tribunal.
Buy a decent holder!
------------
2240406329
The CEO's images show Mrs xxxxx's car stopped on the single yellow line during the controlled hours. Mrs xxxxx appeals because she says that her husband was stopped to pick up their young child from xxxxx. The PCN was issued at 3.32pm. There was no observation period by the CEO before the PCN was issued and Mr xxxx says that he was away from the car for around 5 minutes. He says that he saw the CEO on returning to the car and explained what he had been doing. Mr xxxx tells me that his child is eight years old and must be collected from within the School premises.
I am satisfied from the evidence that Mr xxxx was picking up his child from school and that the picking up exemption therefore applies. The exemption allows a motorist to leave a vehicle where a passenger needs to be escorted or assisted as is clearly the case with young children.
2240435225
The CEO's images show that Ms xxxx's car was parked on a single yellow line and it is not disputed that this was during the controlled hours of the CPZ. There was an observation period of only 2 minutes before the PCN was issued. Ms xxxx says that she was away from the car for around 3 minutes to collect her young child from the family home. She says that she had to help her child put on his shoes and coat.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the picking up exemption applies in this case. A motorist may leave a vehicle to assist a passenger with the boarding process and this may include accompanying a person to the vehicle where this is necessary, such as in the case of a young child. I regard helping a child to put on his coat and shoes to be part of the process and not a separate activity.
-
But if i continue now the penalty doubles right?
Sorry- what do you mean we need chapter and verse on whether the alighting exemption is a solid case? Do you mean someone here to clarify this?
And what kind of evidence should i upload regarding the assistance. I did actually enclose substantive medical evidence in the form of hospital letters evidencing he is a falls risk, has balance and mobility and severe breathlnessness and frailty issues and i enclosed the BB badge. What other evidence should i include re needing assistance. I suppose i could include that he is an attendance allowance recipient (where they have independently assessed his need for care?).
I understand i cant continue to tribunal based on discretion so i just need to know if the alighting exemption alone is a strong case or not, because if not im wondering whether to just take the hit on this.
it's annoying - i think i will sellotape the badge to the window ! it's also annoying that the badge was only in 2 halves as the holder was so old and disintegrated and the council never responded to a request to replace it.
-
With hindsight we could as I said have led with the alighting exemption but I thought the discretionary aspect is compelling.
It seems they've rejected it because of a previous cancellation but this is what is known as fettering discretion. While this is fine for drivers doing say a silly thing twice such as paying for the wrong car it isn't where an honest mistake was made where a disabled person is involved.
I would go on with this and make formal reps to the NTO saying you did say you had a statutory exemption as noted in your intiial challenge but also invited Harrow to consider discretion. Now you would claim the exemption.
But as HCA said we need chapter and verse on whether the assisted alighting exemption is a solid case.
-
IMO,
Your relegated assisted alighting to a footnote (and without any evidence or detail in support as far as I can see) and they put it in the metaphorical bin by ignoring it.
By implication the council allow parking by BB holders because the reply does not state that whether displayed or not makes no difference.
It's the keeper's choice whether to carry on. But if they do, IMO prioritise your points:
1. Assisted alighting - if you think the facts fit e.g. need, time away from vehicle etc;
2. Procedural impropriety - having considered your initial reps, which in part relied upon the grounds of assisted alighting, and sent a written reply the authority were obligated to address this issue in their response. They did not, which on the face of it is a failure to consider and consequently a procedural impropriety;
3. Repeat your request for the authority to exercise discretion as regards the BB which was not displayed as required due to it being knocked into the footwell when your father exited the vehicle but which was held, see copy enclosed, and was being used for a prescribed purpose.
-
please see the response from Harrow who have rejected my representation. Is it worth pursuing this or not?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=tmpa21fgivlt7u60u9qsrtbex&st=68cyq92x&dl=0
-
Another way to go is to simply to claim the assisted alighting exemption as it's always best to go for 'no contravention' in law. This can be backed up by the mishap with the blue badge as showing you in any case had entitlement to park there.
I don't think it matters though as the way it is now puts them on notice you have an exemption regardless of the BB mishap.
-
quick question - for grounds do i mark the alleged contavention did not occur or that there are compelling reasons why it should be cancelled
-
OK, but do you think then that it sounds too harsh? I think it reads ok, except maybe the additional parts added by stamfordman but they make good points and i dont really know how to soften these without losing the meaning.
-
I make the point so that your challenge is written in the correct tone i.e. fact and not opinion led.
The CEO doesn't know anything about your or the passenger's circumstances and it can be very difficult at times for drivers to avoid superimposing their knowledge- which often translates into frustration- into reps.
-
Have modified slightly - latest version below:
I had parked at this location only to drop-off my disabled father at his home and was entitled to park there as per the exemption of transporting a Blue Badge holder (BB enclosed), which I checked was displayed on the dash.
However, as my father is physically and cognitively impaired, he needs assistance alighting the car and getting into the house and I recall him leaning in to get his walking stick and dragging it along dash and seat to exit the car. I was focusing on my father's wellbeing (he has restricted mobility and is a falls risk-medical evidence enclosed) and assisting him into the house, upon my return I realised one half of the BB had fallen to the passenger side footwell and I already had a PCN!
Had the CEO checked the side window he may have seen the fallen BB (there are no side photos). Under the circumstances, please could you consider discretion?
Note: assisted alighting of a disabled or vulnerable person to nearby premises is an exemption (should you choose not to exercise discretion on the BB mishap).
-
ok is the above version ok minus the tribunal ref then?
-
You don't need to cite tribunal cases in informal challenges.
-
Revised draft reps below
I had parked at this location only to drop-off my disabled father at his home and was entitled to park there as per the exemption of transporting a Blue Badge holder (BB enclosed), which I checked was displayed on the dash.
However, as my father is physically and cognitively impaired, he needs assistance alighting the car and getting into the house and I recall him leaning in to get his walking stick and dragging it along dash and seat to exit the car. I was focusing on my father's wellbeing (he has restricted mobility and is a falls risk-medical evidence enclosed) and assisting him into the house, upon my return I realised one half of the BB had fallen to the passenger side footwell and I already had a PCN!
Had the CEO checked the side window he may have seen the fallen BB (there are no side photos).
Under the circumstances, please could you consider discretion since it is clear we were entitled to the exemption. Please note that assisted alighting of a disabled or vulnerable person to nearby premises is an exemption (Tribunal ref. #) if you choose not to exercise discretion on the BB mishap.
@stamfordman - do you have a tribunal ref for that quote you put about picking up children that I can insert? I assumed thats what you meant rather than copy and paste that?
@ Anderson - I never denied that not rechecking the BB position was my mistake, but equally as someone pointed out it was hardly on my mind assisting my dad out of the car (and i had no reason to because i didnt see him knock it and i had previously checked it before assisting him) and i did return within some minutes and it was too late. the reality is if i was to go back and look after he got out that's quite hard while holding at the same time...therefore i think it is strong mitigation. the badge and the proof he is disabled (even without the badge) provides evidence of this.
-
There are numerous adjudicated cases that recognise assisted alighting/boarding as an exemption. Such as this the other day:
I am satisfied from the evidence that Mr xxxx was picking up his child from school and that the picking up exemption therefore applies. The exemption allows a motorist to leave a vehicle where a passenger needs to be escorted or assisted as is clearly the case with young children.
The draft reps are fine and can be reinforced politely with this.
-
Is it? While assisted alighting etc. is a commonplace exemption determined by individual councils, I'm not certain it's statutory.
OP, why don't you start your challenge by simply setting out the events as regards you parking, your passenger, their condition etc. Then argue your case.
On this point, just stand back and think about this:
'..he has lived there for 60 years, they just made it permit only from 10am-11am to stop people leaving cars there and going to work on the tube. Now its silly things like this residents are being punished for.'.
?
In order for you to be able to park there must be kerbside space which there wouldn't be if the road was full of commuters' cars. Therefore all residents, your father included, benefit from access being created.
Don't knock it.
You got a PCN pure and simply because the vigilant CEO had no idea of your situation and prima facie you were parked in contravention. Frankly, even if they saw the clock or even the outline of a BB in the footwell there's no reason for them to suppose anything: issue a PCN as required and if the driver had proper cause to park there then that's an end to matters after they've explained this to the authority.
I would temper your reps accordingly. The fault, if any, is not your father's, the authority's or the CEO's..it's yours.
-
You raise a very good point we should have thought of and should be added.
Assisted alighting/boarding is an exemption to most parking restrictions but should take no more than necessary.
I would remove the 5-10 mins time, changing to just assisting father to home and then leaving, and add in:
Please note that assisted alighting of a disabled or vulnerable person to nearby premises is an exemption should you choose not to exercise discretion on the mishap with the blue badge.
Post another draft.
-
Thank you stamfordman and John - actually he does need quite a lot of assistance offloading but i take your point hes not an elephant - maybe alighting is a better word :)
actually youve raised an important point - out of curiousity does such an exemption exist for loading/assisting elderly in residents bays without a BB - what do you do if you need to get someone to their home and they need assistance and there is no parking provision?
i.e. are there circumstances where you would have been allowed to offload/alight even without a BB in a residents bay?
interestingly that whole road used to be free - he has lived there for 60 years, they just made it permit only from 10am-11am to stop people leaving cars there and going to work on the tube. Now its silly things like this residents are being punished for.
-
he needs assistance offloading the car
I think he might need a lot of assistance offloading the car - a crane? :)
perhaps alighting? exiting? getting out of? followed by 'and getting into the house'?
-
a few tweaks - I wouldn't go into detail on the BB holder
I had parked at this location for 5-10mins only to drop-off my disabled father at his home and was entitled to park there owing to the exemption of transporting a Blue Badge holder (BB enclosed), which I checked was displayed on the dash.
However, as my father is physically and cognitively impaired, he needs assistance offloading the car and into the house and I recall him leaning in to get his walking stick and dragging it along dash and seat to exit the car. I was focusing on my father's wellbeing (he has restricted mobility and is a falls risk-medical evidence enclosed) and assisting him into the house, upon my return I realised one half of the BB (the blue holder had disintegrated and it had therefore separated into 2 halves) had fallen to the passenger side footwell and I already had a PCN!
If the CEO had checked the side window he may well have seen the fallen BB (I don't see any side photos).
Under the circumstances, please could you consider discretion since it is clear we were entitled to the exemption.
-
How about this?
I had parked at this location for 5-10mins only to drop-off my disabled father at his home and was entitled to park there as he is a Blue Badge holder (BB enclosed), which I checked was displayed on the dash.
However, as my father is physically and cognitively impaired, he needs assistance offloading the car and into the house and I recall him leaning in to get his walking stick and dragging it along dash and seat to exit the car. I was focusing on my father's wellbeing (he has restricted mobility and is a falls risk-medical evidence enclosed) and assisting him into the house, upon my return I realised one half of the BB (the blue holder had disintegrated and it had therefore separated into 2 halves) had fallen to the passenger side footwell and I already had a PCN!
If the CEO had checked the side window he may well have seen the fallen BB (I don't see any side photos).
Under the circumstances, please could you consider discretion since it is clear no charges were being evaded.
-
To answer the earlier question.
The Harrow website suggests (https://www.harrow.gov.uk/parking-permits/controlled-parking-zones) that parking in the Residents' bays is allowed where a Blue Badge is displayed. This is not unique to Harrow. Some London Boroughs allow BB parking and some don't.
"When can I park in a CPZ
..........................
Do you need a parking permit?
A parking permit is not required for:
vehicles displaying a Blue Badge
motorcycles parked in either pay-and-display bays or in resident bays.
If you have three or more unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), you can't get a parking permit. This applies to both Resident and Business permits.
.........................."
-
The adjudicator cannot exercise the council's power of discretion i.e. determine a case on the grounds of mitigation.
I dont understand why they cant just have electronic records of BB holders like they did with road tax discs instead of penalising BB holders for genuine mistakes when they already have on record if a car is BB registered.
The car isn't 'BB registered', only Motobility vehicles are. Your father may use his BB in anyone's vehicle in any qualifying area, effectively the whole country except some boroughs in London. Furthermore, you cannot use your vehicle and claim BB benefits unless the holder is with you or having been/to be transported. so you can see the impossibility of what you suggest.
-
Thank you all for your responses. I have been parking there frequently for over 5 years with a BB and it has been fine. The traffic warden himself said its ok for BB holders to park there so i guess there must be provision.
I accept that it was a mistake but with strong mitigation. so basically you are saying they can use their discretion but it isnt a proper defence to proceed to tribunal for example?
-
- being drafted while the previous post was being posted...
If the required permit* is not displayed then the contravention is proved.
A claim that a BB was held and was displayed but somehow fell into the footwell goes to mitigation, it is not a statutory defence i.e. one which if the authority accept means they must cancel the PCN.
IMO, all you can do as suggested earlier is to write to polite and contrite challenge asking the authority to cancel using their discretionary powers.
*- this is a permit bay. You imply that even if a BB was displayed this would provide parking rights. However, this must be a council initiative because generally BB holders cannot park in permit bays reserved for specified users which this is, it's not shared use. Does the council permit BB holders to park in res bays?
(from the Govt's publication: Blue Badge Scheme - Rights and Responsibilities)
Places where you cannot park
Parking places reserved for specific users such as resident’s bays or loading bays. You may wish to check whether a particular local council has chosen to exempt Blue Badge holders from these restrictions.
-
Send a polite challenge saying what you think happened and include a pic of the BB, saying this was an accident and you were entitled to park there.*
Emphasise that with a disabled person ensuring their wellbeing led to overlooking the accident with the BB.
Say if the CEO had checked the side window he may well have seen the fallen BB.
*I'm assuming that in Harrow BB holders can park in resident bays? Was this a permit only bay or a shared use bay (permit and pay/display)?
-
Thanks for your reply Stamfordman
The answer is i don't know how it got knocked off but when i returned to the car was on the passenger side floor and it could well have been my dad as he was sat on that side and dragged his walking stick across seat and dash getting out so it could have been that, but without a video recording how could i possibly know why?
The previous written off ones were not under the same circumstances and the most recent one was a council error which they apologised for.
-
There are only four pics and none looking for the badge inside - did it fall on the floor or seat? And how?
The PCN is your responsibility as owner but if your father had say knocked it off getting out then that would be factor. We had a case recently where I think a disabled person insisted on setting the clock (wrongly).
They must consider any challenge and especially one with a BB.
You do have three written off though.
(https://i.imgur.com/NxUhRcc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/sINN2dA.jpeg)
-
also just out of curiosity whose responsiblity is it to make sure it is properly displayed - his or mine? because if its his, then his disability means he forgets lots of things (he has memory impairment which i can prove from medical letters) so surely a reasonable adjustment is well reasonable? If its my responsbility then its a moot point.
-
it is my fathers BB (he doesnt drive), i was driving him home and only left the car to offload him and his shopping.
You can say its his responsibility re the holder but he is cognitively impaired and therefore could no way have done this himself. in any case theres little that can e done if they just ignore you.
in the reps should i mention they never replied about replacing it or will that only irritate them?
the v5 etc is correct
-
Is it your Blue Badge? Or does it belong to your "elderly, disabled relative"?
Please get a copy of both sides of the BB. With an on-street PCN such as this it's always worth a go at initial informal represenations as the Council will re-offer the discount if they refuse. So you have nothing to lose by having a go.
I suggest a humble, contrite and polite letter of apology explaining what happened. Enclose a copy of both sides of the BB and quote the name and address of the BB holder. Make it clear that your releative was in the car at the relevant times. Terribly sorry, it was accidental, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again, I wasn't trying to evade a parking charge, an honest mistake, terribly sorry and please use your discretion to cancel the PCN. It wouldn't be in the interests of justice to pursue the case etc etc. See what comes back.
Are you the Reistered Keeper of the car and is the name and address correct and current on the V5c registration doc? Don't just assume it is, dig it out and check.
PS. It will be the BB holder's responsibility to obtain a new badge holder or wallet if the existing one is damaged.
-
Hi All,
Wonder if you can help with this one:
1. Parked in a residents bay with BB but one half of it (the main half not clock half) must have fallen from the dashboard as i shut the car door.
2. Was gone from car for maybe 5 mins to offload shopping and elderly, disabled relative who takes several minutes just to get settled and PCN already there when arriving to put shopping bag back in car minutes later.
3. Although the PCN states 10:32 to 10:39 i.e. 7 minutes, the photos provided only show 10:39 and 10:40 so is it possible the warden only observed for 1 min and not 7 mins? it felt as if I was only away from the car for 5 mins (but i wasnt counting).
4. is there a reasonable amount of time they need to give a BB holder, because for someone with restricted mobility it is not unreasonable to take a much longer time to transfer from car to house.
5. Other info to note is that i did write to the council a long time ago about replacing the blue holder for the badge as it had become disintegrated over time, but they never replied. The reason it was 2 halves is because the holder had broken in half. Had it been replaced, this may not have happened.
6. I previously had a PCN cancelled many many years ago for badge falling off (but that was the whole badge not half of it) so maybe this counts against me. But equally the last PCN i had cancelled was them issuing an illegal PCN and then apologising to me so don't know if i can use this in my favour or you cant conflate different PCNs.
Anyway the summary is yes it was a mistake, but wanted your expert opinion on whether it was worth an appeal or not.
I dont understand why they cant just have electronic records of BB holders like they did with road tax discs instead of penalising BB holders for genuine mistakes when they already have on record if a car is BB registered.
Any expert advice would be appreciated.
thank you.
PCN here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/raiuh8ac0h0848ap9lklf/ADzsA7su5XB6-OjZJW7ir_U?rlkey=tmpa21fgivlt7u60u9qsrtbex&st=lb0x33vx&dl=0