Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: george74 on August 17, 2023, 03:54:19 pm

Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 05:32:05 pm
Well done @Pastmybest!
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on May 22, 2024, 10:52:30 pm
This has finally ended in my favour.

I am really grateful to Pastmybest - he attended the tribunal on 15/05/2024.

Reasons:

Quote

The EA contends in its Case Summary that in any event Blue Badge holders are not exempt from the restrictions at the location.
The EA relies, in its Case Summary, on the relevant Traffic Management Order. However, I have not been provided with a copy of this Order. The EA has provided what appears to be part of the Order, namely the map tile upon which it relies. This shows some, but not all of "Heathway" where the vehicle was parked. The map is annotated and purports to show the various restrictions on Heathway. The top section of Heathway is not shown. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the vehicle was parked on Heathway, on the northernmost part of the carriageway. This is not shown on the map tile. There appear to be no restrictions on Heathway which reflect the restrictions set out on the signage at the location, namely, parking between Mon-Sat, 8.30pm - 5.30pm, 1 hour, No return within 2 hours. The only annotated reference to such restrictions appear on a road which transects Heathway at the bottom of the page. I cannot make any determination whether this road is also part of Heathway.

I cannot be satisfied therefore that the signage at the location accurately reflects the restrictions at the location as set out in the relevant Traffic Management Order. Nor can I make any determination as to whether Blue Badge parking is or is not prohibited at the location.

I must therefore allow this appeal. Accordingly I do not make any determinations as to the remaining matters set out on the Appellant's behalf.

Many thanks to everyone in this thread and again to Pastmybest.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on April 29, 2024, 09:22:14 am
Got the evidence pack though need to contact the tribunal as they have not been responding to me only to the OP

will submit this week and expect a DNC before the hearing
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on March 31, 2024, 09:51:05 pm
If you mean the email to me, then yes i have it. I intend to register the appeal next week so well within the 28 days
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on March 31, 2024, 09:40:09 pm
Oh, I received the email and responded a while ago. Let me know if you got it, I can send again if not.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on March 31, 2024, 08:14:28 pm
@george74 pastmybest has offered to represent you at the tribunal free of charge, so I strongly recommend you take up his kind offer.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on March 24, 2024, 05:32:17 pm
bump
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on March 19, 2024, 12:28:09 pm
Idiots is it your intention to appeal if so i am happy to represent you by telephone free of charge.If you want to take me up on this send me a PM with your email address and i will communicate that way Also do not send anything to the council or tribunal I will deal with that 
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on March 19, 2024, 12:07:18 pm
They have rejected my appeal.

I did not save my appeal but I copied what pastmybest gave and also added a bit about the bay markings with many images attached.

They only address this point by saying "other points in mitigation do not justify cancellation of the PCN".

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on February 25, 2024, 04:51:18 pm
Thank you, I've submitted the challenge, will update when I hear back
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on February 24, 2024, 04:18:26 pm
George see below

Representations against the imposition and continued enforcement of PCN BZ61307630

I make representations against the above mentioned PCN under the statutory ground that. 
The contravention did not occur.
The vehicle in question VRM EN 72 WYS is a Motability vehicle leased to me/ my wife I/she holds a valid Blue Badge giving the exemptions available under regulation 7 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000

I/my wife also holds a permit issued by Barking and Dagenham council exempting the display of the Blue badge. This exemption permit is valid within the HW zone. Heathway in Dagenham is squarely within the HW zone and as such the Exemption afforded by the above regulation allows parking without time limit, the exemption from display of the BB permit affords just such exemption from the display of the BB and as a consequence the contravention did not occur and the PCN should now be cancelled


Include a copy of the BB and permit adjust to suite re you or your wife making the reps and send as is unless CP adds something re the errors ( for myself I would leave them until appeal)
If you are making reps on behalf of your wife then you will need written authority from her in order to do so


don't send the bit in red
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on February 23, 2024, 11:47:43 pm
It's late now but you will have a representation by tomorrow afternoon.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on February 23, 2024, 05:55:00 pm
Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.
Your wife is the BB holder, who is the registered keeper of the car? Was she in the car when it was parked or was it parked to collect her?

It is a motability car in her name. Yes we were travelling together.

Was a normal BB displayed;
Does the OP or their wife hold a courtesy(albeit virtual) BB;
If so, to what specific vehicle is it linked;
Is this the same vehicle as was issued with the PCN;
Perhaps the acid test as raised by others, does the mere fact that a CBB is held and which allows parking for a nominated vehicle in the specified CPZ allow the driver to presume its display when parked in other bays which would permit unlimited* parking were a BB to be displayed even when not parked in that CPZ?

*-it has to be unlimited because a VBB without a clock doesn't meet the BB requirements.

OP, pl answer 1-4 above, 5 is for discussion I would suggest.

1. A normal BB was not displayed
2. She does
3. It is linked to the car in question, we've checked this
4. Yes

I've gone through the thread again as it's been a while and there's a lot of good info there including my rejection for my initial challenge in which the council said a blue badge would not be exempt (so not challenging on the virtual BB but any BB)
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: H C Andersen on February 23, 2024, 01:09:54 pm
..and

'a virtual blue badge meaning we can park in bays where we would normally display a BB but don't have to in the borough.' is not correct, rather:

You can apply for a virtual courtesy Blue Badge if you hold a Blue Badge and live in a Controlled Parking Zone.

The courtesy Blue Badge will be linked to your Blue Badge and your nominated vehicle and will only be valid for parking in the Controlled Parking Zone you live in.


So, only for your zone which frankly seems a waste of time, but hey-ho!

Anyway, IMO the substantive issues on which (having reviewed the thread there are implications but no clear statements) this rests are:

Was a normal BB displayed;
Does the OP or their wife hold a courtesy(albeit virtual) BB;
If so, to what specific vehicle is it linked;
Is this the same vehicle as was issued with the PCN;
Perhaps the acid test as raised by others, does the mere fact that a CBB is held and which allows parking for a nominated vehicle in the specified CPZ allow the driver to presume its display when parked in other bays which would permit unlimited* parking were a BB to be displayed even when not parked in that CPZ?

*-it has to be unlimited because a VBB without a clock doesn't meet the BB requirements.

OP, pl answer 1-4 above, 5 is for discussion I would suggest.

And as regards the NTO, see page 1, last para:

..'if the penalty charge is not paid in full OR representations are not made within the [28-day period]...!

My emphasis. Where did OR come from, the regs specify:
g)that if, after the payment period has expired, no representations have been made under regulation 5 of the 2022 Appeals Regulations and the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the applicable surcharge,..l

It's AND not OR. IMO OR conveys the wrong meaning.

Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on February 23, 2024, 12:47:09 pm
Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.

George just one question and i will draft a representation today.

Your wife is the BB holder, who is the registered keeper of the car? Was she in the car when it was parked or was it parked to collect her?
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on February 23, 2024, 10:06:46 am
Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on February 20, 2024, 01:05:39 pm
I can try write something but wouldn't be sure what to say about the illegal letter.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on February 04, 2024, 10:39:10 am
I can do that
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on February 03, 2024, 11:45:46 pm
Well there are two or three issues here:

1) The signage / TMO discrepancy,
2) The virtual blue badge,
3) The unlawful letter.

@Pastmybest you said you were minded to draft a representation, maybe if you want to write something to cover the blue badge point, I can write something for the other points?
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: John U.K. on February 03, 2024, 05:39:12 pm
Barking has 'form' for this. See -

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-and-dagenham-53j-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-spurling-road-(dagenham)/msg11462/#msg11462

Indeed.  Serendipity.  Thanks for reminding me. Naughty naughty!


That thread seems to have ground to a silent halt, but not before CP pointed out:

Quote
Note that this is not a parking case, so unlike the other thread, this letter does not amount to a procedural impropriety. . . .
There is no law that says they can't send that letter, not under the 2003 Act at least.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Hippocrates on February 03, 2024, 04:59:26 pm
Barking has 'form' for this. See -

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-and-dagenham-53j-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-spurling-road-(dagenham)/msg11462/#msg11462

Indeed.  Serendipity.  Thanks for reminding me. Naughty naughty!
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Hippocrates on February 03, 2024, 04:57:00 pm
I have skimmed through the thread. Apart from the procedural improprieties mentioned above by other experts, if you look carefully, the two lists of grounds do not exactly agree with each other!  CEO is mentioned in the latter, for example. This is very sloppy.  But also nasty stuff pertaining to their whole pursuit of this case.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on February 02, 2024, 11:48:01 am
I have received the new notice to owner.

What should I write in my appeal?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on January 11, 2024, 12:49:30 am
I finally have an update on this.

The PCN online did not change to £99 but instead gave the following:

"This Penalty Charge Notice is at a stage where payment can no longer be made via this website. Please contact Parking Services for details: parking@lbbd.gov.uk"

I have now sent the TE9 form (thanks cp8759) - hopefully I hear back soon.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Incandescent on December 18, 2023, 10:52:35 pm
As you will have gathered, B & D Council are a load of muppets but we have to live with it. I am surprised you can't get through to TEC, but the other key piece of info is the amount outstanding. Once that gets to £99 it means they have registered the debt and you can submit your statutory declaration.

The website Bailiff Advice Online lists two phone numbers for TEC
https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/index-page/traffic-enforcement-centre-tec/about-the-traffic-enforcement-centre
See bottom of the page
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on December 18, 2023, 06:29:27 pm
The payment remains at £90 online and every time I try to call TEC i'm stuck waiting for a long time before it cuts out around 1 hr.

I haven't had any further letters.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: John U.K. on November 29, 2023, 07:59:18 am
Barking has 'form' for this. See -

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-and-dagenham-53j-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-spurling-road-(dagenham)/msg11462/#msg11462
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on November 29, 2023, 12:26:16 am
I think that letter is illegal and can be used in an appeal. While in a moving traffic case such an argument would have no merit, in a parking case regulation 2 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/2) says:

(2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—

(a) the TMA 2004,
(b) the 2022 General Regulations, or
(c) these Regulations,


in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) such a failure includes, in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than—

(a) in accordance with the conditions subject to which, or
(b) at the time or during the period when,


it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.

Service of that letter looks to me like "the taking of any step...otherwise than ...at the time or during the period when... it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken".

This is because the regulations neither authorise nor require service of that letter, so it is a procedural impropriety.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Incandescent on November 28, 2023, 03:01:06 pm
The legality of this letter has to be seriously questioned. Certainly there is no "reminder letter" defined anywhere in the legislation, (Act and regulations). The letter does no mention the Order for Recovery, which is the last stage before bailiffs can be instructed, indeed, the OfR stage offers a payment option, albeit £9 more than the Charge Certificate stage.
You can safely ignore the letter as it is, (in my view), unlawful intimidation. However, you must continue to be proactive and continue to determine when the debt is registered so you can submit your TE9.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on November 28, 2023, 02:31:07 pm
I've received an outstanding payment reminder stating that a full payment of £90 is required to the council within 7 days and that it's my final opportunity before it goes to enforcement agents.

I've been checking the fine constantly and it remains at £90 instead of £99.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on November 14, 2023, 09:57:21 pm
You don't need to call TEC, you can simply check the amount outstanding on the council website. You know it's going to be accurate because they'll want to make sure that if you pay, you pay the higher amount.

Once the 14 day charge certificate period has expired, check the amount due at least once a week on https://parkingpayments.lbbd.gov.uk/3sc/ (https://parkingpayments.lbbd.gov.uk/3sc/). As soon as it goes up to £99 you can download form TE9 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094491/Parking_TE9.pdf) and fill it in (no need to print, just type it out on your computer and save), remember you are not the "applicant", the "applicant" is the council.

Once that's done you can email it to tec@justice.gov.uk with the PCN number in the subject line and both the Order for Recovery and the Charge Certificate will be revoked.

The council will then re-issue the Notice to Owner, again don't rely on the post just keep checking the council website. You'll know the PCN is back at the Notice to Owner stage when the outstanding charge changes to £60. At that point we will help you draft a formal representation.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Incandescent on November 12, 2023, 07:21:22 pm
Worry not, you haven't received the NtO, so don't pay the CC, (the only option on it), but wait for the Order for Recovery, issued after the council register the PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre, then submit a Statutory Declaration that you never received the NtO.  The matter will then be reverted to NtO stage at which point you can submit representations, (or pay of course !)'

However, missing the Nto indicates a possible mail problem, so you now need to be proactive, and at the end of the allowed payment period on the CC, phone TEC every 7-8 days to enquire whether the PCN has been registered. Once it has, you don't need the OfR, you can submit the form straightaway, having downloaded it from the TEC website.  I think the form you need is TE9, (Witness Statement). Others will confirm or correct me.  Reember when filling in the form, the "Applicant" is the council. You are the "Respondent"
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on November 12, 2023, 06:28:51 pm
I've been away since 02/11/2023 but receiced a letter on 02/11/2023 (only read today (12/11/2023)) for a charge certificate as I did not respond to the NTO they sent on 28/09/2023.

But I never received the NTO. I had been mindful about it and have been waiting for it.

What are my next steps?



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on September 10, 2023, 10:52:43 pm
That looks open and shut on the issue of ambiguous signage. As PMB says, you need the NTO in order to challenge this further.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on September 10, 2023, 12:31:34 pm
have you got the NTO yet
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on September 10, 2023, 12:05:31 pm
Thanks all.

Just want to add, I took pictures a couple weeks ago of the bay:

https://ibb.co/WFcftmv
https://ibb.co/KWHgx4g
https://ibb.co/fFkFhj5
https://ibb.co/hFYs8vJ
https://ibb.co/kgkVmTN
https://ibb.co/yRbcyfF
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on August 27, 2023, 05:29:56 pm
Once you have the NTO i will draft a representation for you
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on August 27, 2023, 04:41:58 pm
I would definitely wait for the Notice to Owner in this case.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: DancingDad on August 24, 2023, 11:11:57 am
The council are wrong they must allow an exemption for vehicles displaying a BB

Exemption from prohibitions on waiting beyond a specified time
7.—(1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 35, 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act if–

(a)the order includes a provision prohibiting the waiting of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road either–
(i)beyond a specified period; or
(ii)where less than a specified period has elapsed since a previous period of waiting by the same vehicle in that road, and
(b)the prohibition does not apply to all vehicles except disabled persons' vehicles.
(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.

What he said.
There has to be an exemption for BB holders
And being as they haven't objected to the use of the Virtual BB. ie said it doesn't count outside of permit bays (or similar) I now regard this as close to a 100% certainty as we see.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on August 24, 2023, 10:53:55 am
The council are wrong they must allow an exemption for vehicles displaying a BB

Exemption from prohibitions on waiting beyond a specified time
7.—(1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 35, 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act if–

(a)the order includes a provision prohibiting the waiting of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road either–
(i)beyond a specified period; or
(ii)where less than a specified period has elapsed since a previous period of waiting by the same vehicle in that road, and
(b)the prohibition does not apply to all vehicles except disabled persons' vehicles.
(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on August 24, 2023, 10:36:21 am
I submitted the following for my challenge:

"I have a virtual courtesy BB, details of which can be checked against vehicle registration.
This equates to the physical BB being displayed and as such, the contravention stated cannot occur.
I also have to query the clarity of the road markings, it being unclear whether I was parked within a resident's permit bay or a short stay bay. Both are unlimited time for BB holders but is confusing to the diligent driver."


I received the following rejection today:

I refer to your challenge against the above Penalty Charge Notice, which has now been considered in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to you because your vehicle was observed parked in a parking space for longer than the maximum period during prescribed hours.

I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made the decision to not cancel your notice. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along with the options available to you at this stage.

The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as they witnessed the vehicle ‘parked for longer than permitted’. The contravention covers a number of circumstances in which a vehicle waits for longer than the permitted period.

The Council limits the time a motorist may park their vehicles in certain parking places, this is to ensure there is a constant turnover of places available to the public. We expect motorists who make use of a parking place with a time limit to return to their vehicle on or before the time of expiry.

The Notice was issued as the vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ bay for longer than the maximum period allowed. A vehicle is permitted to park without payment in this type of bay for a maximum period of 1 hour. Once this time has expired, the vehicle must be moved and may not return to the bay for two hours. There is a sign above the bay, which gives clear details of these restrictions.

Disabled badge holders / permit holders are not exempt from this contravention.

I must therefore still request payment of £30.00 before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this letter. If payment is not received within this time the full amount of £60.00 will be due.

The full penalty charge of £60.00 is now due to be paid before the end of the period of 28 days, beginning with the date that this letter is served on you.
If you accept the decision in this letter and do not intend to make a formal representation, the penalty is reduced by 50% to £30.00 if payment is made to the council within 14 days from the date this letter is served on you. If you want to pay, please see the “How to Pay” section at the end of this letter.
If you disagree with my findings and would like to make a formal representation to the Council, you should wait until you receive a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner will be sent after a period of 28 days.

The Notice to Owner gives you the opportunity to make a formal representation against the Penalty Charge Notice, however, in doing so you will lose the right of discount and will be required to pay the full amount of £60.00 if your representation is rejected. Should your representation be accepted, the Penalty Charge Notice will be cancelled.


[attachurl=1]

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: cp8759 on August 21, 2023, 12:07:11 am
We parked in a residential bay marked HW...
No you didn't:

(https://i.imgur.com/1Ee6FqD.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/BtHLt4x.jpg)

The sign was adjacent to the car, so an adjudicator could be skeptical of any claims that the signage was inadequate.

One thing that is odd is that if you look at the map tile here (https://store.traffweb.app/barking-dagenham/documents/parkmap/msched/X14_rv3_1.pdf), the two bays (limited waiting and HW) are not next to each other, there's a gap which is likely meant to accommodate the dropped kerb that's been put in for number 315 here (https://goo.gl/maps/596rfUkENrbMgCog7).

One argument might be that the residents' bay isn't where it purports to be, and the bay should have been removed because legally it doesn't exist, and the signage mislead you. On the flip side, your car was right next to the limited waiting time plate.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: DancingDad on August 19, 2023, 08:57:59 am
People shold not get tied up with the virtual BB vs physical one For if the council operate a scheme that really only has one purpose, to prevent theft, then providing you have a registered virtual BB that must be taken as a BB on display then providing you are entitled to park in the bay then no time limit. If in a bay you are not entitled to park in then it will come down to the markings
Dagenham are sparse with info on their virtual badge scheme, ie where you can use.
Haringey are a little more forthcoming and basically say that the virtual replaces the physical BB within the area, as said, primary purpose seems to be to be crack down on BB theft.
https://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/parking-permits/disabled/resident-Blue-Badge/about

While it is always iffy to assume that one London Borough uses same rules as another, they should and if the Virtual BB is limited more then a physical BB, they should say.
From what I can find, the only added conditions for Dagenham are it is linked to a specific vehicle and only for use in their own CPZ.

Taking all on board I would challenge on:--
I have a virtual courtesy BB, details of which can be checked against vehicle registration.
This equates to the physical BB being displayed and as such, the contravention stated cannot occur.
I also have to query the clarity of the road markings, it being unclear whether I was parked within a resident's permit bay or a short stay bay. Both are unlimited time for BB holders but is confusing to the diligent driver.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on August 18, 2023, 03:27:11 pm
People shold not get tied up with the virtual BB vs physical one For if the council operate a scheme that really only has one purpose, to prevent theft, then providing you have a registered virtual BB that must be taken as a BB on display then providing you are entitled to park in the bay then no time limit. If in a bay you are not entitled to park in then it will come down to the markings
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: DancingDad on August 18, 2023, 02:03:32 pm
Hmm. I see the issue now. It looks like I was parked next to both signs but closer towards the one that is not a residential.

To be honest I never realised there were separate parking conditions for that little strip - in google maps you can see the bays are separated but the dotted line that is supposed to separate them is barely visible. However that line doesn't exist at this moment in time (I think), so it looks like one big bay for 4 cars.

Check that on the ground and get photos to show non-existent divider if you can?
I doubt the poor lines just about visible in streetview would pass muster with an adjudicator but streetview is historical and may not be accepted as evidence of what is there now.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on August 18, 2023, 12:36:26 pm
Hmm. I see the issue now. It looks like I was parked next to both signs but closer towards the one that is not a residential.

To be honest I never realised there were separate parking conditions for that little strip - in google maps you can see the bays are separated but the dotted line that is supposed to separate them is barely visible. However that line doesn't exist at this moment in time (I think), so it looks like one big bay for 4 cars.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: DancingDad on August 18, 2023, 09:54:48 am
doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

However, OP states they were relying on the virtual BB (presumably because they were under the impression they were in the applicable resident bay?) and evidence photos from the PCN show the physical blue badge wasn't on display, which is what has thrown a spanner in the works, I think.

Op needs to confirm what bay they were parked within
Any council photos?
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Kirbs on August 18, 2023, 12:01:09 am
doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

However, OP states they were relying on the virtual BB (presumably because they were under the impression they were in the applicable resident bay?) and evidence photos from the PCN show the physical blue badge wasn't on display, which is what has thrown a spanner in the works, I think.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on August 17, 2023, 11:37:04 pm
The veterans will be along to help more, I'm sure, but since I'm familiar with the area I'll weigh in here. There are a couple of bays right up by the corner of the Heathway that aren't actually HW permit bays, they're 1 hour short-stay bays. GSV below:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPpsjtxzosaG7PXD7?g_st=ic

doesn't matter re the bays as the time limit does not apply to BB holders due to the exemption for disabled persons act

For reference, I believe virtual BBs are something LBBD does to stop BB holders having to pay for a CPZ permit when the BB entitles them to park without one, but also avoids you having to leave your BB in your car for extended periods (e.g., overnight) and risk having your car broken into and BB nicked. The virtual BBs replace the paid residents permit but are only valid for your CPZ.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Kirbs on August 17, 2023, 06:22:13 pm
The veterans will be along to help more, I'm sure, but since I'm familiar with the area I'll weigh in here. There are a couple of bays right up by the corner of the Heathway that aren't actually HW permit bays, they're 1 hour short-stay bays. GSV below:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPpsjtxzosaG7PXD7?g_st=ic

For reference, I believe virtual BBs are something LBBD does to stop BB holders having to pay for a CPZ permit when the BB entitles them to park without one, but also avoids you having to leave your BB in your car for extended periods (e.g., overnight) and risk having your car broken into and BB nicked. The virtual BBs replace the paid residents permit but are only valid for your CPZ.
Title: Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: Pastmybest on August 17, 2023, 05:55:25 pm
Never heard of a virtual BB as the BB is not a council scheme But if you hold a BB for that council then you are correct on street there is no time limit and should challenge on that basis 
Title: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
Post by: george74 on August 17, 2023, 03:54:19 pm
Hi all,


Got another one.


My wife is a blue badge holder. We applied for a virtual blue badge meaning we can park in bays where we would normally display a BB but don't have to in the borough. To be honest the usage of the virtual blue badge is unclear and maybe why we got the PCN.


We parked in a residential bay marked HW where we are allowed to park but we received a ticket when we came back to the car. We should be able to park there for unlimited time.


At home, a few roads away, we are either parked in a disabled bay or residential bay for unlimited hours with no badge displayed and have had no issues.


I have previously applied for a residential permit but was denied due to already having the virtual blue badge permit.

[attachment deleted by admin]