Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: SJ Johnson on February 19, 2025, 01:58:17 pm
-
You seem very indignant about something which according to your account was the fault of the driver. Why?
You bought a permit holder online, apparently it had been used without issue but in this instance failed to such a degree that none of the relevant details could be seen from outside the vehicle - an unusual failure for all the adhesive to fail at the same time and for the permit to not be seen at all, bearing in mind that the windscreen is inclined towards the dashboard and that Sod's Law would probably not apply and therefore it would land face up, not face down. ('it had just come unstuck from inside windscreen screen and fallen down out of site')
I put it this way because IMO this should inform the tone of any formal reps and not your indignation because you don't hold the trump hand and are looking to persuade the authority to your side, not brow beat them.
Trying to gather more info:
Is this the first PCN for this vehicle?
The 16v12 argument is as ineffective as it is effective, particularly at this stage and when both penalties are the same;
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
-
This case looks similar and shows that while the tribunal can't apply mitigation an adjudicator can make a recommendation, here no doubt for blatant unfairness. The council doesn't have to accept it but if not it would raise the stakes for a complaint.
---------------
Case reference 2250003442
Appellant Jonathan Sheril
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EY23VCK
PCN Details
PCN AF07973898
Contravention date 19 Sep 2024
Contravention time 11:22:00
Contravention location Spratt Hall Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
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 in an on-street resident permit holder only parking bay during controlled hours, without clearly displaying a valid resident parking permit.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, 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 he had a valid permit, of which he has provided proof, but the Enforcement Authority no longer provide holders and it has just fallen down before the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.
I have had the opportunity of hearing the Appellant personally and find him to be a credible and convincing witness. I accept what he tells me but, unfortunately, that does not of itself amount to a valid ground of appeal as it does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they park only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that any badge, permit or voucher required to be displayed is properly validated and clearly visible from outside the vehicle.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
The Court of Appeal has affirmed that the Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description. However, Regulation 7(8) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 provides that if the Adjudicator does not allow the appeal but is satisfied that there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the notice to owner should be cancelled he may recommend the enforcement authority to cancel the notice to owner.
Having heard from the Appellant I am satisfied that there was a valid permit and that it was in the vehicle at the time, although not clearly visible and find that are in this case such compelling reasons and I recommend the Enforcement Authority cancel the Notice to Owner.
Recommendation cancel the Notice to Owner.
-
If they force you to the tribunal and make you pay the full penalty you have other avenues to question their behaviour through your local councillors, writing to chief executive and council leader, local press.
If you want to go on I'll help you write formal reps.
-
wow -
I think this is my answer
It's not 'right' it's not 'fair' it's morally reprehensible
its why there is an increasing disconnect and distrust of authority and the 'rules'
common sense seems no longer to prevail and it is the rule abiders who feel most punished
thanks so much for getting me this far -
-
This case from yesterday indicates that Redbridge is prepared to shaft its residents but the facts here are clearly not the same as it looks like the appellant didn't play the fairness card and instead said the permit was on display but that doesn't stop Redbridge using discretion if they know there was a valid permit.
--------
Case Details
Case reference 2240526863
Appellant Sunny Sagoo
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM S21VOO
PCN Details
PCN AF08067845
Contravention date 09 Oct 2024
Contravention time 09:08:00
Contravention location Highbury Gardens
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a residents or shared-use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant disputes this, stating that there was a valid permit clearly displayed. He says that the same Civil Enforcement Officer had issued a PCN to the vehicle in similar circumstances the previous day.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer which support the assertion that the VRM could not be seen at the bottom of the permit.
It happens on occasion that a permit is dislodged by the rush of air when the door is closed or in some other way. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that the permit relied upon is securely and clearly displayed before leaving the vehicle. The contravention occurs if at any time the vehicle is parked without the necessary permit clearly displayed with all particulars visible.
I have no reason to doubt that the Appellant made a genuine error but this amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
-
thank you
then I'll wait for notice to owner to arrive, its not me, its my partner - and go from there
wish me luck
re:'as a resident I'd have a good go at them on fairness grounds and failure to consider by fobbing you off with a template.'
Apparently, Redbridge haven't publicly published any corresponding policies in relation to PCN's - I'll see if I can extract anything!
Their approach amounts to extortion frankly!!!
-
The next step is a notice to owner served on the registered keeper - is that you?
You then makes formal reps. At which point three things can happen:
- They accept. Happy days.
- They reject again but reoffer the discount so you need to decide whether to appeal.
- They reject but do not reoffer the discount so then nothing to lose by taking it to London Tribunals.
See what others think but if it were me as a resident I'd have a good go at them on fairness grounds and failure to consider by fobbing you off with a template.
-
thank you for your time and expertise Stamfordman, I really appreciate your support
I'm not clear if I have one more attempt to contest (while still retaining the reduced cost of £65 if I'm unsuccessful)
Please advise
-
Authorities that issue PCNs have a statutory duty to act fairly and in the public interest. A lot of councils would have cancelled this, certainly if it is a first time.
Given they've fobbed you off with a template this is also a failure to consider.
I would go on to formal stage but be aware that after this should they reject the tribunal cannot consider mitigation.
-
t's a template rejection sent to everyone and has not addressed your challenge which presumably said you had a valid permit that fell off.
YES, MY CHALLENGE STATED THE PERMIT HAD FALLEN DOWN DUE TO STICKY WALLET FAILURE.
Did you enclose a picture of the permit?
YES
What holder were you using - was it supplied by Redbridge?
A TRANSPARENT STICKY HOLDER, BOUGTH ONLINE FOR PURPOSE OF CAR PERMITS - REDBRIDGE COUNCIL HAVE NEVER SUPPLIED A HOLDER AS FAR AS I REMEMBER
How long have you held a resident's permit?
SINCE THEY WERE FIRST INTRODUCED BY REDBRIDGE, ON OUR ROAD, IN 2018
It's a permit parking area and doesn't mention residents so technically a code 16 should have been issued.
I SEE - AND THEY HAVE ISSUED A CODE 12. DOES THAT HELP ME?
-
It's a template rejection sent to everyone and has not addressed your challenge which presumably said you had a valid permit that fell off.
Did you enclose a picture of the permit?
What holder were you using - was it supplied by Redbridge?
How long have you held a resident's permit?
It's a permit parking area and doesn't mention residents so technically a code 16 should have been issued.
(https://i.ibb.co/VcDf9gtC/Screenshot-2025-02-20-at-13-14-02.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/8LDcTNgP/Screenshot-2025-02-20-at-13-13-56.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/mV3Jsd3M/Screenshot-2025-02-20-at-13-14-17.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Rfp9rGn/Screenshot-2025-02-20-at-13-14-11.png)
-
thanks - now attached correctly.
-
You've posted receipts from Wanstead Opticians and a glasses case company.
Delete these links.
I'll look at the PCN and rejection tomorrow.
-
apologies - wrong links posted. Now attached correctly;
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hgkbclqug73nnnw8qoas9/IMG_4047.jpg?rlkey=pemhhl0v4uipesg8w7wmaotj8&st=hsz178g9&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bxh7tqfs1vravnt5cccte/IMG_4155.pdf?rlkey=3pmj3qvb1boov29a5h0p2ixm4&st=w275o471&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h8dkmeqd0yjukvsbbp39h/IMG_4158.pdf?rlkey=12fu36hckjvdicy1wr6jk4fkb&st=wqc7ai39&dl=0
-
thanks - attached
I can't find the section sticky ?
snip
Stamfordman gave you the link
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
thanks - attached
I can't find the section sticky ?
My original contest letter was brief, don't have a copy but it was just stating as I have here; permit was not displayed as sticky display pocket had failed. rectified now etc.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Check the section sticky and post the PCXN, your challenge and their rejection.
Redbridge is an awful council for PCNs.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Hi all,
I have received a PCN for my car parked outside our house, as the residents permit was not displayed. Actually it had just come unstuck from inside windscreen screen and fallen down out of site. It has our Reg number on it, is fully up to date and all paid to the council...who also issued the ticket. I contested the penalty charge but they have written saying it is upheld. I'm pretty determined not to pay this out of principle and to take it to appeal stage. It's ludicrous to demand payment for something fully out of my control, there was no wilful avoidance or even human error, they must normally pass and see the permit is correct and displayed.Thoughts and advice please? thanks