Location: Macaulay Road
Civil Enforcement Officer: LH2380
Who had reason to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred and that a penalty charge is now payable: 14
14 Parked in an electric vehicles charging place during restricted hours without charging
Contested Argument:
The Civil Enforcement officer issued a Contravention Code 14 stating the vehicle was not charging however within the pictures illustrated you can clearly see the colour on the MG is green indicating that it was indeed charging. I do not appreciate the part of the Local Authority to cause me to take time out of my day to fight a ticket for a contravention that did not happen. The lacklustre approach your CEO has taken to not even look at the charging station screen which would have clearly shown the vehicle was currently charging. I await your prompt response, should this exceed the current stage I would like to enquire with the LA as to how I can apply for reimbursement for wasting my time. Here is a link if your 3PT vendor does not understand what the lights mean
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4HUY3ggOc&feature=share7 ; I have highlighted in the pictures your CEO took that show the vehicle was charging.
LA Response:
We have clearly considered what you say but have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
You were issued a PCN for parking in a bay for electric vehicles to charge their batteries. There is a sign explaining this. Even if you have an electric vehicle you can only park there if you are charging your battery.
We have noted that you parked to charge your vehicle. The CEO believes that your vehicle parked owner then the 4 hours permitted. Your vehicle was first observed at 09:15 before returning at 14:33 which was when the PCN was issued.
Is it worth further challenging this as the incorrect contravention code was used. This seems more inline with a contravention 30 which would be Parked for longer than permitted. Should I challenge this further or would you recommend conceding and paying given the incorrect contravention code appears to have been used