Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - UKdave

Pages: [1] 2
Sir, I am most grateful for this clarification

Should LCC reject the reply I authored to their NTO, I will indeed proceed to adjudication & would be most grateful for your insight & input at that time

Also grateful for the links to those precedents / decisions, which are as you say almost carbon copies of this case

Obliged to you Sir

Gentlemen (forgive me for assuming your gender  ;D ) ~ as this great resource often proves, challenging City Hall is not an exact science.

I live in Leeds, and "Leeds City Council" does not, in fact, exist ... it's but a collection of buildings staffed by an ever changing shuffling bolus of flawed humans, on any one day each may be having a bad one, all bristling with different human bias & quota pressures & agendas & extreme political affiliations & ages & experience levels & personal issues

Mistakes are made, of that there is no doubt, right?

Thank you, all contributors, for taking the time to look at my case & telling me how it looks thru your own individual lenses

I'll let y'all know what happens

@UKdave here are my points that you can copy and paste.

I concede that when I parked in the disabled badge holder’s only limited waiting parking place I failed to set the parking disc clock to show my correct time of arrival. I can advise that in reality I had not parked for longer than the permitted 4 hours when the PCN was issued. I apologise for this oversight and acknowledge that by displaying an incorrect time of arrival it gave ground for your CEO to issue a penalty charge. .....

Sent you a DM. Thank You


You can see the legislation below stating that a parking clock is required for parking on yellow lines.

But this one do not require parking clock for parking in a parking place beyond waiting limit


I really appreciate that

If you have time, look at what seems to be a blizzard of loading bay/BB threads which are currently being processed.

I was taken by an adjudicator's comment in one of the cases cited in support that this is a complex area and NOT one where adjudicators' decisions form anything like a consensus. It's further complicated by the facts in each case:

24/7 restriction or not;
Traffic order requires display of disc or not;
Was BB displayed with or without a disc;
Was this set correctly?

I do not think that it's possible, nor do I think it's prudent, to take an absolutist view and be prepared to go to the barricades armed with nothing more than this argument.

Thank You. Would you be kind enough to drop a direct link to [or title & date of] the comment thread from which you conclude that adjudicators' decisions often indicate anything but a consensus

Thank You

How do they expect CEO's to know every drivers personal circumstances?

And as far as I know CEO's aren't 'incentivized' at all. Makes no difference to them whether they issue one or fifty.

Exactly, CEO's CANT know individual circumstances, and therefore, mitigating personal circumstances are a valid retort

Oh, and the use of "rarely" as opposed to "never" in the [public-facing] information below, clearly indicates this absolutely DOES happen

The Blue Badge parking clock is only legally required for yellow lines only but not for time limit bay - disabled bay or not.

Hi there. I appreciate your input. Can you please copy & paste the exact traffic order you are quoting?


{I don't know why I bother starting each retort with a courteous salutation & thanks. No one else seems to bother on here. Must be in my nature}

OK, you wrote ...

"... as regards the CEO a valid Blue Badge was not displayed. If it had been, then the 4-hour limit had been exceeded"


Even if the clock was set wrongly, and even if we accept the notion such an error 'invalidates' the BB ... the 4 hour limit had NOT been exceeded

Also, you pasted the following ...

Evidence of contravention
7.—(1) A penalty charge may only be imposed in respect of a parking contravention on the basis of—

(a)a record produced by an approved device, or

(b)information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by that officer

In this case, the information that was 'given' by the civil enforcement officer was contradicted by an appeals officer

You said:

CEO was entitled to consider that the driver was trying to pinch an extra hour by setting the clock at a time later than when they parked

The appeals officer said:

"... In this case the clock card indicated that the vehicle was parked at 13:30 or 01:30 which indicates that the vehicle was parked for longer than 4 hours at 12:21 when the PCN was issued"

The CEO & the appeals officer are contradicting each other, & simply can't have it both ways

Anyway, I am [still] seeking solid constructive ADVICE please

{deep breath} Thanks for your ongoing attention, I appreciate it


Thanks for your input again, I appreciate it

OK, so what IS your advice?

IF you read the entire thread you will see that 'Phantomcrusader' made the following observation:

Your badge is valid therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. The badge and parking disc (clock) are separate entities. I can find no regulation that says an error with the clock does by default invalidate the badge. Most councils refer to these regs for interpretation and as you can see a disabled badge and parking disc have their own meanings. Ergo a badge is not a parking disc and vice versa.

This contradicts your position that "objective facts i.e. the clock showed 01.30/13.30, and the car was in contravention, as indeed it was!"

I'm just looking for a consensus I can move forward with

In my humble uneducated opinion, a 100% legally parked car, clearly showing a disabled badge, parked in a disabled bay, on a Sunday ... is not 'in contravention' of anything. It is a FACT that, had the car been parked in a non-disabled bay, there would have been no contravention as the clock setting would have been immaterial

LCC are attempting to fine a person because they correctly parked in a disabled bay. Had they taken up a non disabled regular bay, no action would have been taken. This is IMO clearly punishing a disabled person for nothing more than seeking out a disabled bay

Anyway, back to my lead question HC ...

What is your advice?



I appreciate your input

I now have MUCH stronger grounds than mere fettered discretion

The appeals officer went on record as saying the PCN was issued because the car had been parked too long

That's not a code 40, its a code 30 ... and there's my PI

A second but related PI is the charge was {therefore also} wrong

But you're right, questions are not representations

FYI one of the questions was: "IF the PCN was issued ONLY on an incorrectly set time clock, please explain how the CEO knew the drivers disabilities do not include dyscalculia & thus they would struggle to tell the time?"

A perfectly reasonable question, but unanswered because in attempting to address & reply that issue they would scupper their own case. In the end, the appeals officer did exactly that anyway by stating the time clock indicated the car had overstayed, a code 30, not a 40 as issued

I shall stick to the obvious TWO PI's

Thank You 

Hi Folks, thanks for your great advice so far, I really appreciate it

As requested, below is a draft of my representation based on your advice:

I am in receipt of your NTO and note the contents

In her rebuttal letter to my advocate, your appeals officer Elaine Lowe stated:

"... In this case the clock card indicated that the vehicle was parked at 13:30 or 01:30 which indicates that the vehicle was parked for longer than 4 hours at 12:21 when the PCN was issued"

As this is now the stated position of LCC in this case, the contravention code is clearly incorrect

The contravention code for over staying is Code 30, which carries a penalty of £50 ... not code 40, which carries a penalty of £70

For these reasons the PCN was incorrectly issued on TWO of your "specified grounds":

1)  "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" ~ £70 charged instead of £50

2) "There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority" ~ PCN was issued under Code 40, instead of overstay code 30, which Elaine Lowe clearly stated was the contravention

If anyone has any suggestions or observations I would be most appreciative. If what is written above will be good enough, please say so & I will fill the representations form accordingly


Excellent Thank You ... I will

Any other observations?

These were other points made by my advocate, which were not addressed in LCC's response

List any & all steps currently taken by Leeds City Council to ensure images uploaded as ‘evidence’ in ALL fine-bearing traffic violation cases are not AI generated / altered. CEO’s are incentivized based on PCN volume, thus we hold it is LCC’s duty in 2024 & beyond, to ensure ANY photographic evidence supporting a fine-bearing penalty, like a PCN, is not AI generated, including time stamps. If no such steps are [yet] in place, please admit that in writing

IF the PCN was issued ONLY on an incorrectly set time clock, please explain how the CEO knew the drivers disabilities do not include dyscalculia & thus they would struggle to tell the time

Ahhh, thank you

So let me understand this

There are several angles here but the one most likely to get a result is a PI (the CEO put code 40 when they are now saying the contravention was a code 30)

LCC response states:

In this case the clock card indicated that the vehicle was parked at 13:30 or 01:30 which indicates that the vehicle was parked for longer than 4 hours at 12:21 when the PCN was issued

Is an incorrect contravention code sufficient grounds for an Procedural Impropriety appeal?

Thanks again ... I really appreciate your insight

Ah, OK thank you

Please forgive my ignorance

Since Google took the street view scans in March 2021, this location has been designated as Disabled bays, as per the OP photos, so there was / is little point in linking thru to the 'old' Google Street View, but here it is anyway:

When you say "Then if the Traffic Regulation Order requires the display of the clock then the sign must make that clear" do you have any examples / photos of signs that make it clear a clock is required. I suspect LCC will simply say a clock is required any time there is a 'time restriction' on a parking bay, as in this case. Where can I read the TRO to the contrary?


Pages: [1] 2