DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22030--------------------------------------------------
Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: sc2509
Date: May 10, 2024, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
While having a moan with my neighbour about the unfair CEOs in
our area, he mentioned he too has been a victim of their
behaviour. He has already submitted an informal challenge which
has been rejected and received a NTO today. He wanted some
advice on how to proceed so I mentioned the helpful people here
might be able to assist.
I've asked him to dig out the original PCN so will upload that
when I have it. This is the informal rep that he made:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/Madam
> I write to you in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice
issued to my vehicle on Sunday 03rd March 2024.
>
> I have been a resident on this road for 34 years, and have had
a resident’s permit since the introduction of the CPZ and on the
day of the penalty charge. I am well aware of the restrictions
on the road that I live on and on this particular occasion I had
intentionally moved my car forward to the drop kerb opposite my
next door neighbour’s driveway to facilitate the transfer of my
disabled father in law who had been staying with us into the
vehicle. There is no other reason for me to park on the double
yellow line where there was plenty of parking space available in
the marked bays at the time the alleged contravention occurred.
>
> I had left the hazard lights on which the CEO failed to
observe, and momentarily re-entered the house to assist my
father in law who is wheel chair bound, and upon returning to
the vehicle a few minutes later saw the PCN had been issued. He
had in his possession his blue badge which would have allowed
him to have the vehicle parked there for 3 hours, however as we
were merely loading passengers we did not feel it was necessary
and the increased risk of having the badge stolen with the car
unlocked and unattended. Please find attached a copy of the
badge.
>
> We would greatly appreciate if the above can be taken into
consideration in reviewing this PCN.
--- End Quote ---
This is the NTO that he received:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/KX4CJXK/Screenshot-20240510-103014.png
HTML https://ibb.co/rm8nVmd
GSV:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/MmBJf1dv4JdgJqbC7
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/MmBJf1dv4JdgJqbC7
#Post#: 22036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 10, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up Newham's rejection.
#Post#: 22037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: sc2509
Date: May 10, 2024, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/kHBmZMh/Screenshot-2024-05-10-at-11-24-57.png
HTML https://ibb.co/M2SBd9R
#Post#: 22631--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 15, 2024, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(Post from Enceladus which I accidentally removed):
It seems to me that the informal representation is quite clear
that you were boarding a disabled passenger in a wheelchair who
also happens to have a blue badge. Boarding or alighting
passengers are permitted exemptions to the DYLs. Their own
rejection letter admits that this is a permitted exemption
"........... or if you had stopped briefly to pick up/drop off
passengers."
The display of the BB is irrelevant, it wasn't required. Loading
or unloading is irrelevant. Breaking down and producing an
invoice is irrelevant. A cut and paste boiler plate rejection, I
wonder is it a poor AI attempt.
The letter shows that they believe you claimed you were loading
and has failed to consider that you were boarding a disabled
passenger for which you were entitled to sufficient time to get
him into his chair, get him out of the house etc. Anything
strictly necessary. So long as you didn't stop for tea or take
the dog for a walk in the park.
You'll have to submit formal representations against the NTO and
then appeal to the Adjudicator. but be aware that the bill will
be the full £130 if you lose. It'll be down to your credibility,
does the Adjudicator believe that, on the balance of
probability, you were boarding a disabled passenger and the BB
certainly helps with that. Actually since the discount window
has expired you're in for £130 anyway so you might as well
appeal to the Adjudicator if it comes to it.
The NTO seems to be very quick after the rejection. Maybe too
quick. Please post up the rest of it.
#Post#: 22632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 15, 2024, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1339]sc2509[/member] this is the sort of idiotic PCN
that are the whole reison d'etre of this website.
Here's a draft representation:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Newham,
The alleged contravention did not occur because my vehicle was
not parked, my vehicle was temporarily stopped in order to allow
the boarding of a disabled passenger, who required assistance
from the adjacent premises. I attach a copy of his blue badge
for your records. The vehicle was not stopped in contravention
and the penalty charge must therefore be cancelled.
The wording in the informal rejection that references broken
down vehicles and loading or unloading appears to be the result
of some rather sloppy copying and pasting of templated
paragraphs.
Furthermore there is some rather infelicitous wording in your
informal rejection that speaks of "times in which we are
prepared to make an exception to this rule", but the rules are
not made by you, they are made by Parliament. The author of the
notice of the informal rejection also seems to be labouring
under the misapprehension that it is somehow up to the council
to decide to waive the penalty or not, this is not the case:
either a contravention occurred or it did not and where a
contravention the council must cancel the penalty; there is no
discretion about this.
The only real question is whether you wish to incur the £25
tribunal fee before cancelling the penalty.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Send it online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page,
if they're stupid enough to reject one of us will sort out the
tribunal appeal for you.
#Post#: 22633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: sparx
Date: May 15, 2024, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> A cut and paste boiler plate rejection, I wonder is it a poor
AI attempt.
--- End Quote ---
I think AI does a better job at punctuation than this letter.
According to Copyleaks, it believes it is human text, not AI.
#Post#: 23420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: sc2509
Date: May 21, 2024, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help [member=1]cp8759[/member] and
[member=38]Enceladus[/member]
We submitted the rep using the draft below. Now let's wait and
see!
#Post#: 27818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: sc2509
Date: June 28, 2024, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the notice of rejection this morning :-[
Any help on how to proceed with this, they didn't even
acknowledge the fact that I was boarding a disabled passenger!
HTML https://i.ibb.co/V3j8V4H/Cam-Scanner-06-28-2024-10-15.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Wsx1nJD
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XYm9mNK/Cam-Scanner-06-28-2024-10-16.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/WVSQSqM
HTML https://i.ibb.co/QbMXmvT/Cam-Scanner-06-28-2024-10-17.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/4mpJNRX
#Post#: 27832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 28, 2024, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
While having a moan with my neighbour about the unfair CEOs in
our area, he mentioned he too has been a victim of their
behaviour. He has already submitted an informal challenge which
has been rejected and received a NTO today.
they didn't even acknowledge the fact that I was boarding a
disabled passenger!
? Are we talking about you or your neighbour?
If your neighbour, do they want to accept the bribe of the
discount or carry on?
Assisted boarding wasn't observed and so it's the driver's word
IMO, your/their grounds would be:
Contravention did not occur: I rely upon the exemption of
assisted boarding. which is an exemption to the prevailing
restriction. I accept that this was not evident to anyone
standing at the car during the 3-minute period from 7.36 to
7.39, however, during this period I was in my house, number **
which is ** properties from the dropped kerb. I specifically
refer to dropped kerb because this was the sole purpose for
moving my car from where I had parked in the resident's permit
bay to the location i.e. to facilitate easier boarding without
having to negotiate a kerb. Had I been able to do this as easily
with a kerb then I would simply have left my car in situ
(practically outside my house).
Procedural Impropriety
There are a couple of these.
I do not know why the issue of where the car was originally
located, the need for a dropped kerb, proximity and time period
weren't really fleshed out in the formal reps. Assisted boarding
is not a carte blanche, it comes with conditions and IMO these
have to be addressed otherwise the issue facing the adjudicator
is one of whose word should be believed. IMO giving this
additional info tips the balance of probabilities in the
keeper's favour.
Anyway, who is the keeper and do they want to pursue to
adjudication need to be dealt with first.
#Post#: 27834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham - code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: June 28, 2024, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You'll need to use the code on the Notice of Rejection to
register an appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals.
Ask for a personal/telephone hearing. And ask for all
correspondence to be emailed. So make sure you have a reliable
email account. And check the spam folder.
For now just say on your appeal that you rely on the informal
and formal representations submitted to the Council. And state
that you will be uploading further evidence.
If you are going to speak on your neighbour's behalf you should
get him/her to write a letter of authorisation. Authorising you
to speak on their behalf concerning this PCN. Upload the letter
to the Tribunal.
It would help if you can get Father-In-Law to write a short
statement confirming that Son-In-Law (?) was picking him up and
that he is in a wheelchair and required assistance to get to the
car and to get into the car.
The Council has re-offered the 50% discount, see the Notice of
Rejection, this would need to be paid on or before close of
business on Thursday the 11th of July, if you want to take that
option up. If you appeal to the Adjudicator and lose the full
penalty of £130 would be due, not the £65.
I suggest that you have a very strong case, so I would appeal.
Win and there will be nothing to pay.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page