DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2008--------------------------------------------------
Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit (electronic)
DIR By: dab996
Date: July 27, 2023, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Our residents parking scheme now use electronic permits. We have
3 cars serving 2 permits and swap out using the mipermit app for
any 2 cars parked in our road. On July 20th we swapped over one
of the cars but forgot to swap over the electronic permit and
subsequently received the attached PCN.
Do we have any grounds to contest the PCN given the Council know
we have valid permits to park 2 vehicles on the road? Or is it a
case of we have no grounds given we failed to display a valid
permit regardless of the above?
Many thanks,
dab996
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 2030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 27, 2023, 5:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As per the guidance here
HTML 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/<br
/>please post the front of the PCN with no redactions, and also
please show us the back of the PCN.
The one ground that can be used for Bristol PCNs is that they
use a premium-rate 0870 number, which can be enough to win on
its own based on Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council
(DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022)
HTML http://bit.ly/3UsoSjR.
#Post#: 2037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: dab996
Date: July 28, 2023, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the guidance and attachment relating to Bateman v
Derbyshire CC and I'm hoping that as Bristol CC also use a
premium rate 0870 number this will be sufficient grounds to
cancel the PCN. I should be grateful for advice on how to
contest this. I have attached the front and back of the PCN
unredacted as requested.
Many thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 2120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 29, 2023, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On top of the 0870 number, it seems the contravention wording is
wrong. According to the PATROL joint committee
HTML https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/,
the wording for
code 16 is "Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid
virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit
where required".
The wording used by the council cannot possibly apply: if
they've not issued you a physical permit, this means that even
if you had a valid electronic permit in place, they could still
issue a PCN as you weren't physically displaying a permit. This
is obviously absurd.
Another argument is that councils outside London can use
non-standard wording, but arguably the wording and level of
charges must be published somewhere, as this is a mandatory
requirement of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Councils that
use the PATROL wording can simply point to the PATROL website
and claim that PATROL has published it on their behalf, but any
council using custom wording cannot rely on the PATROL website
so they need to prove they've published the level of charges
independently (I somehow doubt they've done this).
Another issue to explore is the question of signage, as there
isn't a single photo showing where the sign is in relation to
the car:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/gzFKzWO.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/DhBHWgh.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/klJ3EKc.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/V4xUkO5.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wocRWrP.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ONbpanQ.jpg
Can you please give us a link to the exact spot where the car is
parked? It's obviously somewhere along here
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/uwd8jsVMf2asosKJ8
but I can't immediately
pinpoint the exact location.
#Post#: 2170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: dab996
Date: July 30, 2023, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Really appreciating all the help and as requested, below link
shows where LL10KGU was parked, which was in place of the first
covered vehicle -
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/9e9Wffo7vKRPMAgt8
#Post#: 2178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 30, 2023, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft representation:
[indent]
Dear Bristol City Council,
In the first instance I note the CEO's photos do not show where
the sign is in relation to my vehicle, so it is unclear how you
could persuade an adjudicator that a contravention occurred.
In any event the contravention alleged is unsustainable for the
following reasons.
Firstly, we do not have physical permits, the council provides
electronic permits. It is therefore impossible to display
anything at all, and by your logic a PCN could be issued to all
permit holders, because the holder of a valid permit would still
be guilty of failing to display a valid permit. A motorist
cannot be penalised for failing to display something that does
not exist, such as physical permits that are no longer issued.
Further to this, the wording of the contravention you have used
does not follow the PATROL wording published at
HTML https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/
and while the
council might be entitled to adopt its own wording, where it
does so it must comply with the associated duties under the
Traffic Management Act 2004.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Management Act 2004
provides that:
[indent]
An enforcement authority for an area outside Greater London
shall publish, in such manner as the appropriate national
authority may determine, the levels of charges set under this
Part of this Schedule.
[/indent]
As the council is not using the PATROL wording, it cannot rely
on the PATROL website. However I can find no evidence that the
council has independently published the level of charges for the
contravention wording used on the PCN, failure to comply with
the publication requirement is a procedural impropriety.
Finally I note the PCN provides a premium rate number that
carries a surcharge, such a surcharge means the penalty demanded
exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. On this
point I refer you to the high court ruling in London Borough of
Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)
and the recent Traffic Penalty Tribunal decision in Paul Bateman
v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022)
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
I would recommend you put this in a PDF and upload it to the
council website as an attachment, to ensure you preserve all
italics formatting and indentation. Also upload copies of this
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DZB2-2UOcYbnsD3Gye7CRdPJEDWs_Wyn/view?usp=sharing<br
/>and this
HTML http://bit.ly/3UsoSjR.
Don't forget to get a screenshot of the confirmation page.
#Post#: 2182--------------------------------------------------
Re: Residents Parking - failed to display valid permit
(electronic)
DIR By: dab996
Date: July 30, 2023, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for the draft representation and I shall keep
you posted.
Kind Regards
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1