URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 14902--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 3, 2024, 10:57 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have skimmed through the thread. Apart from the procedural
       improprieties mentioned above by other experts, if you look
       carefully, the two lists of grounds do not exactly agree with
       each other!  CEO is mentioned in the latter, for example. This
       is very sloppy.  But also nasty stuff pertaining to their whole
       pursuit of this case.
       #Post#: 14903--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 3, 2024, 10:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
       >
       > Barking has 'form' for this. See -
       >
       >
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-and-dagenham-53j-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-spurling-road-(dagenham)/msg11462/#msg11462
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Indeed.  Serendipity.  Thanks for reminding me. Naughty naughty!
       #Post#: 14905--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: John U.K.
       Date: February 3, 2024, 11:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > [quote author=John U.K. link=topic=402.msg11505#msg11505
       date=1701244758]
       > Barking has 'form' for this. See -
       >
       >
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-and-dagenham-53j-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-spurling-road-(dagenham)/msg11462/#msg11462
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Indeed.  Serendipity.  Thanks for reminding me. Naughty naughty!
       [/quote]
       That thread seems to have ground to a silent halt, but not
       before CP pointed out:
       --- Quote ---
       > Note that this is not a parking case, so unlike the other
       thread, this letter does not amount to a procedural impropriety.
       . . .
       > There is no law that says they can't send that letter, not
       under the 2003 Act at least.
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 14941--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: February 3, 2024, 5:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Well there are two or three issues here:
       1) The signage / TMO discrepancy,
       2) The virtual blue badge,
       3) The unlawful letter.
       [member=156]Pastmybest[/member] you said you were minded to
       draft a representation, maybe if you want to write something to
       cover the blue badge point, I can write something for the other
       points?
       #Post#: 14957--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: Pastmybest
       Date: February 4, 2024, 4:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I can do that
       #Post#: 15928--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: george74
       Date: February 20, 2024, 7:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I can try write something but wouldn't be sure what to say about
       the illegal letter.
       #Post#: 16104--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: george74
       Date: February 23, 2024, 4:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.
       #Post#: 16117--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: Pastmybest
       Date: February 23, 2024, 6:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: george74 link ---
       >
       > Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       George just one question and i will draft a representation
       today.
       Your wife is the BB holder, who is the registered keeper of the
       car? Was she in the car when it was parked or was it parked to
       collect her?
       #Post#: 16119--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: February 23, 2024, 7:09 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       ..and
       'a virtual blue badge meaning we can park in bays where we would
       normally display a BB but don't have to in the borough.' is not
       correct, rather:
       You can apply for a virtual courtesy Blue Badge if you hold a
       Blue Badge and live in a Controlled Parking Zone.
       The courtesy Blue Badge will be linked to your Blue Badge and
       your nominated vehicle and will only be valid for parking in the
       Controlled Parking Zone you live in.
       So, only for your zone which frankly seems a waste of time, but
       hey-ho!
       Anyway, IMO the substantive issues on which (having reviewed the
       thread there are implications but no clear statements) this
       rests are:
       Was a normal BB displayed;
       Does the OP or their wife hold a courtesy(albeit virtual) BB;
       If so, to what specific vehicle is it linked;
       Is this the same vehicle as was issued with the PCN;
       Perhaps the acid test as raised by others, does the mere fact
       that a CBB is held and which allows parking for a nominated
       vehicle in the specified CPZ allow the driver to presume its
       display when parked in other bays which would permit unlimited*
       parking were a BB to be displayed even when not parked in that
       CPZ?
       *-it has to be unlimited because a VBB without a clock doesn't
       meet the BB requirements.
       OP, pl answer 1-4 above, 5 is for discussion I would suggest.
       And as regards the NTO, see page 1, last para:
       ..'if the penalty charge is not paid in full OR representations
       are not made within the [28-day period]...!
       My emphasis. Where did OR come from, the regs specify:
       g)that if, after the payment period has expired, no
       representations have been made under regulation 5 of the 2022
       Appeals Regulations and the penalty charge has not been paid,
       the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the
       applicable surcharge,..l
       It's AND not OR. IMO OR conveys the wrong meaning.
       #Post#: 16148--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Dagenham - Contravention Code 30, parked too long
   DIR By: george74
       Date: February 23, 2024, 11:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
       >
       > [quote author=george74 link=topic=402.msg16104#msg16104
       date=1708682806]
       > Any suggestions? I have to submit something by Monday.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Your wife is the BB holder, who is the registered keeper of the
       car? Was she in the car when it was parked or was it parked to
       collect her?
       [/quote]
       It is a motability car in her name. Yes we were travelling
       together.
       --- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
       >
       > Was a normal BB displayed;
       > Does the OP or their wife hold a courtesy(albeit virtual) BB;
       > If so, to what specific vehicle is it linked;
       > Is this the same vehicle as was issued with the PCN;
       > Perhaps the acid test as raised by others, does the mere fact
       that a CBB is held and which allows parking for a nominated
       vehicle in the specified CPZ allow the driver to presume its
       display when parked in other bays which would permit unlimited*
       parking were a BB to be displayed even when not parked in that
       CPZ?
       >
       > *-it has to be unlimited because a VBB without a clock doesn't
       meet the BB requirements.
       >
       > OP, pl answer 1-4 above, 5 is for discussion I would suggest.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       1. A normal BB was not displayed
       2. She does
       3. It is linked to the car in question, we've checked this
       4. Yes
       I've gone through the thread again as it's been a while and
       there's a lot of good info there including my rejection for my
       initial challenge in which the council said a blue badge would
       not be exempt (so not challenging on the virtual BB but any BB)
       *****************************************************
       Page 4 of 6
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page