DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 17, 2025, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Going by their own cancellation policy, they should cancel first
time offences for blue badge users. So I don’t get why you’d
need a separate SYL policy?
To quote their policy:
“When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay &
display ticket,
Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the
vehicle, that
item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible.
If a CEO cannot see
all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence
against a PCN
simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the
representations,
however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the
Council will
consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general,
discretion will only be
applied once.”
So the blue badge was valid at the time, only mistake being
clock missing. Only contention would be if more than 3 hours of
the allowed time had elapsed. However, since the PCN was issued
at 1927, this was only 27 minutes into the allowed 3 hours,
using common sense you’d comfortably say that 3 hours hadn’t
been violated.
So the council could easily have cancelled had they implemented
their own cancellation policy.
#Post#: 81595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 18, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where's the policy document pl.
What you've posted looks selective:
When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay &
display ticket,
Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the
vehicle, that
item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible.
If a CEO cannot see
all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence
against a PCN
simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the
representations,
however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the
Council will
consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general,
discretion will only be
applied once.”
But at 7.27pm you weren't in a [parking] place, you were on a
SYL. What you've selected IMO applies to parking places where 'a
permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket, Disabled Person's
Badge....' may be displayed.
#Post#: 81625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 18, 2025, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Document is attached to my post with the AI written appeal. Ive
attached it here again. I think you’re now stretching. It said
“place” not “parking bay”. So the “place” was a SYL. It required
a blue badge and so on.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81648--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 19, 2025, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Then you must take this to the adjudicator who is the arbiter in
this matter. IMO, given that this policy gives effect to the
council's intention to 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's
Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to s87 of the TMA then the
council has failed to comply because what you've posted is out
of date. It states 'Next review - April 2018'.
The previous Stat Guidance(and non-stat Operational Guidance)
were withdrawn in 2022. There is now only Stat Guidance:
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
IMO, your argument that the council did not exercise discretion
in your favour is flawed anyway - the policy states 'these
guidelines do not replace the exercise of discretion'. IMO, as
you're past the discount date and should appeal then you would
be on stronger ground with the council's failure to comply with
their duty under s87(2) of the TMA which would be a 'procedural
impropriety':
2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement
authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this
case]-
(a)the TMA 2004,
#Post#: 82022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 21, 2025, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Then you must take this to the adjudicator who is the arbiter
in this matter. IMO, given that this policy gives effect to the
council's intention to 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's
Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to s87 of the TMA then the
council has failed to comply because what you've posted is out
of date. It states 'Next review - April 2018'.
>
> The previous Stat Guidance(and non-stat Operational Guidance)
were withdrawn in 2022. There is now only Stat Guidance:
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
>
> IMO, your argument that the council did not exercise
discretion in your favour is flawed anyway - the policy states
'these guidelines do not replace the exercise of discretion'.
IMO, as you're past the discount date and should appeal then you
would be on stronger ground with the council's failure to comply
with their duty under s87(2) of the TMA which would be a
'procedural impropriety':
>
> 2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an
enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it
by[in this case]-
>
> (a)the TMA 2004,
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry I didn’t quite understand what you meant? Please could you
clarify regarding the procedural impropriety
#Post#: 82163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 22, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I did a FOI request regarding the council’s PCN cancellation
policy and whether they still use this same document from 2017.
They have confirmed they still use that one and there has been
no revision/updated version since. I have attached the response
to this post.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 82201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 22, 2025, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement
authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—
(a)the TMA 2004,
(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or
(c)these Regulations,
in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or
other sum.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
#Post#: 82218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 22, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> (2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an
enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it
by—
>
> (a)the TMA 2004,
>
> (b)the 2022 General Regulations, or
>
> (c)these Regulations,
>
> in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge
or other sum.
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
>
>
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
>
--- End Quote ---
I know what it means. Im asking how it applies to my case. Where
has there been a procedural impropriety on their part
#Post#: 82222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 22, 2025, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I explained in my post dated 19 July.
How has the council 'had regard' to the Oct 2022 Stat Guidance
when by their own admission their enforcement policies (you
should read the guidance on this point) haven't been reviewed in
light of the changes to the Guidance and withdrawal of the
previous companion Operational Guidance?
#Post#: 82422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 23, 2025, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> I explained in my post dated 19 July.
>
> How has the council 'had regard' to the Oct 2022 Stat Guidance
when by their own admission their enforcement policies (you
should read the guidance on this point) haven't been reviewed in
light of the changes to the Guidance and withdrawal of the
previous companion Operational Guidance?
>
--- End Quote ---
I may be being extremely silly but where has the council said
that?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page