Moral maze - should I pay my painter's parking ticket?

womble12345

What was to stop you having more than 2 permits in 'stock' before he began the job? Did you have this in hand and then the job took longer than expected?

If it were me I would offer to pay and take it on the chin that it was my own fault for not having enough visitor permits in stock before the work began.

Section62

knightstyle said:

Have you written a polite letter to the council explaining you were waiting for more permits?  This may/should get the ticket cancelled.

There's little to lose from writing a letter, but there are two issues - firstly the penalty was issued to the trader not the OP and the authority may not accept representations from anyone other than the keeper/driver.  Secondly, the reasonable/understanding authorities are not that common, so the representation may not carry much weight.

The letter will be less effective if it doesn't have the PCN reference (or the trader's vehicle registration number + date + time) quoted clearly on it.

I would expect a reply telling me it was my responsibility to order additional permits in good time and not wait until the last minute.  The council will almost certainly have a standard letter template to that effect.

OctaviaP

Bendy_House said:

Planning and communication from the outset. Most trades folks will ask about parking when they quote for a job - at least they should. Especially in areas where it's known to be an issue; "Customer needs to make arrangements for parking/cover charges" is typical in London, for example.

So, what went wrong here? Did you just assume a 'note' would do? If so, I fear you have made the error here, as this may well have worked in the past (or you just got lucky), but it ain't official or valid.

Was any discussion made about parking before he took on the job?

No - he lives quite locally so I didn't know he'd be expecting to park. His assistant comes on his bike.

OctaviaP

elsien said:

Ditto to he/you writing to the council to explain the situation. My council is generally understanding about the occasional slip up and I’ve had a couple of tickets cancelled where my permit has accidentally fallen off. 

If he knew he needed a permit he is partly responsible but it’s not unreasonable for a trade person to expect that a customer who knows they are coming will have made the necessary arrangements. 

That's a really good thought - thank you. I will try this. 

Section62

elsien said:

My council is generally understanding about the occasional slip up and I’ve had a couple of tickets cancelled where my permit has accidentally fallen off. 

That's a slightly different scenario - in your case the vehicle was lawfully parked, with the exception of placement/visibility of the permit.

CEO's are supposed to look to see if a permit/blue badge is in the vehicle and has just slipped or fallen from where it should be.  Sometimes the photos they take will show the permit/badge was in the vehicle.

If you appealed to the adjudicator there was a good chance of the penalty being cancelled anyway, so the council possibly took the view that cancelling the PCN was the cheapest option.

Bendy_House

OctaviaP said:

Bendy_House said:

Planning and communication from the outset. Most trades folks will ask about parking when they quote for a job - at least they should. Especially in areas where it's known to be an issue; "Customer needs to make arrangements for parking/cover charges" is typical in London, for example.

So, what went wrong here? Did you just assume a 'note' would do? If so, I fear you have made the error here, as this may well have worked in the past (or you just got lucky), but it ain't official or valid.

Was any discussion made about parking before he took on the job?

No - he lives quite locally so I didn't know he'd be expecting to park. His assistant comes on his bike.

I think it can be said that this trader was at least partly in error, perhaps wholly. If he didn't at the very least ask if 'parking is an issue?', then that's remiss. It's a bit much to presume. He is meant to be a 'pro'...

Galling tho' it is, however, and if you hope to have him back in the future, it may be easier to take this on the chin. I'd expect the guy to first try and have the ticket nulled, tho', and if he doesn't, he ain't worthy...

Section62

Bendy_House said:

OctaviaP said:

Bendy_House said:

Planning and communication from the outset. Most trades folks will ask about parking when they quote for a job - at least they should. Especially in areas where it's known to be an issue; "Customer needs to make arrangements for parking/cover charges" is typical in London, for example.

So, what went wrong here? Did you just assume a 'note' would do? If so, I fear you have made the error here, as this may well have worked in the past (or you just got lucky), but it ain't official or valid.

Was any discussion made about parking before he took on the job?

No - he lives quite locally so I didn't know he'd be expecting to park. His assistant comes on his bike.

I think it can be said that this trader was at least partly in error, perhaps wholly. If he didn't at the very least ask if 'parking is an issue?', then that's remiss. It's a bit much to presume. He is meant to be a 'pro'...

Galling tho' it is, however, and if you hope to have him back in the future, it may be easier to take this on the chin. I'd expect the guy to first try and have the ticket nulled, tho', and if he doesn't, he ain't worthy...

Planning and communication are a two-way process.  You might expect a trader to take full responsibility for that, but the reality is different.

The OP believed it would be Ok for the trader to leave a note on the dashboard, so even if the trader issued a 10-page onboarding questionnaire to a client including the question "Is parking an issue?" the answer could have been 'no issues'.

The OP gave the trader permits for two days.  What should have happened on day 1 was a conversation to the effect I've only got two permits, and at the same time for both side to agree how to deal with day 3. One option would have been for the trader to do two days, then leave the job until the OP got further supplies of permits. Another option (possibly, depending on the scheme rules) would have been to borrow a permit from a neighbour.

What definitely wasn't a good idea was relying on a dashboard note (or not) when it came to day 3 and no extra permits had arrived.

aoleks

I would offer to pay half, but you don't have to. where contractors park is not my business, though I always tell them what the rules are, whether it's likely they'll get a ticket, where the nearest free parking spaces are etc.

OctaviaP

The OP gave the trader permits for two days.  What should have happened on day 1 was a conversation to the effect I've only got two permits, and at the same time for both side to agree how to deal with day 3. One option would have been for the trader to do two days, then leave the job until the OP got further supplies of permits. Another option (possibly, depending on the scheme rules) would have been to borrow a permit from a neighbour.

What definitely wasn't a good idea was relying on a dashboard note (or not) when it came to day 3 and no extra permits had arrived.

Unfortunately we thought we had lots - then realised that a bunch of them had expired during lockdown. They have scratch-off sections to show the year, and on the remaining ones the last year available was 2021.

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Planning and communication are a two-way process.  You might expect a trader to take full responsibility for that, but the reality is different. Yes, I would. If the tradesperson didn't at least ask about any parking issues, in an area where they should know such issues do exist, then they are remiss. Highly presumtious of them to just turn up expecting parking to be available.

The OP believed it would be Ok for the trader to leave a note on the dashboard, so even if the trader issued a 10-page onboarding questionnaire to a client including the question "Is parking an issue?" the answer could have been 'no issues'. Wow, that is very presumptious!

The OP gave the trader permits for two days.  What should have happened on day 1 was a conversation to the effect I've only got two permits, and at the same time for both side to agree how to deal with day 3. One option would have been for the trader to do two days, then leave the job until the OP got further supplies of permits. Another option (possibly, depending on the scheme rules) would have been to borrow a permit from a neighbour.

What definitely wasn't a good idea was relying on a dashboard note (or not) when it came to day 3 and no extra permits had arrived.

I wonder if the P&D did ask about parking? Octavia?! If they did, and the reply was along the lines, "Don't worry - it's fine/sorted", then - yes - the customer should take a fair dollop of responsibility, and should seriously consider paying the fine because they made the mistake - even tho' they didn't commit the 'crime'. If, however, the P&D didn't even ask, but turned up assuming, then they are at fault, imo. It is absolutely standard that a tradesperson/repairer/delivery fellow etc. clarifies the parking and access situation beforehand.

In any event, it was the P&D who made the decision to carry on parking even without a permit, so ultimately I think they'd be found at 'fault' here (in a 'challenge the fine in court' scenario). Trying to think of a similar situation; say the customer was responsible for delaying the P&D in some way, and they then exceeded the speed limit on their way to the next job - who would be responsible for the resulting fine? Customer created the awkward situation, but P&D made the decision to break the regs.

Yes, if Octavia handed over the permit on day one with the assurance that it's all sorted from then on, that adds a different balance to the matter. And since we'll never know whether the 'note' might/would have worked, it remains a moot point, Oct, so doesn't really help you, I'm afraid. But, still, the P&D made the decision.