Council PCN representations - incorrect code 16 used, should have been code 12

Mr_N0rmale

Hi All,

I gather this forum is more focused on private parking fines, but with Pepipoo currently down/out of action (and with a deadline to submit reps) I was hoping someone here might be able to help.

I can't post links/pics as a newbie, but basically I was parked in a shared use "Permits only OR pay by phone", with a free 60 mins available. I foolishly had to leave my car but then the pay by phone wouldn't allow me to register for the free session. Came back to a PCN, for code 16 "Failing to display a permit". It was pointed out to me that this was incorrect for a shared use bay, and should instead have been a code 12 "failing to display a permit OR valid payment (words to that effect)".

I sent an informal appeal within 14 days, stating that the wrong code was applied and for completeness, that I had trouble with the pay by phone too. The council response only referred to this second point, stating it was my responsibility to register/pay or park elsewhere. No mention of the wrong contravention I had raised.

I now need to submit representations, and hoping (perhaps naively) I can persuade them to drop it at this stage (does that even happen?).

Please, if anyone could take a glance at my draft and tell me if you think I've missed something or could take a better approach, that would be very, very helpful! I haven't written these things before so wanted to at least check it has the right level of detail. If anyone is familiar with an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals, that would also be really helpful. Any thoughts welcomed!


Draft:
**********************************

Re PCN *******  

To Whom it may concern, 

The alleged contravention described in PCN****** did not occur. The evidence provided by ***** Council indicates that my vehicle was parked in a bay with the condition of parking: "Permit holders (A) OR Pay by phone [...]". The contravention which is alleged to have occurred is Code 16: "PARKED IN A PERMIT SPACE OR ZONE WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT". 

As the CEO should have known and the authority will know, the only contravention grounds which may apply in a bay subject to the specific restriction in this case are Code 12: "Parked in a residents or shared use parking place without a valid permit or without payment of the parking charge". If the authority are in any doubt, then I refer you to pages 21 and 23 of the Civil Enforcement Officer's Handbook, in particular the following note on page 23: 

"In shared use bays where residents' permits are valid codes 12 and 19 should be used as appropriate." 

The contravention grounds are incorrect, and for this reason the PCN is improper and must be cancelled. 

In addition, a procedural impropriety has occurred because the council has failed to consider the initial representations which were provided in response to the PCN. In the initial representations, the above argument of 'invalid parking contravention' was made. However, in its response the council made no acknowledgement of this. The council's response focused entirely on the difficulty and confusion caused by the RingGo system, without any mention or acknowledgement whatsoever of the invalid contravention which was highlighted in the initial representations. 

[(Not sure if there is a a part of an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals?)]

Not only are the grounds for the alleged contravention incorrect, but there has also been a procedural impropriety on behalf of Redbridge Council. As such, the PCN is improper and must be cancelled.

******************************************

Le_Kirk

Since we concentrate on parking charge notices from unregulated private parking companies, you would be better off taking this over to our friends on https://ftla.uk  (the recently started forum to replace/supplement Pepipoo),  as they are the experts on council and police issues.

You will need register before reading the FAQs, then posting both sides of your PCN with your query.

Private

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/

Council

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/

Police

https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/

It would seem that Pepipoo is still active, although a "site not secure" message is displayed, therefore posters have a choice of FTLA or: -

Private

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

Council

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

Police

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

Mr_N0rmale

Thanks Le Kirk - as I mentioned, Pepipoo is currently down (due to an IPS issue, not just an insecure page). I was already discussing this issue there, but it seems no one can access it since yesterday. As I need to go submit my reps tonight, I wanted to try here in case anyone could help. 

I will try FTLA, I hadn't come across it before, thank you.

But it still stands that if anyone could have a gu glance at my draft reps and tell me if they seen reasonable /adequate, that would be a huge help at this point! 

Thanks. 

bootneckshuffle

Mr_N0rmale said:

Hi All,

I gather this forum is more focused on private parking fines, but with Pepipoo currently down/out of action (and with a deadline to submit reps) I was hoping someone here might be able to help.

I can't post links/pics as a newbie, but basically I was parked in a shared use "Permits only OR pay by phone", with a free 60 mins available. I foolishly had to leave my car but then the pay by phone wouldn't allow me to register for the free session. Came back to a PCN, for code 16 "Failing to display a permit". It was pointed out to me that this was incorrect for a shared use bay, and should instead have been a code 12 "failing to display a permit OR valid payment (words to that effect)".

I sent an informal appeal within 14 days, stating that the wrong code was applied and for completeness, that I had trouble with the pay by phone too. The council response only referred to this second point, stating it was my responsibility to register/pay or park elsewhere. No mention of the wrong contravention I had raised.

I now need to submit representations, and hoping (perhaps naively) I can persuade them to drop it at this stage (does that even happen?).

Please, if anyone could take a glance at my draft and tell me if you think I've missed something or could take a better approach, that would be very, very helpful! I haven't written these things before so wanted to at least check it has the right level of detail. If anyone is familiar with an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals, that would also be really helpful. Any thoughts welcomed!


Draft:
**********************************

Re PCN *******  

To Whom it may concern, 

The alleged contravention described in PCN****** did not occur. The evidence provided by ***** Council indicates that my vehicle was parked in a bay with the condition of parking: "Permit holders (A) OR Pay by phone [...]". The contravention which is alleged to have occurred is Code 16: "PARKED IN A PERMIT SPACE OR ZONE WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT". 

As the CEO should have known and the authority will know, the only contravention grounds which may apply in a bay subject to the specific restriction in this case are Code 12: "Parked in a residents or shared use parking place without a valid permit or without payment of the parking charge". If the authority are in any doubt, then I refer you to pages 21 and 23 of the Civil Enforcement Officer's Handbook, in particular the following note on page 23: 

"In shared use bays where residents' permits are valid codes 12 and 19 should be used as appropriate." 

The contravention grounds are incorrect, and for this reason the PCN is improper and must be cancelled. 

In addition, a procedural impropriety has occurred because the council has failed to consider the initial representations which were provided in response to the PCN. In the initial representations, the above argument of 'invalid parking contravention' was made. However, in its response the council made no acknowledgement of this. The council's response focused entirely on the difficulty and confusion caused by the RingGo system, without any mention or acknowledgement whatsoever of the invalid contravention which was highlighted in the initial representations. 

[(Not sure if there is a a part of an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals?)]

Not only are the grounds for the alleged contravention incorrect, but there has also been a procedural impropriety on behalf of Redbridge Council. As such, the PCN is improper and must be cancelled.

******************************************

Hi, I'm currently involved in a similar case with Newcastle City Council. Parked in a resident permit bay for 10 mins whilst taking my 4 year old daughter to the nearby ice cream shop. My daughter is autistic with a deep speech delay. In my initial challenge, I split my representations into two clear parts, first being there was no physical ticket attached to the car (was only the yellow packet) and second was that my daughter is autistic and has absolutely no spatial awareness and the closest non permit parking is on a very busy main road, hence I was looking out for my daughters safety (who wouldn't). 

Anyway, similar to you, the council relied with their rejection letter but made no mention or acknowledgement of my daughter's condition or the fact that I'd even included it as part of my challenge. I emailed the parking department and point this out, also asking for camera evidence of the ticket being printed (which they still haven't provided). To my surprise, the next letter they sent out just said if I wanted camera evidence I'd have to pay for it and again, they made no mention or acknowledgement of my daughters condition, so that is twice now!

I've posted on FTLA, hasn't been a lot of use to be honest. I'm thinking of appealing though cos I've read the same act as you and it does say that all representations must be considered.

Mr_N0rmale

Hi Bootneck, thanks for your reply. From what I gather it's always with appealing to the tribunal, as it costs nothing and they may use their discretion in cases like yours.

Good luck, and let me know how it turns out! 

bootneckshuffle

Mr_N0rmale said:

Hi Bootneck, thanks for your reply. From what I gather it's always with appealing to the tribunal, as it costs nothing and they may use their discretion in cases like yours.

Good luck, and let me know how it turns out! 

Technically it does cost, as you lose the discounted rate of the fine and if you lose you have to pay the full amount but yeh I catch what you mean, the tribunal itself is a cost free process. I think I am going to appeal though, toyed with the idea of just paying the 35 quid discounted rate but then you see thats what they want, make it sound like you're getting a deal nd they're somehow doing you a solid.