Yeah sorry, it's one of these posts. I got a parking ticket a while ago and am still sore about it, so I've come on the internet for some advice (and a whine).

I park my car outside my house which requires a permit. As I'd been contemplating selling the car, I didn't stick the permit to the windscreen when it was first delivered to me, I'd place it in top of the dash every time I parked up. That way, the permit wasn't in any photos I took of the car, and it wouldn't give away any information as to whereabouts of my home.

It seems that on one occasion, the permit fell from my dashboard into the passenger footwell. Consequently I got a ticket.

I appealed the ticket, explaining all this in the politest fashion I could, sending proof that I own a permit, proof that it's my car, and proof that I live on that street, as well as a photo of my car with the permit inside. I've just received the outcome of the appeal, they've turned it down, basically because the contravention was "failure to display a valid permit". From the jobsworth cnut that assessed my appeal; "Whilst I can appreciate that you are a resident and are in possession of a permit for your vehicle unfortunately it was not displayed at the time of the contravention. The terms and conditions of the scheme are such that it should be clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle. I am therefore satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice was correctly issued."

I'm pissed, because as I understand it, the whole point of the parking permit scheme in my area is to control unauthorised parking, congestion etc. I agree, that the officer who placed this ticket on my window was doing their job, and was correct to do so. But when it gets to the point that I can prove I did have a right to park there, why should I still be charged? Now that I've appealed the charge, it should be recognised that I did have the right to park there, and so haven't contributed to any problems such as congestion in the city, and that I shouldn't be made to pay anything. If an appeals process is not in force to take into account moments like this, then what exactly is it for? Now they are just charging me for the sake of taking my money, because they know they can, and this is what I disagree with.

I have one actual question here. The person who assessed my appeal also mentions that he has reviewed the notes and photographs taken by the civil enforcement officer. Am I legally allowed to ask to see a copy of those photographs, and the notes?

In my appeal refusal email, I am told that my "vehicle was parked in a residents parking zone without clearly displaying a valid permit". This word "clearly" has been added in, where the original ticket states only "parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit" as the contravention definition.

This man also mentions that the terms and conditions of this scheme state that the permit should be displayed in the windscreen of the car, however I cannot find a copy of this condition in any of the literature I was sent with my permit.

In my appeal I stated that the ticket must have fallen from the dashboard. It is my intention to argue that the permit will still have been visible in the footwell, and unless there is supporting evidence (ie, a photograph of my footwell showing no permit), there is nothing to prove that I didn't have a permit on display (perhaps not clearly) somewhere in the car. If they want to get finicky about details, am I allowed the argue that they can't prove there was not a permit on display, and visible from the outside of the car, and that it's not my fault if the civil enforcement officer didn't see it?

Has anyone ever challenged a council parking ticket and gone to court over it? I am actually assuming that a court appearance is the next stage after refusing to pay. I've had a ticket from a private company before and have never had a problem with it, but I've always been extra careful when it comes to council parking enforcement. I've had a parking ticket from a different council once before, and their appeals system was lenient, co-operative, and used discretion and reason. I was expecting the same from this council, but it appears I was wrong to do so.

It's wound me right up, just because the whole scheme has uncovered itself as the money-making, extortionist bunch of crooks that it really is. It shows their intentions aren't really about controlling parking, just making money for themselves. And whilst the principle is what makes me so angry about this, being a student, having to work my ass off to fund myself and try and find the time to study, £35 is a lot of money to me. As Daffy Duck might say, after all, it's not the principle of the thing, it's the money.

If anyone can share any thoughts and ideas I'd be very grateful.

I'm not fully clued up but I think your best arguing case is the fact that the first statement said the permit was not viewable/on show and the second they said it was not clearly on show.

If it did go to court I'd say that would turn the tables because that's saying the evidence isn't clear.

So in a murder case the first person to the body doesn't see the killer and makes a police statement. Then police make an arrest and suddenly the first person says they did see the person but not clearly.

If they tried to stand up in court and give evidence saying it could be a bloke the police have captured but "it was dark couldn't get a clear view" or whatever they evidence in court would be torn apart and not taken into account as they're not a reliable source.

I understand this is a massively different scenario but this is the kind of point I was getting across (if you can see through the story)

I'm not fully clued up but I think your best arguing case is the fact that the first statement said the permit was not viewable/on show and the second they said it was not clearly on show.

If it did go to court I'd say that would turn the tables because that's saying the evidence isn't clear.

So in a murder case the first person to the body doesn't see the killer and makes a police statement. Then police make an arrest and suddenly the first person says they did see the person but not clearly.

If they tried to stand up in court and give evidence saying it could be a bloke the police have captured but "it was dark couldn't get a clear view" or whatever they evidence in court would be torn apart and not taken into account as they're not a reliable source.

I understand this is a massively different scenario but this is the kind of point I was getting across (if you can see through the story)

Yep I think I get what you're saying. They're contradicting themselves, which tells me they have no integrity. And I wonder just how well that will look in court.

Even if the actual contravention did say that the permit should be 'clearly' displayed (even though the ticket doesn't specify this), how is 'clearly' defined? If I haven't received any directions from them stating where the permit should be displayed in my car (though they claim I have, another contradiction), then in theory it's not unreasonable for me to assume that the attendant wouldn't have a problem spotting the permit on my passenger seat, or even on my floor, right?

If it's still visible, what's the problem? And how far is reasonable? If I taped it to my rear windscreen, and they didn't spot it there, would that be defined as 'clearly displaying'? If it's there, and the attendant didn't see it there, and if they haven't got any evidence showing that it wasn't there wen they looked, how can they claim otherwise?

Trouble is, I don't know if this is a good enough reason to 'make formal Representations', which is apparently the next step, now that my appeal has been rejected..

Edited 5 January, 201313 yr by CWA

If it doesnt state it must be in the window then i cant see how the seat isnt clear enough. Presuming its night tome this happened? maybe if it was on the floor it was to dark to see, but the point is they changed their statement. Yeah it's hard to tell whether it would go the way you want, to me I'd say they're in the wrong but then again you may risk it and then lose and get charged court fees etc and be even worse off

I'd take it to court.

I'd probably loose, but I still would.

If it doesnt state it must be in the window then i cant see how the seat isnt clear enough. Presuming its night tome this happened? maybe if it was on the floor it was to dark to see, but the point is they changed their statement. Yeah it's hard to tell whether it would go the way you want, to me I'd say they're in the wrong but then again you may risk it and then lose and get charged court fees etc and be even worse off

Yeah the risk behind it is the reason I'm posting up here really, to see if anyone else can share some experience to indicate whether it's worth risking or not! You're right though, apparently the cost can go up to £105 before bailiffs get involved.. :/

It happened in daylight. I wouldn't argue that the enforcement officer who gave me the ticket is wrong, I believe he did the right thing. And I'm sure my permit wasn't as 'clearly' visible as he has come to expect them.

But my issue is that the powers above him, namely the person who assessed my appeal, have recognised that I wasn't contributing to any of the problems that the city's parking scheme claims to be put in place to prevent. But they still wants to charge me money, and over something so pedantic. Basically because they know they can get away with it. So I would like to reflect the pedanticism by being pedantic myself, over their own definitions.

I'd take it to court.

I'd probably loose, but I still would.

That's exactly my mentality right now. I'm kind of hoping I will 'cool off', and at some point come to terms with it, and just pay up.

Because by some shit piece of law, or just due to the whole corrupt system in general, I'd probably lose aswell lol.

Hard decision to make, hopefully someone I here will have had a similar experience and be able to help you

This time last year I had the same happen, the permit was clearly laying on the passenger seat but the knucklehead claimed he could'nt see it, I appealed and they cancelled the charge, the chances are if you take it to appeal they will back down as it will cost them more in costs than they would get from you paying up?

Just before christmas I was chatting to our area beat cop, decent guy and into cars, I asked about if I was to buy a car cover, would the parking enforcers have the power to remove the cover to check there was a valid residents permit? as if they were to try to remove it I could then sue them for criminal damage of the paintwork etc. he doubted they would have the authority to remove the cover but as a police officer he could request I removed it for him to confirm the reg no etc so he could do a pnc check to see if it was taxed, insured mot's etc but the parking permit would be of no concern to him as it was a civil matter

The way to appeal this silly decision is to contact the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Details are as follows:-

Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Barlow House,

Minshull Street,

Manchester M1 3DZ

Tel: 0161 242 5252

Website: www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk

Very often the council's own appeal system fails to be either fair of impartial. At least the Traffic penalty Tribunal is (more or less).

Bristol by any chance ?

I appealed and lost. They changed all the regulations on my road without even telling me when I was away for a few weeks, parked up and had my car towed !

I explained I did not see the new signs and it was an honest mistake on my part. I told them I was a student and relatively new to the area but the parking enforcement was completely different a few weeks ago. £140 and they had my car for a total of 1hour 30 minutes !

Totally unfair I thought, they sent me 2 letters making me out to be a criminal which were frankly not worded appropriately.

Never the less I have not made the mistake again !

Annoying but I haven't taken mine any further, I'm not sure you can claim any legal costs back in these cases, someone might tell you otherwise, I'm not sure ?