PCN and Car Pound, Car given a PCN and then towed away |
PCN and Car Pound, Car given a PCN and then towed away |
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Hi there! Any help would be much appreciated, however I only have until 18th November to appeal to the adjudicator!
On Sunday 01/09/2019, at approximately 8pm I parked as normal outside my residence and there was no suspended parking notice present. I would not have left the car there if there had been a parking suspension notice present. I left the car there all week because I get the train to work. I noticed on Friday 06/09/2019 that my car was no longer where I had parked it because of some road works. My car had been towed and I had to pay a total of £305 to get it out of the pound that evening (please see attachment_1 showing the breakdown and attached PCN). Unfortunately I did not know about this forum so I appealed with my email below: [i]Re: PCN No: TT27893428 (combined total £305) I wish to appeal and make representations against all of the penalty charges served upon me on the 6th September 2019 on the following grounds which are covered in further detail in this letter. E) The place where the vehicle was at rest was not in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions. I arrived in my vehicle at the place of rest on Sunday 1st September 2019 at approximately 8pm. There were no suspended parking signs present that explained this parking space would become a suspended bay. The sign that can be seen on the attached picture was not present at the time of me bringing the vehicle to rest at this place. There was no reason for me to not park there and leave my car at rest. G) There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council (in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, the General Regulations or the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. In addition to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance the DfT published further guidance for the benefit of Local Authorities. This publication is known as the “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities” and this gives further clarification in regard to traffic signs. 8.35 Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances may make the Order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal. An enforcement authority may be acting unlawfully and may damage its reputation if it continues to issue PCNs that it knows to be unenforceable. For the reasons explained above I require the council to acknowledge their error and therefore cancel this penalty charge forthwith.[/i] The appeal has been rejected and they have provided a picture of my car in the space with what they claim to be a parking suspension notice (please see attachment_2). The picture is not dated and this does not prove that there was a suspended parking notice present when I parked there. Please can anyone be of assistance with what I should do next? Many thanks in advance! This post has been edited by Ambient111: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:27
Attached File(s)
Attachment_1.pdf ( 1.34MB )
Number of downloads: 116
Attachment_2.pdf ( 542.75K ) Number of downloads: 99 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 18:13
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
My concern is that the more the OP sees these quasi-legal references the less they are inclined to focus on facts. And the clock's ticking. HCA I agree that a strong argument re the contravention is a good idea, but that the pound charged a storage fee that they were not allowed to and that the PCN submitted to the tribunal by the council is not a true copy of the one served, are indeed facts and should be brought up at adjudication -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 14:16
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
...the pound charged a storage fee that they were not allowed to... But do we actually know this? For all we know, the regs might say a new day starts at midnight, while at the moment we seem to be assuming a day means a 24 hour period. Without seeing the regs, I think we're just guessing. The charges are published here https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...ing-and-traffic but there must be a formal order or regulation of some description that defines what "per day" actually means. Of course, failure to produce a proper copy of the PCN actually served is a PI, if we win on that the towing charges fall away as well. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 16:27
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
My concern is that the more the OP sees these quasi-legal references the less they are inclined to focus on facts. And the clock's ticking. I know I have seen it but cannot find this Camden link helps https://www.camden.gov.uk/vehicle-removals-clamps section 150 here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...ARyR9iekAjQvOek This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 17:00 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 20:50
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Many thanks for all of your responses! As you would have seen from my first appeal note, I don't have much experience in writing something like this! I am also a bit concerned that the deadline is fast approaching and I don't have an appeal to submit.
@cp8759 would you be able to draft something up as discussed earlier in the thread? |
|
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 21:23
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,065 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, put your steel helmet on, here comes the flak:
I wrote: GSV and the photos are very different. Pl confirm exactly where this occurred e.g. Roach Road between ** Street and *** Street. Then we look at their plan which, other than for Roach, has no streets referred to by name. Then, having regard to how many vehicle spaces were in the parking place, we could look at whether the sign gave adequate details of the suspended area or whether it relied upon a motorist deducing from, perhaps, markings on the kerb, markings which could just as well indicate the limits of the works area, area to be tarmaced, location, type and extent of underground utilities etc... And you still haven't b****y answered. I believe there's a strong argument to be made regarding the contravention but unless you answer the questions, and ONLY YOU CAN, then I can't help. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 21:35
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Answer HCA and we can put together a strong case for you. but you need to do your bit
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 23:05
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Apologies HCA, I missed that comment!
It was parked between Monier Road and Wyke Road. But don't forget that there wasn't even a parking suspension sign up there when I parked. They claim they had put it up previous to me parking there which means it had either fallen off or moved. Thanks again! |
|
|
Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 23:38
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
@ HCA
GSV https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5405374,-...6384!8i8192 4 or at best 5 parking spaces, but we do not know the extent of the suspended area do we? I can see no clear photo of the sign or the car in situ -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 08:00
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Hi all, I need to submit my evidence today at the latest.
Can someone please assist with what to write?? Thanks! This post has been edited by Ambient111: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 08:11 |
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 15:23
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Hi all, I need to submit my evidence today at the latest. Can someone please assist with what to write?? Thanks! I do not have a lot of time, but if no one else picks this up I will draft something later for you -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 18:57
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,065 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Grounds:
Contravention did not occur Penalty or other charge ...etc Contravention did not occur On 1 Sept. I parked my car in Roach Road. I do not recall any suspension sign being in place and, given that the authority's evidence shows that this was displayed on the post where the traffic sign is situated and that this was only a matter of a few metres ahead of my car, then I am confident in stating that the sign was not in situ when I parked. The evidence shows this to be a parking place accommodating between 5 and 6 cars - it is not possible to be more specific because the parking place is not sub-divided into spaces. Nonetheless, the suspension was not in effect when I parked and did not commence until 5 September. I returned to use my car on 6 Sept. I have viewed the authority's evidence which shows a suspension sign which states: 5 Sept. -13 Sept. Roach Road jct Monier Road 2 car spaces Residents Bay. The authority's argument is that this sign unequivocally conveys the restriction that parking in the first 2 spaces in this parking place counting from the end nearer Monier Street were suspended. Although they have not stated as such, I further understand that they claim that the green arrow marked on the footway also has effect in indicating a limit of the suspended area. However, there is no reference to such marks in the sign. These could just as easily be utility company marks relating to works or even areas of defective footway marked out for repair. I therefore submit that if the authority rely on these as proof of the limits of the area in their mind then their evident ambiguity supports my argument that the suspended area was not marked clearly. I submit that, even if I had read the sign, I would not have concluded that the two 'spaces' suspended were as argued by the authority. Given that these were not emergency works and were planned in advance, the authority had more than enough time to compose a sign which clearly conveyed the restriction. They could, and I believe should, have used words to the effect '2 car spaces nearest Monier Street' and not left it to motorists to guess the true meaning of their sign and guess where '2 car spaces' commenced and ended. Even the use of the term 'car spaces' is wholly ambiguous in the context of no marked spaces. Alternatively, they could have referred to and specified the nature of marks on the road to delimit the area, thereby removing all ambiguity. I therefore submit that the restriction was not indicated correctly according to regulations and that the contravention did not occur. Penalty exceeded...... My car was removed on 5 Sept and was recovered on 6th. The receipt, see evidence **, shows a charge of £40 for storage. Storage charges are proportional to the time in store being calculated at the rate of £20 per qualifying day. A qualifying day is all or part of a day commencing at midnight on the day following removal. It therefore follows that there was 1 qualifying day in my case, that the applicable charge was £20 and that the charge raised by the authority exceeded the amount applicable and constitutes grounds for appeal. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 19:20
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Many thanks hcandersen, true appreciated!
I will let you know the outcome over this thread. |
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 19:33
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Grounds: Contravention did not occur Penalty or other charge ...etc Contravention did not occur On 1 Sept. I parked my car in Roach Road. I do not recall any suspension sign being in place and, given that the authority's evidence shows that this was displayed on the post where the traffic sign is situated and that this was only a matter of a few metres ahead of my car, then I am confident in stating that the sign was not in situ when I parked. The evidence shows this to be a parking place accommodating between 5 and 6 cars - it is not possible to be more specific because the parking place is not sub-divided into spaces. Nonetheless, the suspension was not in effect when I parked and did not commence until 5 September. I returned to use my car on 6 Sept. I have viewed the authority's evidence which shows a suspension sign which states: 5 Sept. -13 Sept. Roach Road jct Monier Road 2 car spaces Residents Bay. The authority's argument is that this sign unequivocally conveys the restriction that parking in the first 2 spaces in this parking place counting from the end nearer Monier Street were suspended. Although they have not stated as such, I further understand that they claim that the green arrow marked on the footway also has effect in indicating a limit of the suspended area. However, there is no reference to such marks in the sign. These could just as easily be utility company marks relating to works or even areas of defective footway marked out for repair. I therefore submit that if the authority rely on these as proof of the limits of the area in their mind then their evident ambiguity supports my argument that the suspended area was not marked clearly. I submit that, even if I had read the sign, I would not have concluded that the two 'spaces' suspended were as argued by the authority. Given that these were not emergency works and were planned in advance, the authority had more than enough time to compose a sign which clearly conveyed the restriction. They could, and I believe should, have used words to the effect '2 car spaces nearest Monier Street' and not left it to motorists to guess the true meaning of their sign and guess where '2 car spaces' commenced and ended. Even the use of the term 'car spaces' is wholly ambiguous in the context of no marked spaces. Alternatively, they could have referred to and specified the nature of marks on the road to delimit the area, thereby removing all ambiguity. I therefore submit that the restriction was not indicated correctly according to regulations and that the contravention did not occur. Penalty exceeded...... My car was removed on 5 Sept and was recovered on 6th. The receipt, see evidence **, shows a charge of £40 for storage. Storage charges are proportional to the time in store being calculated at the rate of £20 per qualifying day. A qualifying day is all or part of a day commencing at midnight on the day following removal. It therefore follows that there was 1 qualifying day in my case, that the applicable charge was £20 and that the charge raised by the authority exceeded the amount applicable and constitutes grounds for appeal. Thanks HCA, I was just starting an appeal draft that would have covered the same. One point, the storage fee is £40 per day not £20 the council are not allowed to charge til midnight of the 6th/7th not 5th /6th and I would also add a sentence re the PCN submitted. Op other than that HCA has given you everything I would so I bow out gracefully -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 22:37
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,065 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
My apologies PMB, brain fade on my part:
Storage charges are proportional to the time in storage, being calculated at the rate of £40 per qualifying day. A qualifying day is all or part of a day commencing at midnight on the day following removal. It therefore follows that there were zero qualifying days in my case as no charge was applicable until 0001 on 7 December and payment was made at 22.55 on 6 December. The charge made by the authority therefore exceeded the amount applicable and constitutes grounds for appeal. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 18:56
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'm more or less completely unavailable until Saturday but I've got a response from London Councils:
The levels of charges for parking contraventions, including additional parking charges (de-clamping, removal fees and storage charges) are made by the joint committee, in this case the Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) under the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004. The relevant section of the TMA 2004 is Schedule 9 (Part 1 and 2). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/9 The relevant section outlining that, in London, these are set by the joint committee is outlined in Paragraph 24 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007. These are part the regulations that underpin the TMA 2004. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/24/made Following a consultation process, these charges or charging options are presented to, discussed and approved by TEC members. The current level of charges for the storage and removal of vehicles were agreed by TEC at the meeting of December 8, 2006. (Item 11). It was agreed at this meeting that the removal charges should be £200, and the storage charges (per full day should be £40). These charges have not been amended since. I have attached a relevant report from TEC dating from December 2018. I've put the attachment here: http://bit.ly/2LMkuLe I've been up since half 4 and have little scope for critical thinking right now, but from a quick skim there is no actual definition of what "per day" actually means, so you could argue the toss either way. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 - 00:45
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
2190493805
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 31 Dec 2019 - 12:51
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 6 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,516 |
Hi all... See the great news below! Thanks everyone involved for all your hard work! @hcandersen great work with the appeal!
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal. The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed. The adjudicator directs London Borough of Tower Hamlets to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid. If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement Authority. Adjudicator's Reasons: This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space in Roach Road at 2pm on 5 September 2019. I have looked at the CEO's photographs and these show that the car was parked in a resident's parking bay in Roach Road. There is an image showing a suspension sign attached beneath the time plate for the resident's parking bay restrictions. The suspension notice stated: "2 car spaces suspended Resident Bay". The suspension was from 5 September 2019 to 13 September 2019 between 8.30am and 7.30pm and it was for utility works. The images show that part of the bay was fenced off. A single car space at the end of the bay was clear and it was in this space that the car was parked. The evidence is that the bay accommodates 5 to 6 cars and he appeals because he says that the suspension notice is not clear as to which car spaces were suspended. I agree. The wording of the suspension notice does not make it clear that the two bay spaces suspended are the first two spaces. The suspension location of Roach Road junction with Monier Road identifies the location of the bay, not the location of the suspended spaces within that bay. As observed, the green arrows marked on the pavement in the library images could easily have been marked by those carrying out the utility works. The notice makes no reference to arrow markings on the pavement showing the spaces suspended. Moreover, the positioning of the plastic fencing creates the impression that there is an unaffected space at the end of the bay. I therefore find that the signage of the suspended spaces was not adequate and it follows that the alleged contravention did not occur. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:06 |