PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TOWER HAMLETS PCN NOTICE & TOW CHARGES £665! SUSPENDED PARKING BAY, TOWER HAMLETS PCN NOTICE & TOW CHARGES £665!! SUSPENDED
Fenchurch
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 14:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



My car was parked in a suspended parking bay in Tower Hamlets on 8 November. I have a valid on street parking permit for the correct Zone. It is a quiet street near to my block of flats which often has parking spaces available. I don’t drive the car that often as I can walk to work or, like most in London, take public transport, and only have it for occasional use. I happen not to pass down that street when travelling to work as it is in the other direction.

I was not aware that a notice/notices had been erected in the street notifying of the proposed parking suspension on that day. So I have no photographic evidence of the notice other than that provided by the Council online which is not very helpful as the sun is shining on it and so it can’t really be read. I also have no photographic evidence of where precisely the car was parked in the street on the day it was towed.

I went to use the car yesterday (18 November) and found that it was missing. After first thinking it had been stolen I eventually called TRACE and was informed that it had been towed and impounded back on 8 November! I had no idea it was gone as I had no reason to pass down the street and had not needed the car in the meantime. I had received no other notification in the post. Of course now I wish I’d checked on it sooner.

On calling Tower Hamlets car pound, I was informed that the charge was in total an eye watering (literally) £665 (consisting of a £200 tow charge, £65 PCN charge and £40 storage charge per day). I have this morning retrieved the car and paid the charges, otherwise the costs would have continued to wrack up quickly at a hefty £40 after 9am each day.

The PCN notice ‘contravention time’ is 9.01am. I was told on the phone that it was towed at 9.17am although there is no other evidence of this time in the documentation. The guy on the phone from the pound also said that if the car was already parked there before the notice was put up, then they were obliged to just move it to another nearby location (which I believe they could have done as there are often spaces in the area). Whereas, if you come and park in the bay after the notice has been put up, then they are entitled to tow it to the pound. He also said that he thought that the notices were put up, up to 5 days in advance of the suspension date but wasn’t sure about that.

I was given the TH appeal information form (‘Representations Against Removal of a Vehicle’) and I think the 28 day appeal time runs from today.

The key issue for me is that I know that the car must have been parked there when they put up the notices as I hadn’t used it. I know that the last time I was at the car was the morning of Friday 26th September before work as, ironically, I had to replace the on street parking permit which was expiring while I would be away. I didn’t actually move it that day. I had been away from London (for which I have flight ticket evidence) from early Saturday 27th October to Friday 2 November (when I got back late in the evening). So I can account for that period of time evidentially when the car would not have been moved. However, I know that I also did not use the car the week following my return as I just didn’t need it and so the car must have been in the street when, I suspect, the notices were put up. Frustratingly, I can’t prove that in any way.

When I collected the car from the pound, I queried if I could find out when the notices would have been put up. The attendant in the pound said that they receive a ‘suspension list’ daily detailing the street where the bays are suspended and which had a column detailing the Reg. numbers of any cars that are parked in the street when the notices go up. That is how the tow people know whether to either move or tow the vehicles. They will move those on the list but tow away any others. I did ask if he would have the record for 8 November but he denied that they would have it.

Queries

Given the scale of the charge I will have to appeal. So my questions at this stage are these:

1 How do I find out the date and time when the Suspension Notices were erected in that street? Are the Council obliged to take photographs of the cars that are already parked there? Is it possible to get a copy of the ‘suspension list’ that the Pound received for that day?
2 Where in the regulations does it say that they must only move the vehicle if it was parked there when the notices were erected, or that they may tow it, if the car parks there after? I have looked at the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 (R 5C) but that doesn’t go into that level of detail. Are there any other applicable Regulations that I should get familiar with?
3 Did sufficient time pass between receiving the PCN and the Council towing the car? Seems from the information I received on the phone that they left 16 minutes before proceeding to tow it. Do they need to wait 15 minutes before towing?
4 If the Notices were put up after my return to London (as I suspect) but during the period when I know I did not use the car, is it just my word against the Council’s that the car was already parked when they did that? Subject to there being any photos from that day, I assume it is.
5 After how long is the Council obliged to notify the Registered Owner in writing that they have the car in the pound? The guy at the pound referred to 14 days, 20 day and 35 days. In other words, he didn’t know. Are they allowed to just let the charges mount up before notifying the owner?
6 The Council’s pictures of the notice on the day the car was towed are not very clear. Should they have taken a closer image identifying the detail of the suspension, date and time, as evidence?

I appreciate that many of these questions are no doubt covered elsewhere on these forums but I am just starting out on this journey so I’ll need some more time to get to grips with it! Any suggestions, help or advice would be most gratefully received as I don't really know where to begin.

I have tried to link the pictures of the (redacted) PCN and the Council’s pictures from there website as follows:



















Many thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 14:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:14
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I would go with HCA's appeal. It covers the log and tow policy, which is key for me.

Don't forget you get two bites at this - there is nothing to lose by going to the tribunal if council rejects, and you can add more evidence at that stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:22
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



What's the HCA appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:47
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Fenchurch @ Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:22) *
What's the HCA appeal?


Post #19.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 14:26
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



Understood, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 15:11
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



Right, I've put together the following reps to the Council based on the advice in the thread (and others). Is there anything else I can add? Let me know what you think.
Also, would there be any benefit in sending them on a solicitors letterhead? Thanks in advance.


Dear Sirs

Formal Representations to the enforcement authority, Tower Hamlets Borough Council (the “Council”) relating to a PCN and removal of vehicle

I make these formal representations against the penalty charge notice issued on 8 November 2018 at 09.01 with number [ ] relating to car registration number [ ] (the “PCN”).

Timeline:

1 I last lawfully parked my car in St Jude’s Road, E2 on 20 October 2018 as I have a valid on street parking permit for A3, within which St Jude’s Road is located. My car was displaying a valid parking permit at all relevant times.
2 I last attended my car at approximately 8.30am on Friday 26 November 2018 in order to replace the parking permit as I was due to be abroad the following week, when the then current permit was due to expire.
3 At that time there were no suspension notices displayed in St Jude’s Road notifying of any forthcoming suspension.
4 My car remained in situ in St Jude’s Road at all times from Saturday 20 October 2018 until it was removed by the Council on 8 November 2018 to Tower Hamlets car pound.
5 Upon realising that my car had been impounded, I was required, in order to secure the release of the vehicle, to pay upfront and in full to the Council the amount of the PCN charge (£65), the costs of towing the vehicle (£200) and the amount of the pound’s storage costs (totalling £400).

Any suspension notice or notices were not present by the time I became aware that the car had been removed by the Council. As such, I have to rely wholly on the evidence of the Council in the form of photographs posted on its website in respect of the PCN, copies of which are attached.

1. The alleged contravention for which the PCN was issued did not occur


The PCN states the location of the contraventions as St Jude’s Road, E2. No further information or detail of the location is supplied.

From the photographs of the suspension notices, it is impossible to ascertain any details of the suspension, as to the location, date(s) or time(s) applicable to the suspension. Therefore, it is not possible to either (i) confirm that the location where my car was parked was in contravention of such notices at the time the PCN was issued or (ii) to ascertain whether such suspension notices were in a valid form in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

In addition, the photographs of the suspension notices provided do not show my car, and so it is not possible to confirm that my car was in contravention of such notices.

I therefore assert that my car was not in contravention at the alleged time when the PCN was issued or at the time when the car subsequently removed by the Council.

If the Council rejects these grounds then it is obliged to supply full, clear and objective evidence with any Notice of Rejection (as indeed it would in respect of any appeal to the adjudicator), a simple statement will be insufficient for that purpose.

2. The 'penalty charge or other charge paid to secure the release of the vehicle exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case'

As noted in the timeline above, I assert that my car was parked in St Jude’s Road prior to any suspension notices being erected in St Jude’s Road, E2.

I refer to the Council's parking policy pursuant to the Parking, Mobility & Transport Services policy Register (12 July 2017), paragraph 21 under Priorities for Removals, a copy of which is attached (the “Removals Policy”) and which is binding on the Council which states:

“Any vehicle recorded as having been in the suspended area when the suspension notices were erected must only be relocated to the nearest available legal parking space.”

Under this Removals Policy (and notwithstanding that I assert that the contravention did not occur), it is clearly the case that as my car was already parked on St Jude’s Road at the time the notices were erected, my car should have been removed to the nearest available parking space and that, as such, the Council had no power to remove my car to the pound, and in doing so acted ultra vires its authority.

It follows that the charges which I was required to pay in the amount of £665 in total grossly exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case and was neither proportionate or necessary in the circumstances.

If the Council rejects this representation then it is obliged to supply full, clear and objective evidence with any Notice of Rejection, including without limitation, a copy of the suspension log relevant to St Jude’s Road E2 for the suspension of parking bays on 8 November 2018. A simple statement of rejection will be insufficient for that purpose.

3. I was forced to pay the PCN to release the vehicle with no option to appeal


Prior to the removal of my vehicle a Civil Enforcement Officer served a Regulation 9 PCN under the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007. Once a regulation 9 PCN is served then the recipient has a statutory right to submit an informal appeal as well as a statutory 28 day period in which to pay the penalty charge should they not wish to appeal informally or formally.

When I collected my vehicle from the pound, the Council insisted the penalty charge be paid immediately even though I wanted to exercise my right to either pay later within the statutory 28 day period or submit an informal appeal. I do not consider that the Regulation 9 penalty charge was “payable” at the time I paid it, since I wanted to pay it at a later date. Therefore I believe the Council acted ultra vires in demanding payment of the charge there and then, contrary to what statute provides concerning a Regulation 9 PCN and contrary to what the PCN advised were my legal rights.

In addition, I was given no opportunity to submit an informal appeal. Being able to submit an informal appeal following receipt of a Regulation 9 PCN is a statutory right. Although I was given information on how to appeal this was only in regard to a formal appeal. There was nothing given to me that advised that any right to an informal appeal as advised by the PCN was lost or overridden. At the pound, I was given both the PCN and formal appeal documents and these items gave conflicting information as to what my legal rights were. This was prejudicial to me.

It should also be noted that where a Regulation 9 PCN is served then the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that any formal appeal should be in response to receiving a Notice to Owner. The formal appeal documents given to me did not resemble a Notice to Owner and gave me fewer and differing grounds for appeal than a Notice to Owner. Although my car was removed it seems irregular and unjust to provide me with fewer grounds and more restrictive grounds for appeal than any other situation where a Regulation 9 PCN is served. I believe such unfair restrictions and limitations to be contrary to the general principles of law.


It is my contention that my car was not parked in such a manner that removal in this instance was either proportionate or necessary. It is my belief that the enforcement authority cannot justify removal in this instance. Removal without justification is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council. In the event that the Council sees fit to reject these representations I expect it to provide a full explanation of why the removal of my vehicle was proportionate and necessary and to fully justify the need for removal with evidence in their Notice of Rejection.

Yours faithfully




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 16:03
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,072
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



26 October, not 26 November ..see numbered point 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 16:16
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



Yes, well spotted thanks. Otherwise ok?
I'm working on the basis that they'll be rejected in the first instance anyway but that I'll need to use these as the basis for the appeal to the Adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 18:30
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



You may find this long threrad helpful, either now or the event of adjudication
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117286

Note particular the quote from Caroline Sheppard ("draconian") and contrary to Council's own guidance (N.B. this case was Newham, yours is Tower Hamlets, but TH should have guidance) and the London Councils' joint Guidance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 15:45
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Three observations:

1) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 have been repealed and replaced by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, but in any event neither version has ever authorised any suspension signs. Newham's suspension sign is authorised by DFT authorisation GT50/091/0006 here: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3033.pdf

2) Ground 3 is devoid of all merit, the regulations explicitly provide for this scenario and the council have done nothing wrong in this regard, see regulation 11 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/11/made

3) You didn't get a regulation 9 PCN, you got a regulation 9A PCN. Regulation 9 is only relevant to car parks. If you have a look on the PCN flaws database in the sticky thread, under the legislation tab, there's a link to a consolidated version of the General Regulations, the version on legislation.gov.uk does not include any amendments so it's significantly out of date.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 20:47
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



Thanks cp8759

Re your point 1 - do you have a link to the DFT authorisation for Tower Hamlets? (they issued the PCN rather than Newnham)

Agree re ground 3 and no notice of informal appeal - wasn't that happy with that one and won't include it.

Thanks!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 10:11
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Tower Hamlet's authorisation: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3525.pdf


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:03
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Just come back from picking up kids from school and found my way blocked by a TH truck lifting a car from a suspended bay. Had a chat with the CEO - nice chap - who told me the car had a resident permit and was there when the suspension went up and they are relocating it not taking to pound. I didn't ask why they were bothering at 4.30pm in the pouring rain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wretched Rectum
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:53
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 4 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,189



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 15:45) *
2) Ground 3 is devoid of all merit, the regulations explicitly provide for this scenario and the council have done nothing wrong in this regard, see regulation 11 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/11/made


Is regulation 11 relevant here? It says it applies when required to pay under 101A but the TMA schedule (9) that controls the amount of removal charges says the set amounts are for when charging under 102 RTRA. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/9. What is the difference between them? I see that regulation 11 is an appeal procedure for those having paid under 101A but where is the appeal regulation for those having paid under 102?

I thought ground 3 was quite interesting and provocative. It is a bit odd that once a car is taken away, the PCN is meaningless to removal victims other than to impose a penalty. What about all the small print on the back giving rights? The TMA says that once a PCN is served there are legal rights and steps to challenge and periods of time to pay. I can't find any where in the TMA that deals with removal situations and takes away those rights. Tracing regulation 11 backwards I find it has nothing to do with the TMA. Curiously it is an appeal procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Can they just dispense with the TMA, PCN given rights and demand payment in a civil enforcement parking area without even a hint or threat of an NTO? Council websites say you cannot pay a PCN and then appeal it. How can this be true if they themselves are handing out appeal information seconds after a PCN is paid at the pound?

This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 19:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:16
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The law has been misapplied since the TMA Act 2004 came in, but nobody in our wonderful administration, courts and adjudicators wants to rock the boat,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 19:46
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 15:45) *
2) Ground 3 is devoid of all merit, the regulations explicitly provide for this scenario and the council have done nothing wrong in this regard, see regulation 11 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/11/made


Is regulation 11 relevant here? It says it applies when required to pay under 101A but the TMA schedule (9) that controls the amount of removal charges says the set amounts are for when charging under 102 RTRA. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/9. What is the difference between them? I see that regulation 11 is an appeal procedure for those having paid under 101A but where is the appeal regulation for those having paid under 102?

There is no appeal under section 102 because section 102 is designed for a scenario where the removal charges outweigh the value of the car, thus leaving the enforcement authority with a shortfall. Essentially section 102 says that in this scenario, the council can sue the RK to recover the outstanding monies. There is no appeal in that scenario as the motorist would be able to defend the case in the county court in the normal way.

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:53) *
I thought ground 3 was quite interesting and provocative.

We've been down this road before, see Gareth Robinson v The City of Edinburgh Council (case 30537)

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:53) *
It is a bit odd that once a car is taken away, the PCN is meaningless to removal victims other than to impose a penalty. What about all the small print on the back giving rights? The TMA says that once a PCN is served there are legal rights and steps to challenge and periods of time to pay.

The PCN is not meaningless, on the contrary if the PCN is faulty or invalid for any reason, the PCN is invalid so the towing becomes unlawful and the PCN + all towing charges must be refunded.

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 17:53) *
I can't find any where in the TMA that deals with removal situations and takes away those rights. Tracing regulation 11 backwards I find it has nothing to do with the TMA. Curiously it is an appeal procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Can they just dispense with the TMA, PCN given rights and demand payment in a civil enforcement parking area without even a hint or threat of an NTO? Council websites say you cannot pay a PCN and then appeal it. How can this be true if they themselves are handing out appeal information seconds after a PCN is paid at the pound?

The vehicle has been removed under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in circumstances which are envisaged by the appeals regulations. This has been argued to death and I suggest you have a read of the careful and thoughtful deconstruction of the argument put together by the adjudicator: https://www.scribd.com/document/394302513/Decision-30537


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wretched Rectum
post Sat, 1 Dec 2018 - 22:59
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 4 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,189



Oh OK. It's unusual for pepipoo just to lie down and accept adjudicator decisions as gospel. Especially as a few have been overturned in the high court.

My research was that for a TMA 2004 PCN to be issued , a parking contravention subject to civil enforcement must take place. Research indicates TMA 2004 schedule 7 lists the contraventions that are subject to civil enforcement. From reading this forum I was under the impression that it was only TMA 2004 Part 6 that controlled how PCN's issued under the TMA 2004 should be paid or challenged. Part 6 does not mention anything about not applying if a car is removed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6.

I can't find anywhere in the RTRA 1984 where it says it takes over from TMA 2004 Part 6 if a car issued with a TMA 2004 PCN is removed.

It's also a bit odd that a councils legal right to keep hold of a removed car until payment, is only found under 102 RTRA 1984. Nothing about this right in 101A. On reading 101A it seems only to empower a owner of a car that looks abandoned to stop its pending sale or scrapping. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/101A In 102(4) the legal right to keep hold of a car until payment is only for councils not in a civil enforcement area. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102 .So where is the right for a council to keep hold of a car removed from a civil enforcement area until payment given?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dissing what you say. I just find it odd that that the TMA says zilch about what is the proper process when a PCN is served and that car is later removed and the RTRA 1984 says nothing helpful either. A parking contravention subject to civil enforcement has occurred but no part (other than the penalty) of TMA Part 6 plays a part. This is what I meant when I said the PCN is meaningless. None of the small print about rights is given any validity. Where does the law rule the small print on a PCN invalid following removal? A PCN that tells you can informally challenge and if rejected, wait for a NTO and make formal representations but no informal challenge allowed and no trace of a NTO and no 28 days to pay the PCN (unless you want to incur £40 a day storage charges). This is civil enforcement?

None of these questions were answered in that adjudication.

This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 - 23:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 2 Dec 2018 - 01:19
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The power to remove vehicles in not found in the TMA 2004 at all, it is found in section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The relevant regulations are The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 as amended by The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3484/made

Under the regulations, a TMA 2004 PCN must have been served for the power to remove the vehicle to arise. Once that power has been exercised, the appeals regulations provide an appeal mechanism under the RTRA 1984 (see appeal regulation 11), which ultimately means access to the tribunal.

Now, you could leave your car in the pound and just make informal representations against the PCN, on the basis that the vehicle's removal doesn't extinguish the right to make informal representations against the PCN. But the council would have no duty to reply and in the mean time the car would still be in the pound, and it would still be accruing storage charges. The council would not issue a NtO let alone a NoR (after all these are discretionary steps), so you wouldn't be able to access the tribunal under appeal regulation 7. None of this would make the car's removal or ongoing storage unlawful (because the car has been lawfully removed).

Of course, you could argue that by only providing access to a judicial tribunal to those who pay the release fees upfront, Parliament has enacted legislation that breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, and there might even be an arguable case (though I suspect the ECHR would ultimately rule the scheme is lawful). But we need to be realistic here: the only way this argument can be pursued is before the European Court itself, the courts of England and Wales are not going to strike down regulations that have been operating unchallenged for over 10 years. If nothing else a judicial review of the regulations would be time-barred.

Now, if someone wealthy wants to come along and get a cheap banger towed for laughs just for the experience of taking this whole matter to the ECHR, then I'll be happy to grab the popcorn and enjoy the show. But to argue that an average motorist should challenge the lawfulness of the removal regulations in the domestic courts is frankly just a waste of time and IMO it amounts to leading people up the garden path. It's a hopeless argument unless / until the ECHR over-rules it, which might never happen (for all we know, they might rule that the statutory scheme is justified and proportional).

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 - 01:24


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fenchurch
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 14:10
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,006



Right - a development....

I've had the response to my FOI request for info on the suspension sign photo and the suspension log.

I've uploaded images below.

My initial thoughts are:

1 the photo of the sign isn't that clear although it does show the date etc.
2 the photo of the sign refers to 2 car park spaces suspended 'permit bay' as marked on the kerb. No photos were provided of the kerb markings showing this.
3 the suspension log refers to 'whole bay 6x multi bay and ....2x permit Bay. Not quite sure of the difference between multi bays and permit bays but this does not accord exactly with the notice which refers to 2 permit bays suspended as marked on kerb.
4 the suspension log does not refer to ANY cars being parked on the street on the date that the Notice was put up (Monday 5 November 2018). Now, in my experience there are ALWAYS some cars parked in that street. On top of that, mine was definitely parked there as I was 100% at work that Monday and I do not drive to work.
The car had to have been there when the erected the notice but is not logged on the suspension log. My word against theirs of course on that but they should have moved it and not towed it to the pound.
5 the suspension log is hand written 'DATE CHANGE' on the top - not sure what that refers to and is not explained. Was that a second suspension log sheet completed following a change of date of the suspension, which is why there are no cars noted?
Who knows.

Can anyone spot or suggest anything else that I can use based on these?

I'll have to revise my representations based on this. My deadline for responding is next week but I want to get these off by the end of this week.

Thanks.

PHOTOS










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 23:19
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



So you need to attack the credibility of the suspension log. The council are saying nobody was parked in the bay at 8:53 am on a weekday morning, so take a photo (or arrange for someone to take a photo) at 8:53 every day for a week or so. Ultimately we want the tribunal to conclude that it's more likely than not that the council officer just didn't bother filling in the form properly.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 09:05
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,072
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, after your last post I'm confused, so it's time for your legwork pl.

The photo in your first post shows a different sign from the one supplied under FoI. As far as I can tell, but you will confirm, the FoI sign is irrelevant to your circumstances.

This is not a job lot of restrictions, signs and markings. Each applies to its own area. GSV is of limited use as it's dated and a cut and paste view.

So pl take clear photos of the whole length of the parking places(it's plural). We need to see what the signs say, where the road markings change and their relative positions. We know where you were parked.

Over to you.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 09:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:32
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here