Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ L B Camden Code 21s Parking in Suspended Bay

Posted by: crxvtec Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 22:46
Post #1551384

Camden have issued a ticket at 8:02 for parking in a suspended bay.

My dad parked the car there the previous evening and didn't see the signage. Looking at the photos they look to have slipped down the pole a fair bit but I can't see any regulation height for the signs.

It's a big parking bay, there are two timeplates. The suspension sign was affixed only to one of them.

Photos of PCN, the CEO's photos and my photos are here:
https://ibb.co/album/iaVGVa

Thanks in advance.

C.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 23:09
Post #1551387

The 10 minute statutory grace period applies so the PCN should not have been issued

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 08:24
Post #1551417

OP-----read this one:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1440251

There are alternative views on this , some by adjudicators, so it is worthwhile reading some of the suspension threads in this Forum.


Mick

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 10:32
Post #1551451

My argument with these contraventions is as follows:
I accept that my vehicle was parked at the location at 0837 and that but for the '10-minute' rule set out below it would be liable to a penalty.

However,
In order for the suspension to be lawful it must be applied to a designated parking place. It is axiomatic that if it is not so designated then no power to suspend exists;
The next consideration for the authority is whether suspension removes the location's designated status. I refer the authority to the decision in the case of Thorpe v LB Croydon, case 1970311100, where it was held that 'The definition of "parking space" is not limited by time, so once an area of highway is so designated, it remains such 24 hours a day.'. This is a Key Case at ETA and therefore it would be brave council officer who decided to ignore this principle, possibly based on nothing more than the mantra of 'one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another'.

Therefore, at the time of the contravention the location lay within a designated parking place;

I would then refer the authority to the provisions of the General Regulations which state that where a contravention occurs an authority are prohibited from demanding a penalty until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed since the contravention commenced. This prohibition applies in the following circumstances:

..in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

Therefore in order to determine whether the authority were prohibited from demanding a penalty all that has to be established is whether:
The contravention is of a type mentioned in paras. (a) to © of para(1);
The vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

In this case the contravention falls under (1)(a):

Imposition of penalty charges
4. Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle where there has been committed in relation to that vehicle—
(a)a parking contravention within paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London);


The next consideration for the authority is whether the vehicle has been left beyond the 'permitted parking period' which is defined in the regs as follows:
(b) “permitted parking period” means—

(i) a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii) a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”


My vehicle was parked prior to the normal restrictions coming into effect at 8.30 and therefore was parked in accordance with (b)(ii) above.

It had therefore been left beyond the 'permitted parking period' until the PCN was issued at 0837 which, by virtue of being a period of less than 10 minutes since permitted parking ended, renders the penalty and PCN void because the authority had no power to demand such a penalty until 0841.

It's long because, knowing this authority, it needs to address the limp excuses they're likely to use in support of saying niet.

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 21:14
Post #1551632

Thanks for the replies.

The ticket is issued at 8:01, not 8:37.

That being the case, it's presumably an over-zealous CEO as per Mad Mick's post, having observed for only 1 minute?

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 11:18
Post #1551983

@crxvtec use hcandersen's draft, just changes the times to match your PCN:

I accept that my vehicle was parked at the location at 08:01 and that but for the '10-minute' rule set out below it would be liable to a penalty.
...
My vehicle was lawfully parked prior to the suspension restrictions coming into effect at 8 am and therefore was parked in accordance with (b)(ii) above.

It had therefore been left beyond the 'permitted parking period' until the PCN was issued at 08:01 which, by virtue of being a period of less than 10 minutes since permitted parking ended, renders the penalty and PCN void because the authority had no power to demand such a penalty until 08:11.

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 13:03
Post #1554660

Hi all,

I've now received the standard response letter from Camden and uploaded it.

There's no acknowledgement of the grace period as the technicalities of when suspension commences has escaped them.

Regards,

C.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 13:57
Post #1554670

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 13:03) *
Hi all,

I've now received the standard response letter from Camden and uploaded it.

There's no acknowledgement of the grace period as the technicalities of when suspension commences has escaped them.

Regards,

C.


post the rejection all pages

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 14:06
Post #1554672

rejection has been added -
https://ibb.co/album/iaVGVa

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 19:20
Post #1554745

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (crxvtec @ Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 13:03) *
Hi all,

I've now received the standard response letter from Camden and uploaded it.

There's no acknowledgement of the grace period as the technicalities of when suspension commences has escaped them.

Regards,

C.


post the rejection all pages

https://ibb.co/XsyqSGz
https://ibb.co/dG2TVvP

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 20:33
Post #1554760

Both these case have relevance to your case going forward

2160301304
The allegation in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked in a suspended bay.
The appellant, who appeared before me today and who presented as a particularly honest and credible witness, raised the issue of signage stating that on parking with a disabled badge displayed in the vehicle she checked the bay plate to the front of the vehicle there being no suspension notice on the lamppost bearing it she believing that she had lawfully parked. She did not see the council's suspension notice which had been posted on a lamppost bearing a bay plate behind the vehicle (she pointing out that the sign as shown in her photographs was a reflection thereof the sign itself being posted at the corner of the road).
The motorist on parking is required to check signage but the council is under a corresponding duty to post signage that is clear.
I was satisfied on parking that the appellant checked signage to the front of her vehicle and had no reason to seek out further signage.
It seemed to me that in order to adequately sign this suspension the council should have posted a second suspension notice on the lamppost in front of the vehicle which on the photographic evidence before me appeared to serve this bay.
I was not satisfied as to the adequacy of signage in this case and found that the contravention had not been proved.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.

2170123723

I heard from Mr Pedro, the partner of the appellant at a hearing today.
The appellant makes several points about the validity of the suspension of this bay.
In the first place it is said that Ms MacDougall and Mr Pedro both parked the car together for the last time before the Christmas festivities on Christmas Eve in this bay immediately outside the lowrise flats where they live. It remained there until 6 January when the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. They are adamant that there was no suspension warning sign there on that day nor on any of the days upon which they walked past the bay over the Christmas period. The first that they were aware that there had been a suspension was when they discovered that the car had been removed, and they noticed the yellow suspension sign on the post some 3 or 4 vehicle lengths away. I found Mr Pedro an honest witness and gave weight to his evidence that there was no yellow suspension sign erected up to 14 days before the date of the suspension itself, as claimed by the Authority.
I have considered the officer's record as to the suspension, on which the council relies for the assertion that the suspension sign was indeed erected 14 days prior to 6 January. I note that the wording of the record is not in terms conclusive of the fact that a sign had been erected – it merely seems to confirm that an order for suspension had been made. To that extent therefore and taken together with the persuasive evidence of Mr Pedro I conclude that there is some confusion about when the suspension sign was in fact erected.
I also take into account Mr Pedro's evidence that during this period there were multiple suspensions erected over a period of time in this street and for short periods. It is in those circumstances well within the bounds of likelihood that the keeping track of the suspensions and necessary signage had become difficult.


There is force in the argument that the officer should have allowed a 10 minute period of grace before issuing the Penalty Charge Notice, in line with Section 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. This is the provision which applies where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and been left beyond the permitted parking period. The crucial element is that the initial parking must have been lawful. In this case a course it was, at the time the vehicle was left the suspension was not actually in force, even if there is debate about when the warning sign was erected. The suspension came into force at 8 AM on the morning of 6 January and the PCN was issued at 8:02 AM. In the circumstances I conclude that the issue of this PCN was not compliant with the requirements of the "10 minute grace period" regulations and that the appeal could be allowed on that basis.

A final point is on the wording of the sign itself. The appellant points out that it was imprecise, referring to the suspended spaces in relation to the numbers of properties on the opposite side of the street. This can be contrasted with a sign relating to a later suspension (one of the series) in the same bay, a photograph of which was produced by Mr Pedro and which refers to property numbers on the side of the street on which the bay is situated.

The council asked for a review claiming the adjudicator erred in law. this was not upheld and the original decision stands

This is an application for review by the Enforcement Authority on the basis that the original Adjudicator has erred in law.
In effect, Enforcement Authority ground is that the original Adjudicator should not have held that Regulation 4(3) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, as inserted by Regulation 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015, that no penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, does apply.
The Enforcement Authority submit that when a bay is suspended, as was the position in this present case, the prevision cannot apply.
In many cases it will not and certainly will not if the vehicle is parked after the suspension comes into force.
In this case the suspension came into force at 08:00 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 08:02.
The vehicle was in a resident parking bay for which it was assigned a resident parking permit. The owner had paid to park their vehicle in the bay by purchasing the permit. It is irrelevant whether it is a physical or virtual permit. Regulation 4(4)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, as amended therefore applies because a period of parking that had been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place and that period ended at 08:00.
Considering the submission before me carefully I find no ground for review of the original Adjudicator’s decision, which therefor stands.



Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 4 Mar 2020 - 21:19
Post #1554779

My response, via the website, is as follows:

I am in receipt of your letter sent electronically on 4th March 2020 and wish to contest your statements as they contradict one-another: "You have mentioned the 10 minute grace period. However, this only applies in designated parking places. Once a bay has been suspended, it ceases to be a designated parking place. Therefore, the 10 minute grace period does not apply." The vehicle was parked in a designated parking place, as evidenced by your CEO's photographs, on Wednesday 5th February by another driver. The suspension commenced at 8am on Thursday 6th February. There is force in the argument that the officer should have allowed a 10 minute period of grace before issuing the Penalty Charge Notice, in line with Section 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. This is the provision which applies where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and been left beyond the permitted parking period. The crucial element is that the initial parking must have been lawful. In this case of course it was; at the time the vehicle was parked there, i.e. the preceding day, the suspension was not actually in force. Thus, a 10 minute grace period would have been fitting and proper per the Regulations aforementioned. The alleged offence did not occur and the ticket should therefore be cancelled.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 11:53
Post #1554921

To continue, you need to wait for the Notice to Owner. If you're the registered keeper, all you need to do for now is check that the address on the V5C is correct. Do not assume that it is, physically go and check.

Posted by: crxvtec Fri, 20 Mar 2020 - 23:06
Post #1558349

I got an email response. There won't be an NTO coming my way as it's a lease car.

The response is uploaded to the share: https://ibb.co/nrYv7zD

They're saying there's no grace period for suspended bays therefore the contravention did occur.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 20 Mar 2020 - 23:54
Post #1558357

I would pay it at discount. What does the lease co say about PCNs?

Posted by: crxvtec Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 02:22
Post #1558363

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 20 Mar 2020 - 23:54) *
I would pay it at discount. What does the lease co say about PCNs?

Just that the liability sits with the lessee and that they will pass on details as needed.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 10:49
Post #1558384

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 02:22) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 20 Mar 2020 - 23:54) *
I would pay it at discount. What does the lease co say about PCNs?

Just that the liability sits with the lessee and that they will pass on details as needed.


And an admin fee no doubt

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 13:28
Post #1558441

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 10:49) *
And an admin fee no doubt

Some companies refund the admin fee if the PCN is successfully challenged. In the current climate, it's also worth noting these is no "coronavirus defence" to the 56 day cut-off.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 21 Mar 2020 - 16:23
Post #1558473

Go back to Mr Ali and ask for the legal basis for his assertion that a suspension de-designates a designated parking place. So far, all the authority have done is to make and repeat a statement and, given that this is totally contrary to an ETA Key Case and a purposive interpretation of the regulations, makes it all the more absurd. The authority cannot just define the law to suit their own purposes and you require them to provide compelling evidence to justify their position.

Posted by: crxvtec Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 22:59
Post #1559483

I've written my reply as follows:

Dear Mr. Ali,
I am in receipt of your letter sent by email on 20th March in which you state "There is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be observed or a grace period to be given to a vehicle parked in a suspended bay." Can you kindly provide the legal basis for your assertion that a suspension de-designates a designated parking place?

So far, all the council has done is to make and repeat a statement and, given that this is totally contrary to an ETA Key Case and a purposive interpretation of the regulations, makes it all the more absurd. The council cannot define the law to suit its own purposes and I require the council to provide compelling evidence to justify its position.

The legislation I am relying upon is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/561/regulation/2/made
"(3) No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes." it is abundantly clear that the vehicle wasn't left in that place after the suspension started a few moments before the CEO applied a ticket to it, thus the vehicle was left in a recognised parking place that wasn't suspended at the time the vehicle was left. At 8:02am on the morning the ticket was applied, the vehicle had been left beyond the permitted parking period therefore no PCN can be issued until the 10 minute grace period has elapsed. The PCN is therefore invalid.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Fri, 27 Mar 2020 - 09:14
Post #1559500

They will probably respond with this aberration as per my #post 3:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128102&view=findpost&p=1507255

In answer to that piece of warped wisdom-----you paid to park there (residents permit) and there is no way that a traffic order (whatever it states) can trump core legislation.

Mick



Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 27 Mar 2020 - 22:30
Post #1559723

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 22:59) *
The council cannot define the law to suit its own purposes and I require the council to provide compelling evidence to justify its position.

Oh. Oh dear. You can't actually "require" the council to do anything.

Realistically you need to get onto the lease company and tell them you want liability for the PCN to be transferred to you.

Posted by: crxvtec Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 01:12
Post #1563615

I've received a reply - generic and doesn't answer my questions.

https://ibb.co/SXRGmz8

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 07:33
Post #1563617

They're not going to and there's nothing you can do unless or until you get a NTO in your name.

As others have posted, you need to contact the lease company before they get the NTO and tell them that you received a PCN for a contravention which you anticipate you would be able to challenge successfully. They should anticipate receiving a NTO soon and would they please respond as required and explained in the NTO (grounds of
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any parking contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;
(e)) so that liability would be transferred to you as the hirer.

Forget the council, this is just wasting time now. You'll refer to the cards you've played once you get the NTO.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 18:42
Post #1563736

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 02:12) *
I've received a reply - generic and doesn't answer my questions.

https://ibb.co/SXRGmz8

This is hardly surprising. As has been explained to you, you need to get onto the leasing company and do as hcandersen suggests, anything else is just a waste of time.

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 21 Jun 2020 - 15:38
Post #1572038

Hi all,

I've managed to get the NTO - Camden were no help whatsoever in sending me a copy despite me proving who I was.

I've uploaded the NTO:

https://ibb.co/mG2RNLh
https://ibb.co/7NgtqrL
https://ibb.co/sHtHwzW
https://ibb.co/Z2fPwm3

Is the formal response just the same as what I've responded informally or is there more to it?

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 12:43
Post #1572140

Just to confirm, this NTO is in your name?

Also, has the leasing company confirm they've received confirmation that the PCN issued to them has been cancelled? If not, you need to contact the leasing company and get confirmation from them, one way or the other. If the council never bothered to cancel the NtO issued to the leasing company, service of the new PCN on you could amount to a procedural impropriety.

Posted by: crxvtec Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 14:18
Post #1572162

The NTO is addressed to the Company Secretary of my company.

It was posted to the company's registered address.

Regards,

C.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 15:15
Post #1572180

Ok, are you authorised to answer it on behalf of the company?

Have you contacted the lease company to see if they ever heard back from the council?

Posted by: crxvtec Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 18:45
Post #1572197

Yes I am...I've not contacted the lease company as I now have the NTO. TBH I've never spoken to them since receiving the car nearly 4 years ago.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 18:59
Post #1572198

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 19:45) *
Yes I am...I've not contacted the lease company as I now have the NTO. TBH I've never spoken to them since receiving the car nearly 4 years ago.


Now then is time to speak to the lease co. Ask them if the recieved a notice of acceptance to their representations that it is a lease car and you are te lessor

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:09
Post #1572228

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 19:59) *
QUOTE (crxvtec @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 19:45) *
Yes I am...I've not contacted the lease company as I now have the NTO. TBH I've never spoken to them since receiving the car nearly 4 years ago.


Now then is time to speak to the lease co. Ask them if the recieved a notice of acceptance to their representations that it is a lease car and you are te lessor

+1, you must establish if the lease company ever heard back from the council. A phone call is no good, you need something in writing.

Posted by: crxvtec Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 08:38
Post #1572243

The deadline for responding to the NTO is today and Mercedes had me as 46th in the queue with a 39 min wait.

Assuming that Camden did everything correctly, should I simply respond to the NTO with a re-draft of what's already been said? Or should I suggest that there's no evidence to suggest that Camden has followed procedure in cancelling the original PCN and re-issuing it?

My feeling is if I just write what I've already written, they'll just reject it out of hand and then we'll be in the appeal process.

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 08:57
Post #1572245

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 09:38) *
The deadline for responding to the NTO is today and Mercedes had me as 46th in the queue with a 39 min wait.

Well firstly you need something in writing, so phoning won't help. Secondly, how do you figure the deadline is today? If by deadline you mean the end of the discount period, with the NtO being dated 12 June it is deemed served on 16 June (two working days later, weekends don't count), and 14 days from 16 June takes you up to next Monday, 29 June, so if we include today you have 7 days to respond.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 09:06
Post #1572247

OP, include the point in your reps, don't shilly-shally around with Mercedes please.

You simply require the authority, should they reject your reps, to give you the date of issue of the NOA to the owner, *****.

Explain that this is not information you have but, as the authority would know, if the NOA was issued earlier than ***, then your PCN is invalid because *******. You understand that the authority would therefore be obliged to and would cancel your PCN.

Polite, but woe betide them if they don't act on this point.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 12:58
Post #1572263

hcandersen in the recent tribunal decision on this point, the adjudicator put significant weight on the email from the lease company confirming no communication had been received from the council cancelling the original penalty.

Posted by: crxvtec Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 12:36
Post #1572532

Thanks everyone. I've written to Mercedes to ask the question.

I'll also prepare an offiline response in the event that Mercedes doesn't respond favourably in good time. I'll lead with the 10 minute grace period point and mention the inconsistent information from Camden re: where the NTO was sent (where they said it was sent differed from where it was actually sent).

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 26 Jun 2020 - 12:53
Post #1572652

Post a draft on here before sending anything.

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 21:16
Post #1572953

Here's my draft:

A PCN was issued to our car without due reason for doing so and it is unfortunate that, despite the letter of the law being presented to Camden Council Parking Enforcement, they continue to pursue settlement rather than take an objective view of the facts and evidence.

The vehicle in question, a blue Mercedes-Benz with index *******, bears a resident’s parking permit issued by Camden Council for CA-S(a) Redington & Frognal. CA-S(a) includes the permit holder parking bays on Kidderpore Avenue, where the vehicle was parked when the PCN was issued and this is evidenced by the photographs taken by the enforcement officer. The permit holder pays Camden Council for the privilege to park this vehicle in the permit holder parking bays.

I accept that my vehicle was parked at the location at 0801 and that but for the '10-minute' rule set out below it would be liable to a penalty. However, in order for the suspension to be lawful it must be applied to a designated parking place. It is axiomatic that if it is not so designated then no power to suspend exists.

The next consideration for the authority is whether suspension removes the location's designated status. I refer the authority to the decision in the case of Thorpe v LB Croydon, case 1970311100, where it was held that 'The definition of "parking space" is not limited by time, so once an area of highway is so designated, it remains such 24 hours a day.'. This is a Key Case at ETA and therefore it would be brave council officer who decided to ignore this principle, possibly based on nothing more than the mantra of 'one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another'.

Therefore, at the time of the contravention the location lay within a designated parking place, having been left there on the day preceding the date of the PCN, i.e. during the permitted parking period.

I then refer the Council to the provisions of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 which state that, where a contravention occurs, an authority is prohibited from demanding a penalty until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed since the contravention commenced. This prohibition applies in the following circumstances:

in relation to a contravention mentioned in subparagraph (a) to © of paragraph (1) where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the Council was prohibited from demanding a penalty all that has to be established is whether the contravention is of a type mentioned in subparagraphs. (a) to © of paragraph (1), i.e. that the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

In this case the contravention falls under (1)(a).

“Imposition of penalty charges
4. Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle where there has been committed in relation to that vehicle—
(a) a parking contravention within paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London);

The next consideration for the Council is whether the vehicle has been left beyond the 'permitted parking period' which is defined in the regulations as follows:
(b) “permitted parking period” means—

(i) a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii) a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place.”

My vehicle was parked prior to the normal restrictions coming into effect at 12:30 (timings confirmed by time plates at the parking bay), having been left there the preceding day after the normal restrictions had ended at 14:30 and therefore was parked in accordance with (b)(ii) above, i.e. it was lawfully parked on the preceding day and remained so. It had been left beyond the 'permitted parking period' until the PCN was issued at 0801 which, by virtue of being a period of less than 10 minutes since permitted parking ended, renders the penalty and PCN void because the authority had no power to demand such a penalty until 0811.

Further, I note that the Council has failed to furnish the driver with a copy of the NtO, despite numerous requests for the same, which has delayed the response. What is also unclear from the correspondence with the car leasing company is whether the original PCN, assigned to the legal owner of the vehicle, was cancelled by the Council prior to issue of the PCN to us as the vehicle’s lessee, as it would be improper for the Council to pursue two parties for a single PCN.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 09:52
Post #1572987

For a representation that will do, if the council rejects this will need a bit of a tidy-up for the tribunal.

Posted by: crxvtec Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 10:05
Post #1572992

Thank you CP.

I've now submitted the representation electronically and will await their response.

Thank you to all contributors to this case so far.

C.

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 08:16
Post #1575141

Having submitted a formal representation, I received this generic response.

I don't get it at all. It seems like they're trying to be obtuse.

https://ibb.co/Tq96X1k

I could resubmit the formal representation using the company secretary's name. Mercedes hasn't got back to me regarding my enquiry and they won't deal with me over email as my email address isn't registered with them and to register they're asking me to call in - and when I call in, they say to email - so catch 22. I have emailed them back with all of my email addresses on cc so that hopefully they recognise one of them but this seems to be going nowhere fast.

I'm tempted to write back to Camden again with details of past tickets where I've made formal representations - think that'll work?

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 12:49
Post #1575225

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 09:16) *
Having submitted a formal representation, I received this generic response.

I don't get it at all. It seems like they're trying to be obtuse.

Hardly, by law they must only consider representations made by the company, you cannot make representations in a personal capacity. Can you just submit the representation again as the company, rather than you personally? Headed paper is best.

Posted by: crxvtec Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 22:38
Post #1575528

Yes I can do that, however I note in Camden's letter they're saying that representations can only be made by the registered keeper and according to DVLA records, that's not me. I called Mercedes Benz today to enquire and they've kindly sent me an email confirming that the liability for this PCN was transferred to me on 29th April 2020. With liability transferred, I'm not sure how they can make this claim?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 08:06
Post #1575545

Not really helpful. The hire company is supposed to confirm transfer of liability to the Council with your contact details. They can do it by email FFS.

The best you can do is use the email to you as permission from the owner to take on the case but I doubt the Council will accept.

Ever decreasing circles and none of it is the OP's fault.

Maybe send a draft email for the hire company to send to the Council?

I would seriously consider a Small Claims Court submission against the hire company if anything other than £65 +admin fee is mooted.

Mick

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 12:43
Post #1575794

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 23:38) *
Yes I can do that, however I note in Camden's letter they're saying that representations can only be made by the registered keeper...

That's just because they're using a generic template to compose their response, what they actually mean is that the representation must come from whomever the NTO is addressed to, which would now be your company.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 09:06) *
Not really helpful. The hire company is supposed to confirm transfer of liability to the Council with your contact details. They can do it by email FFS.

This has been done and the OP now has an NTO addressed to his company, see post 28.

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 12:54
Post #1577640

I've sent the following letter on letterheading to Camden. I enclosed the NTO addressed to the company secretary (4 pages) plus the email from Mercedes Benz saying that the PCN was reassigned to the company and also included my formal representation text.
__________________________________________

A Hussain
Process Officer
Parking Operations
Camden Council


Email: parkingoperations@camden.gov.uk

Reference: CU55319014

Dear Mr. Hussain,

I am in receipt of your Notice To Owner document (copy enclosed).

I am disappointed to have to write to you following your note to Mr. <me> sent on 6th July advising that “I understand you want to contest this PCN but the DVLA records show you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle. We have issued a Notice to Owner to the registered keeper and it is their legal responsibility to respond to this. If you would like to submit representations then we must receive a letter from the registered keeper authorising you to submit formal representations on their behalf.”

We have written confirmation (enclosed) from the registered keeper, Mercedes-Benz UK, advising that the liability was transferred from them to this company therefore the above statement is not accurate.

Kindly comply with this request that Mr.<me>’s formal representation made to you be written into the record. I enclose a copy of his statement herewith.

Should you need any additional information, Mr. <me> is already authorised to act on this company’s and my behalf in regards this matter, as he has already done so for other PCNs issued by Camden.

I will let Mr. <me> know that you will respond to him directly.

Yours faithfully,


<the company secretary>
Company Secretary
for BTC Limited

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 13:39
Post #1577657

That should do the trick.

Posted by: crxvtec Fri, 21 Aug 2020 - 22:56
Post #1581570

I received a rejection notice in the post.

They didn't send an email like they normally do so only just got this as it went to the company registered address.

https://ibb.co/j5Gybhz
https://ibb.co/wMLW0jh
https://ibb.co/FzJ5N7K

It's awful that they want to push this to tribunal.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 22 Aug 2020 - 10:17
Post #1581602

Nothing that can be about them sending by post to the company address they must Register your appeal with the tribunal in the grounds state contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety ind in the reasons state full submissions to follow. The tribunal will acknowledge the appeal is registered and give you a date when the appeal will come onto the list and by when all evidence must be submitted. Keep an eye out for this ( ask someone in the office to forward it to you if needs be) post it here when you get it so we know what we are working to also as soon as the council upload their evidence to the portal copy that and post here

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 22 Aug 2020 - 23:51
Post #1581737

Are they arrogant or what? As the discount is not in play there's nothing to be lost in appealing, register the appeal as PMB suggests and let's see if they bother to contest.

Posted by: crxvtec Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 08:47
Post #1582141

cp - I got that vibe too - I note that they're still hanging on to this notion of if a bay is suspended there is no grace period. PMB - thank you for the guidance.

There's a new problem that the londontribunals.gov.uk appellant portal is down with "ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED" - I just called them and they propose filling in the paper form, scanning and emailing that in to queries@londontribunals.gov.uk. The auto attendant on their phone number also aid the hearing centre is closed so hearings are by post or by phone.

I'll look to fill this in later today - hope the above info is useful to anyone else looking to appeal in London.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 19:08
Post #1582321

The appeals portal is at https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and seems to be working, maybe it was a temporary glitch; just follow the "Create new appeal" link.

Posted by: crxvtec Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 23:01
Post #1582375

Thanks cp - I've managed to get onto the portal and log the appeal with more evidence to follow.

The hearing is requested for Saturday 26th September, so a month away and I've got until 5 days prior to upload evidence.

I'll await the evidence pack from the council.

Posted by: crxvtec Sat, 12 Sep 2020 - 14:29
Post #1585473

I've received the following email, with a 10.3Mb PDF evidence pack attached.

The last time I appealed, I presented a body of evidence via PowerPoint on my PC - I don't have that facility this time but based on the below I could send in something similar, or just a written statement given that this is an argument concerning interpretation of the letter of law.

Are there any tried and tested options for remote appeals?

Thanks,

C.



Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx

The hearing for this appeal is due to take place on 26/09/2020. In preparation for the hearing we have prepared a case file which has been submitted to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA). A full copy of the file is attached to this email. We have also sent you a paper copy of this separately by post.

As we have both sent our evidence to the ETA the appeal now rests in their hands. If you have any further evidence or arguments that you want the Adjudicator to take into account before deciding your appeal you should send them directly to the ETA. Any such additional material is automatically copied to us by the ETA so you do not need to send us a copy.

If you need to write back to us you can use our e-form online. Go to camden.gov.uk/contactparking and complete the relevant form.

Yours sincerely

Ian Leask
Process Officer
Customer Services
Corporate Services
London Borough of Camden

Telephone: 02079745611
Web: camden.gov.uk

5 Pancras Square
London N1C 4AG


The majority of Council staff are now working at home through remote, secure access to our systems.
Where possible please now communicate with us by telephone or email. We have limited staff in our offices to deal with post, but as most staff are homeworking due to the current situation with COVID-19, electronic communications will mean we can respond quickly.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. See our new Privacy Notice here which tells you how we store and process the data we hold about you and residents.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 12 Sep 2020 - 14:33
Post #1585475

There is nothing stopping you downloading a power point presentation to the tribunal portal and then talking the adjudicator through it over the phone

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 12 Sep 2020 - 19:53
Post #1585549

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 12 Sep 2020 - 15:33) *
There is nothing stopping you downloading a power point presentation to the tribunal portal and then talking the adjudicator through it over the phone

+1. Also please put the evidence pack on google driver, dropbox or one drive so we can take a look.

Posted by: crxvtec Sat, 19 Sep 2020 - 18:00
Post #1586793

Hi everyone,

I've put the powerpoint slides up:
https://ibb.co/6DjmGdz
https://ibb.co/0cFjMGr
https://ibb.co/N944LDd
https://ibb.co/j8stxLZ
https://ibb.co/F0pn8vy

I've also put the redacted evidence pack up here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/duvjsd84t3anhem/Case%20Reference%202200341035%20Evidence%20Pack%20Redacted.pdf

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 19 Sep 2020 - 18:30
Post #1586797

I think given the council summary your appeal submission needs to be a lot stronger

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 02:27
Post #1586842

What happens if they have lied in their deposition?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 08:00
Post #1586849

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 03:27) *
What happens if they have lied in their deposition?


it will be considered to be unreliable evidence, they could be reported for perjury but not likely .

Let me have a look over the whole case tomorrow or Tuesday

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 10:22
Post #1586868

Thanks PMB.

I have written up a new defence in response to the supplied Case Summary.

A redacted version is here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgjQWZRa_y3SzMlO7k6hWnNSK5S7Eg

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 10:42
Post #1586871

So will I.

I will focus on the issues of:

What is a 'designated parking place'; (their TMO reveals all that's needed i.e. it's any length highway specified in the Schedules and is so designated 24/7)
Their justification for rejecting your argument that the '10-minute' provisions applied. Including
The guide as to interpretation of points of law provided by ETA in their Key Cases described on their site as 'A number of the Adjudicators' decisions have dealt in detail with points and principles of parking and traffic law. These key decisions are stored here for you to view.'

The manner in which Camden have misrepresented your reps in their summary i.e. your reference to Thorpe was not in respect of whether a DPP could be suspended outside its normal 'Controlled Hours', it focused on the specific point regarding whether a DPP so suspended remained a DPP and therefore although suspended and having regard to the alleged contravention the '10-minute' provision within the General Regs applies.



Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 22 Sep 2020 - 11:38
Post #1587253

I think this can be made a lot stronger, the grace period issue needs to be restructured IMO as it is key, wait for HCA to come back to you. I would also avoid referencing the amending regulations.

Posted by: crxvtec Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 17:31
Post #1587553

Hi all, any thoughts on how best to word my defence?

Many thanks,

C.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 18:40
Post #1587566

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 18:31) *
Hi all, any thoughts on how best to word my defence?

Many thanks,

C.


Yes I will put something together tomorrow

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 24 Sep 2020 - 14:22
Post #1587718

There is only one strong point to your appeal. You accepted in your reps that the PCN would be properly served . The council have put a notice of acceptance in their pack so that avenue is closed and I think the question of the multiple NTO's is a distraction

I would send this or something very similar if focuses your main point whilst in effect dismissing 122 pages of bumf from the council


https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppV1XE6PE1NhvzPExR5?e=m0P70f

Posted by: crxvtec Thu, 24 Sep 2020 - 23:21
Post #1587843

Thanks PMB - that's very kind of you to take the time to compile this. I have uploaded this to the appellant portal and will talk through it in the hearing, which is a day and a half away; I'll post an update once it has concluded.

Thank you everyone that has supported this case so far.

C.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 12:30
Post #1587919

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 00:21) *
Thanks PMB - that's very kind of you to take the time to compile this. I have uploaded this to the appellant portal and will talk through it in the hearing, which is a day and a half away; I'll post an update once it has concluded.

Thank you everyone that has supported this case so far.

C.


don't try to spend a lot of time talking about the distance from the sign and the error in that respect in the NOR. It will not matter first the photos show the distance and second you accept in your reps that but for the GP you deserved a PCN.

It boils down to

If the adjudicator finds the bay remains designated then the GP must apply.

If the adjudicator finds that the bay loses its designation then the TMO is no longer in force and the council cannot suspend it but must make a s14 RTA1984 notice to restrict parking/loading

This not is was not made so there is no legal basis for the restriction and even if it was made then the cited contravention is incorrect

Posted by: crxvtec Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 23:04
Post #1588174

I had the hearing today which lasted all of 5 mins.

I explained the point reasonably well and referred the adjudicator (Mr. Harman) to the notes PMB prepared and which I'd uploaded a couple of days prior.

No decision was made during the call but there was a request to read the paperwork and then inform me in writing (by the end of the day) of his decision.

I'm now waiting for a letter, which may land either via post to the registered address or via email.

The adjudicator went on to remind me that if the judgement doesn't go his way that there is an adjudicator review, which will be the final step in the escalation, however I'm not sure why he told me that if he was confident of my not losing this appeal.

My personal belief is that PMB's notes are extremely clear and leave no wiggle room for the Council.

I will update this post once a decision is received.

Thanks,

C.

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 07:59
Post #1588182

Hi all,

The adjudicator has allowed the appeal.

I have uploaded the written response from the adjudicator here:
https://ibb.co/hV2RWYH
https://ibb.co/HnMVt18

My thanks again to all that contributed to ensuring the letter and spirit of law is adhered to.

I'm troubled by the fact that in the two years I've lived here, I've had 3 PCNs incorrectly issued and had to contest all 3 (with help from this forum), with two going to appeal. I wonder what action, if any, has been taken to LB Camden to better train their CEOs and Process Officers so that members of the public aren't drawn into burning down hours of their time contesting things that simply should not be contested. I have never experienced this anywhere else I've lived - it's quite extraordinary.

C.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 10:32
Post #1588190

OP---well done for seeing it through.


Camden's policy re suspended bays and the 10 minute rule is further weakened. I wonder if they dare ask for a Review.

Mick

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 10:42
Post #1588192

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 11:32) *
OP---well done for seeing it through.


Camden's policy re suspended bays and the 10 minute rule is further weakened. I wonder if they dare ask for a Review.

Mick


A review would be interesting, If allowed the whole designation argument would have to be examined and I do not think they would want to risk that

Strange and wrong that Mr Harman kept referring to the GP as observations though

Posted by: crxvtec Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 18:46
Post #1588252

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 11:32) *
OP---well done for seeing it through.


Camden's policy re suspended bays and the 10 minute rule is further weakened. I wonder if they dare ask for a Review.

Mick


They might, but I can't see how the facts are materially different to the case that has already been through review and refused.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 18:53
Post #1588254

QUOTE (crxvtec @ Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 19:46) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 11:32) *
OP---well done for seeing it through.


Camden's policy re suspended bays and the 10 minute rule is further weakened. I wonder if they dare ask for a Review.

Mick


They might, but I can't see how the facts are materially different to the case that has already been through review and refused.


They do not really have any ground for review. The adjudicator considered a point that they had made representations on and found it valid. He was entitled to do so.

I wouldn't worry about it. The norm is that is a council seeks review they agree not to enforce. I saw one recently where the reviewing adjudicator refused the request noting that the council had not followed that norm

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)