PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Suspended parking, Appeal rejected by Newham Council
E.J.
post Tue, 4 Aug 2015 - 11:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 2 Aug 2015
Member No.: 78,663



Hi All,

My appeal has been rejected by Newham Council. I want to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator and I need someone to help me to get justice.
On 15.04.15 I was traveling abroad for my wedding. I left my car by my house within designated parking space with valid parking permit displayed. There were no signs of upcoming parking suspension. When I came back on 24.04.15 I found my car has been relocated, one tire was flat because of damage to a wheel valve. There was a penalty notice attached to my windscreen. Parking was suspended for Murphy Group and it was not an emergency works. Can someone help me to fight back greedy Newham Council, please. I'm a bit struggling to upload attachments, hopefully will sort this out soon.

Attached File  Scan_1.tiff ( 520.57K ) Number of downloads: 62
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Advertisement
post Tue, 4 Aug 2015 - 11:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
E.J.
post Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 22:04
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 2 Aug 2015
Member No.: 78,663



Hi Mick, I posted the missing part of the Notice of Rejection in my first replay. It's Attached File  Scan_3.tiff ( 75.28K ) Number of downloads: 38
. Thank you for your support.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 05:58
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,275
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



There isn't a single traffic sign in the regulations nor has one been authorised by DfT which is other than wholly self-contained. No traffic sign relies on another traffic sign in order to convey its meaning, for b****y good reason, the other sign might not be there and how could parliament approve something as a traffic sign which relied on something outside parliament's control?

It is irrelevant whether there was another traffic sign and where it was - which isn't even in evidence - the authority's traffic order requires them to place a traffic sign and this one is not a traffic sign because it is neither specified under the regs nor compliant with any other authorisation. It matters not whether it was placed next to a traffic sign because in addition to everything else its wording is sufficiently ambiguous as to cast doubt on whether THAT sign applies.

IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 14:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
i need help
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 08:59
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
From: Carl Teper's bad books
Member No.: 75,724



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 05:58) *
There isn't a single traffic sign in the regulations nor has one been authorised by DfT which is other than wholly self-contained. No traffic sign relies on another traffic sign in order to convey its meaning, for b****y good reason, the other sign might not be there and how could parliament approve something as a traffic sign which relied on something outside parliament's control?

It is irrelevant whether there was another traffic sign and where it was - which isn't even in evidence - the authority's traffic order requires them to place a traffic sign and this one is not a traffic sign because it is neither specified under the regs nor compliant with any other authorisation. It matters not whether it was placed next to a traffic sign because in addition to everything else it's wording is sufficiently ambiguous as to cast doubt on whether THAT sign applies.

IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective.



Correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 09:16
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,669
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I am still of the opinion not to rely on the sign as a single point of attack.
Too much chance of a contrary adjudicator not being of the same certainty.

Add it as an additional and it may be the winner but not on its own.

Parked when no signs.
No requirement to visit every day, supported by Humphrey case
False information on the NOR
Plus signage issues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 09:26
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 10:16) *
I am still of the opinion not to rely on the sign as a single point of attack.
Too much chance of a contrary adjudicator not being of the same certainty.

Add it as an additional and it may be the winner but not on its own.

Parked when no signs.
No requirement to visit every day, supported by Humphrey case
False information on the NOR
Plus signage issues.



+1 why only fire one bullet when you have a fully loaded gun


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 20:53
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,975
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



A quick draft other members can amend or add points:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NOs. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 21: Parked in a suspended bay or space.

The Appeal

This appeal relates to the PCN noted above and the Notice of Rejection dated ?? /?/2015. It sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made by Newham Council. Each of the appellant points listed below represent substantive issues which impact on the appeal and which can each stand alone in refutation of the Council’s case.

1. Contravention Did Not Occur

My vehicle was in situ when the suspension signs were erected. I did not enter a parking bay whilst the suspension signs were in place and therefore I cannot be culpable. Neither am I at fault if the Council erected signs without my knowledge or took no steps to inform me. The vehicle had been in this position for at least ???? days prior to the suspension coming into effect. It should have been evident from the Council's suspension log that my vehicle was in situ when signage was put in place.

I have already offered the Council evidence that I was not in the country when the suspension came into effect nor when the PCN was issued.

These are not mitigating circumstances as the Council seems to believe but cold hard facts.

In view of the above I contend that the contravention did not occur.

I would direct the Adjudicator to the compelling reasons aspect of the following case which supports this ground :- Humphreys, R (on the application of) v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service [2015] EWHC 713 (Admin) (18 February 2015).

2. Warning of Suspension

As a residents permit holder I have legitimate expectations that I can park in the zone nearest my home but accept that this is subject to the Council suspending parking places providing it gives residents adequate notice. This has not happened; neither the Council nor the concessionaire has given prior notice to me either by phone or leaflet drop. Given that I visit my car infrequently I had no warning that a suspension was imminent. Neither am I under any legal obligation to check my vehicle on a regular basis as per the above judgement.


3. Fettered Discretion

The Notice of Rejection is substantially incorrect and the reasoning is such that the Council has fettered its discretion. The Council maintains that it is up to drivers to check their vehicle every day to ensure their parking bay is not being suspended. This is nonsense; there is no such legal obligation placed on motorists and the Council is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Without any regard to the circumstances of the case, the Council has argued that I parked in a bay where there were clear suspension signs. Totally untrue I never parked in a bay that was suspended and the Council has evidence to the effect that I could not have driven into a suspended place because, being out of the country, I was physically incapable of doing so.


4. Failure to Consider

I am not satisfied that the Council has considered the circumstances of my case, specifically and clearly raised in my representations and appeal. I believe this to be a procedural impropriety.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Regulation 4 (2) allows a representation against a Notice to Owner to be made either on the basis of specific grounds set out in Regulation 4(4) or under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii 'that whether or not any of those grounds apply there are compelling reasons why in the particular circumstances of the case the enforcement authority should cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.'

Regulation 5 clearly states that the local authority is under a duty to consider representations made under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii.

One of the grounds of appeal set out in Regulation 4(4) is that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Procedural impropriety is defined as a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Regulations issued under that Act.

The Council has failed to consider or respond to my key arguments (which correspond to those noted in paragraph 7 of the Humphreys judgement).

There has been no consideration of discretion or indeed the compelling reasons which I have advanced.

The Councils letter of ?????? 2015 is clearly a stock letter which underlines my points above.


5. Defective Suspension Sign

The Department of Transport authorisation of the Newham Council suspension sign specifies that the time of suspension should be displayed. The sign reads
"During the hours of restricted parking" followed by "for the Murphy Group". Clearly this is misleading and confusing and the signage must be regarded as inadequate in terms of Article 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

Therefore if the sign is legally inadequate, enforcement of the parking bay cannot ensue and PCNs so issued are invalid and unenforceable.

A suspension sign cannot be used in conjunction with signage it replaces and therefore must properly denote timings as per the DfT authorisation.

Mick


This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 22:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 21:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,669
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I'm okay with that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 21:55
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 22:52) *
I'm okay with that.



It's going in my file of good un's


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 7 Aug 2015 - 08:33
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,275
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Hopefully constructive ...

1. The appeal should start with a context particularly as we draw on this so heavily.

The fact that the OP parked outside their house should be brought to the fore, otherwise they could live within a 10-street permit zone, nowhere near the location in which case the argument ( repeated several times) regarding their right to be informed must fail. But they lived next to the parking place.

2. Do not state that 'given that I visit my car infrequently' as this surely only serves to undermine their position.

3. As regards failure to consider, I suggest the letter state words to the effect ...

I refer the adj to my representations in which I set out ... separate arguments under .... statutory grounds. I also refer the adj to the NOR in which the authority's detailed consideration comprises the following:
' We have carefully considered what you say but have decided not to cancel the PCN' .....

'It is up to drivers to check on their cars every day to check that their parking bay is not being suspended."


4. Procedural Impropriety
I refer the adj to regulation 6(2) of the Appeals Regulations which provides:
'A NOR..... may contain such other information as the authority consider appropriate.'

I accept that this gives the authority a wide brief as regards what may be included, however, I respectfully suggest that the wording in the NOR falls outwith that power.

In this respect, I refer the adj to page 2 of the NOR and specifically the paragraph headed 'If you do nothing' , the last sentence of which states that if the surcharged penalty due under a Charge Certificate is not paid the authority:
'.. may apply to the Conty Court to recover the money - plus court costs - from you.'
I suggest that as the Traffic Enforcement Centre is not a County Court, that any sums due may be recovered as if they were due under a county court order, but without the implication that a County Court Judgment would be registered against the person, with all the effects which this would have on a person's credit rating, and that the total of the so-called 'court costs' is £7 and not of the scale implied by the wording in the NOR, the authority have included this sentence for no other purpose than to scare the owner as regards what might befall them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Tuesday, 12th November 2019 - 05:40
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.