PCN for parking in a suspended bay or space Options

[Jebus]

I received a PCN for parking in a suspended bay. I didn't actually know it was suspended as I drove into it from the 'wrong' side of the road. By the look of the images on the TFL website, there is sign on a post next to the car, however I can't tell what it says. From what i've read, it's down to TFL or whoever to make sure that the sign can easily be seen, however it was only displayed on one side and I had no idea it was even there. Do I have a case?
And just to add, the date on the pic is 13/9/19, and the date on the notice is 18/10/19 if that makes any difference.

[attachment=67465:pcn.jpg]

This post has been edited by Jebus: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 17:10

[Advertisement]

[Jebus]

Thanks!

[Jebus]

I've finally got the video. These are the best shots of the signage... not very clear.


[attachment=68142:TFL_PCN_2.jpg]
[attachment=68143:TFL_PCN_3.jpg]

[cp8759]

Draft reps, keep the italics formatting exactly as I've used it below:

---------

Dear Transport for London,

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. My vehicle was stationary in a red route bay where stopping is allowed for 1 hour between 10 am and 7 pm Monday to Saturday, and all day on Sunday; the time of the alleged contravention is 3:50 pm on a Friday.

TFL alleged that the parking bay in question was suspended, however two issues arise:

Firstly, there is no parking suspension sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, indeed the regulations contain nothing at all that resembles a parking suspension sign. Most London authorities have sought authorisation special from the Secretary of State for a parking suspension sign but for some strange reason TFL has chosen not to do so. The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot save TFL's position because there is nothing for the sign to be compliant with.

Secondly, there is no evidence at all that the suspension was in effect. TFL's attention is drawn to the decision in Alastair Falk v London Borough of Barnet (2160371376, 30 September 2016) where the tribunal ruled as follows:

The photographs in this case are of such poor quality that it is impossible to be satisfied as to the wording of the sign, that it complied with Secretary of State’s authorisation, and that the vehicle was in such a position as to be in breach of its terms. In any event I find the Appellant’s evidence that the works in question had been completed to be persuasive, and it is therefore probable that the presence of the sign was in breach of the requirement in Part 2 Para 6(2) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that temporary signs should not remain in place for longer than is needed. As I am unable to be satisfied the prohibition relied on was correctly and clearly indicated the Appeal must be allowed.

The same issue arises here: Even if TFL's sign were authorised (which it is not), there is no evidence of what the terms of the signposted suspension actually were at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, there is no evidence my vehicle was stopped in breach of any such suspension. For all I (or the tribunal) could determine from the images provided, the sign might well have indicated that parking at the material time was permitted. It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

[Jebus]

I still haven't heard back from TFL, but i've checked their website and it says:

03 January 2020

Rejected Representation - Discount Period Reset

TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN. The discount period has been reset for a specific duration.


What now?

[cp8759]

Call TFL and ask if a copy of the rejection can be emailed to you. If not, ask for another copy to be sent in the post.

[Jebus]

This post has been edited by Jebus: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 17:32

[cp8759]

I think TFL's case is starting to fall apart. There are many red route authorised signs at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3997.pdf and http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4454.pdf but none of these resemble a suspension sign. The reference to evidence being sent under separate cover is somewhat suspect.

But you need to get your own ducks in order.

1) Show us the rest of the PCN including the dates, so we know what the timeframes are.
2) Did you get this by post or email, and do you know if it's the original or the copy you requested?
3) I assume there's been no sign of the additional evidence sent under separate cover, so you need to chase this. It's fine to call but you must also do this in writing.

[Jebus]

Many thanks for the continued help.

1)
I don't have the pcn or the letter to hand right now, earliest I could get it would be this weekend. I deleted the other pics if that's what you're referring to, as I'm limited as to how much I can host here?

The letter was dated 3rd January, giving me 2 weeks to pay the outstanding amount. I didn't receive the letter until the 9th or 10th.

2)
I received the letter by post, as above. I didn't actually request a copy as the letter arrived as I was getting round to doing so.

3)
I have no idea what this additional evidence is, and I haven't received anything else.
Yes I'll do so. Rather annoying as I'm away on business and didn't bring the letter with me.

Thanks once again.

[hcandersen]

Special authorisation my a**e.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/6/made

This Schedule in the 2016 regs supersedes the 2013 'Authorisation' to which I think they're referring. In any event, this does NOT deal with signs for temporary situations, which is what a suspension is...but Schedule 13 does.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/13/made

@cp, why does item 22 in Part 6 not apply?

[Mad Mick V]

I read a case recently (of course I can't find it now!) in which a Council contended that they alone could suspend parking places and that TFL couldn't. Perhaps the red route orders might shed some light.

Found this one which doesn't mention the ability to suspend:-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1113...0Order.pdf.html


Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 09:35

[cp8759]

@cp, why does item 22 in Part 6 not apply?

I have a few thoughts on that. Firstly that sign relates to "Waiting, loading and unloading" and the allegation on the PCN relates to "no stopping", so even if it were permissible it's the wrong sign.

Secondly, I understand a couple of councils have suggested this and the tribunals didn't agree, though I don't have a case reference to hand I'm sure somebody will have it.

Thirdly, the list at https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/index....king+suspension indicates no fewer than 16 councils have obtained a special authorisation since the 2016 regulations came into force, plus the special authorisation granted by the Welsh Government to Cardiff that makes 17. As a local authority veteran, I hope you'll agree with me that it's unlikely so many councils would spend time and money going through the process if it were entirely pointless and unnecessary.

@Jebus, just post images on an external site like imgur.com or imgbb.com or similar, as there is inadequate hosting space on here. I think your odds have improved again because you can argue that the discount expired while you were waiting for this "extra evidence", which is clearly unfair as you don't know how strong the case against you actually is. Ii suspect the "extra evidence" doesn't actually exist. I'm starting to think that TFL just won't contest.

For now just write to TFL chasing the extra evidence and see what comes back, if anything. Your deadline to file an appeal is 3rd February as the 28 day period runs from the date of service of the notice, which would be 7 January.

[Mad Mick V]

This is another case which casts doubt on the ability of TfL to suspend parking:-
217049760A

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person, parked in the bay relying on his disabled badge in order to attend a doctor’s appointment. He saw no sign to indicate the bay was suspended and his case is that the suspension was not clearly indicated.

The CTV shows the presence of a yellow triangular suspension sign of the type commonly used to indicate suspensions. However there is a white sign of some sort immediately in front of it which would wholly obscure it from view from the direction where the Appellant had parked. On the evidence I am unable to be satisfied that this single sign was in the circumstances sufficient to indicate a suspension sufficiently clearly.

In any event the Traffic Management Order appears to contain no power to suspend a bay. If TfL has other legislation enabling it to do so for particular purposed this should be put in evidence.

The Appeal is therefore allowed.

Mick

[hcandersen]

Edit

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 08:17

[hcandersen]

As regards Tfl, under the RTRA they are a 'local authority' for the purposes of designating parking places, but on GLA roads only.

(7)In this section and in sections 46 to 55 of this Act, “local authority”—
(a)in England, means the council of a county [F8, metropolitan district] or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London [F9or Transport for London];
...,
and “the local authority”, in relation to a parking place or proposed parking place on any site, F12. . . means the local authority (as defined above) in whose area the site is F13. . .. [F14unless the site is in Greater London, in which case—
(i)if the site is on a GLA road and the parking place is, or is proposed to be, designated by Transport for London, “the local authority” means Transport for London;

And 49(4)
(4)Subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, the authority by whom a parking place is designated under section 45 of this Act may by order empower the local authority, the chief officer of police or any other person specified by or under the order to provide for the moving, in case of emergency, of vehicles left in the parking place; to suspend the use of the parking place or any part of it on such occasions or in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the order;

@MMV, what's the basis for thinking that TfL may not suspend their bays?


@cp
The grounds in the PCN were stated by the OP and also included within TfL's NOR; they refer to parking in a suspended bay, not and the allegation on the PCN relates to "no stopping",.

But the PCN has disappeared and the wording of the sign cannot be determined from the photos.

Has the OP presented all the facts and are we singing from the same hymn sheet?

[Mad Mick V]

@hca
TFL don't appear to have any ability to suspend in any of their traffic orders I have read. Whilst I accept what you say about the core legislation and parking places, that does not appear to have been transcribed.

The other point is that a Council (the appellant) went to Tribunal and categorically stated that TfL cannot suspend parking on their patch. Pretty sure it was Lewisham.

Obviously more work is required to get to the facts but it is something which we might bear in mind. Perhaps a hostage to fortune statement in an appeal that TfL do not have the authority to suspend a parking place and see what the Darlington darlings have to say.

Mick

[hcandersen]

@MMV, no amount of poring over enabling legislation brings us any nearer to whether in this case the order includes the power to suspend.

It either does or doesn't, in any event the OP can ask for the extract in any reps should they be rejected. NB. in any reps, not a separate request.

And as for who can do what, the legislation is clear:

and “the local authority”, in relation to a parking place or proposed parking place on any site, F12. . . means the local authority (as defined above) in whose area the site is F13. . .. [F14unless the site is in Greater London, in which case—
(i)if the site is on a GLA road and the parking place is, or is proposed to be, designated by Transport for London, “the local authority” means Transport for London;
(ii)if the site is on a GLA road and the parking place is, or is proposed to be, designated by the London local authority in whose area the site is, “the local authority” means that London local authority; and
(iii)if the site is on a highway which is not a GLA road, “the local authority” means the London local authority in whose area the site is.]

So again, one cannot generalise and each case will turn on its own facts. If this is a GLA road and was designated by TfL then it is their lawn and there is no place for the tanks of the council in whose geographical area the road lies.

To quote adjudication decisions without the context of the facts of the case is fraught with danger IMO.

[Mad Mick V]

@hca

Agreed.

"may by order" suspend is the key.

Mick

[cp8759]

@cp
The grounds in the PCN were stated by the OP and also included within TfL's NOR; they refer to parking in a suspended bay, not and the allegation on the PCN relates to "no stopping",.

Fair point, but I'd still like the PCN to be posted up again. It's not ideal for evidence to disappear half-way through a case.

And if the allegation is code 21, then TFL must prove with evidence that a suspension sing compliant with LATOR was there to be seen, as per Alastair Falk v London Borough of Barnet (2160371376, 30 September 2016) :

The photographs in this case are of such poor quality that it is impossible
to be satisfied as to the wording of the sign, that it complied with Secretary
of State’s authorisation, and that the vehicle was in such a position as to
be in breach of its terms.
...
As I am unable to be satisfied the prohibition relied on was
correctly and clearly indicated the Appeal must be allowed.

The adjudicator makes a fair point which we can also raise, i.e. we have non way of knowing whether that particular part of the bay was suspended.

@Jebus before the 28 day deadline stated on the letter is up, you must register the appeal on the London Tribunals website, if you don't you risk losing all rights of appeal. To be honest you might as well register the appeal as soon as the discount has expired (you can then argue that even if TFL comes up with overwhelming evidence, you've suffered material prejudice because TFL did not supply that evidence with the Notice of Rejection and you lost the discount while you were waiting for this evidence).

Also make sure to keep making requests in writing for the "additional evidence" at least once a week, and keep copies of all the emails you send. Adjudicators like seeing this sort of thing as it shows you made every effort to get information from the enforcement authority but were ignored (I'm sure TFL will ignore your requests or send some nonsense reply).

[Jebus]

Sorry for the delay!

Ok here is the original PCN dated 18/10/19:



I sent them a letter dated 26/10/19 to request video evidence.

I received a letter dated 13/11/19 with a dvd of the video evidence. Here is a pic:



I then sent a letter of appeal with the text copied word for word from cp8759's post, which was dated 23/11/19.

I received a notice of rejection, dated 03/01/20. This didn't arrive until the 9th or 10th of January, leaving me only one week to pay to get the discounted rate of £65.





And that is where I am now at...

[cp8759]

Ok so just to confirm have you got emails showing you've been chasing TFL for the additional evidence?