Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Newham, Parking Contravention Code 30, Zone PN

Posted by: zcacogp Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 16:03
Post #1442751

Hi,

I received a parking ticket 5 days ago in Newham in London. I displayed a visitors permit in the car which I thought was valid for 6 hours and parked in an area with signage which I now guess means I should only have stayed for 20 minutes. I was there for about an hour and a half. Relevant pictures are as follows;

Front of visitors permit (redacted)




Rear of visitors permit



Front of ticket (redacted)



Rear of ticket



Sign



My question is whether this ticket is valid or whether I have any chance of overturning it. The reason I parked where I did was because I believed that the permit was valid for 6 hours as it says on the front of it and I thought the '20 minutes' on the sign referred to parking without a permit (i.e. offering 20 minutes for free to load or unload). On re-examining the ticket I can see it says 'Up to 6 hours', hence my undoing. A VERY helpful local chap spoke to me when I returned to the car (I think he's seen a lot of people caught out by this over the years) and said that I could get the ticket overturned and explained how and why. I didn't entirely follow his explanation but I believe it was to do with the fact that the CPZ name (i.e. 'PN' in this case) isn't correctly signed when you enter the CPZ - there are meant to be signed on both sides of the road but apparently there aren't. However I've looked at the Newham CPZ map and I'm not entirely sure which CPZ I was in. The map is here:

https://mapping.newham.gov.uk/LocalView/Sites/CPZ/

I was parked here:

https://goo.gl/maps/KYFkXotK3zv

Looking at the Newham CPZ map it looks like I was in the 'Plaistow North' CPZ, which corresponds with the CPZ name being 'PN', but according to their website 'Plaistow North' looks like this:



... and I don't think I was parked anywhere within this.

In short, is there scope for challenging this ticket or should I make the most of the 14-days reduced fee of £40 and pay up quick?

All help welcomed, thanks.


EDITED TO ADD: A hunt on pepipoo throws up this topic, where someone else was caught in a very similar situation in the same borough (Newham). However it doesn't have a conclusion.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=113017&st=0&p=1277340&

Thanks again for any help.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 18:47
Post #1442795

Upload a higher resolution version of the back of the PCN. However at first glance the sign is clear and it appears you misunderstood it.

Posted by: stamfordman Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:23
Post #1442824

See also this thread- same sign , same confusion.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124776

Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 13:34
Post #1442949

CP8759 and Stamfordman,

Thanks for your replies. It looks like I am not the only one who has fallen foul of that sign. Speaking to the people whom I was visiting they know of a few people who have been caught as well. However if it's a legitimate sign and I have simply misunderstood it then the failing is mine.

CP8759, here are the higher-res images of the front and back of the ticket. I'll put links for them in as well should they not show up in enough detail on this thread.



Link: https://mega.nz/#!hUJ2WYbK!KIKeZL1AHKQ3I86mMGvVVAD3NC8gg1TlMOcPfD3pmTA



Link: https://mega.nz/#!NdZAGCzA!IhpnOFl33VtfAODbtl9atj3e9f4G15DM36RKlwLM_TA

Thanks again for your help. If it is simply a matter of an error on my behalf then I'll pay within the 14 day reduced-price period.

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 15:19
Post #1442962

As in the other thread, it's worth challenging because, while the meaning of the sign is clear,
the wording of the relevant Traffic Order may say something different.

They've got the wording right for extensions East and West to the zone but I haven't found anything
relevant for Park Rd yet.

Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 15:38
Post #1442969

Neil,

Thanks. Do I need to dig out the relevant Traffic Order and compare the two or do I just challenge it? If the latter then what basis do I challenge it on: do I say "I believe that the sign contravenes the relevant Traffic Order", or something else?

(And here I'm going to betray myself as a complete numpty but what is a 'Traffic Order'? Presumably the underlying rules that allow them to put up signs like this. Where would I find a copy of it?)


Thanks very much for your help.

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 15:44
Post #1442970

I'm thinking on how to phrase it.

Orders should be freely available; sometimes library or they might e-mail you the relevant one.
Ask via main switchboard.

Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 15:48
Post #1442973

If I was to call the main switchboard then what do I ask for? The Traffic Order for the PN Controlled Parking Zone? Or is it the Traffic Order for all Parking Zones?

As and when I get hold of it then will it be comprehensible for a layperson or should I be seeking professional advice? Or could I post it on here?

(I don't think I've ever seen a Traffic Order and so am unsure whether it will be easy to understand or whether it will be beyond me!)

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:29
Post #1442988

The Order governing parking places on Park Rd, particularly that outside number -whatever it is.

And yes, if you get it, post it here as you'll potentially help others as well.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:34
Post #1442992

What's the date of service. And how do you know?

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:34
Post #1443023

PASTMYBEST I think in the new higher-res copy of the PCN the date of service is readable.

zcacogp, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=123250&view=findpost&p=1429835

It's a good argument to add to your representations because, if nothing else, Newham are likely to fail to consider it properly.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 22:23
Post #1443033

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:34) *
PASTMYBEST I think in the new higher-res copy of the PCN the date of service is readable.

zcacogp, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=123250&view=findpost&p=1429835

It's a good argument to add to your representations because, if nothing else, Newham are likely to fail to consider it properly.


I was looking at the enhanced copy, and date of service can be diserned by us and probably by the OP but what if there was no date of contravention. its not that clear. And you should not have to enhance the PCn in order to glean information that is required by statute

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:07
Post #1443251

Update: I've called Newham to ask for a copy of the Traffic Order. I eventually managed to speak to someone on the main switchboard, who admitted that he had no idea what I was talking about when I asked for a copy of the 'Traffic Order governing parking in Park Road, E15'. He told me that it was a Data Protection matter and offered to put me through to the Data Protection team. He then told me that it would be dealt with by Highways, but Highways won't speak to anyone nor do they send out documents, and he then said that he would pass my details on to the Parking Design Team who would be able to help. He took my eMail address and told me to expect an eMail.

Am I right in thinking that a Traffic Order is a publicly available department which they should make available for people to see if they wish? If they can't (or won't) allow me to see a copy then does this make their parking permissions and permits system invalid?

PastMyBest, I see what you mean about the date of service running into the pre-printed ticket header but it's readable if you look closely. Nice idea though, thanks.

CP8759, thanks for the link. I presume that the point I should consider is the use by Newham of a non-free fax number which causes an artificial increase in the cost of the fine. I'll wait for an answer from Newham with a copy of the Traffic Order and compose an objection to the ticket, and use this point as well.

I note also that there is (or was) a well-known error on the reverse side of Newham parking tickets. I have read the standard text on the reverse of mine and can't see any complete clangers there, but don't really know what I am looking for. Is it now correct?

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:23
Post #1443263

Re the Order.

The Councillor with Transport portfolio is currently unavailable.
If local, identify and contact your local Councillor and ask them to get it for you.

By coincidence, it's a a Councillor for Plaistow North that's covering transport matters.

Zulfiqar Ali

https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=1952

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:48
Post #1443277

Neil,

Thanks again for your digging on this one.

I'm not local. Should I eMail Mr Ali and ask for a copy of the Traffic Order? (Putting it another way, is there any reason why I shouldn't eMail him and ask for a copy of the order?)

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:11
Post #1443289

By law the TRO is a publicly available document, but only if you actually go to the council offices and ask for see it (which isn't an option if you're not local). Can't see any downside in contacting Mr Ali, though he may not respond if you don't live in his ward.

FOI requests should not generally be used for TROs as they take far too long, but in this case I would send off a FOI request anyway because even if all else fails, they can't ignore a FOI request and if nothing you're almost certain to get it within the 20 working day time limit. Just ask for the Traffic Management Order governing parking in Park Road, E15.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 18:13
Post #1443316

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:11) *
By law the TRO is a publicly available document, but only if you actually go to the council offices and ask for see it (which isn't an option if you're not local). Can't see any downside in contacting Mr Ali, though he may not respond if you don't live in his ward.

FOI requests should not generally be used for TROs as they take far too long, but in this case I would send off a FOI request anyway because even if all else fails, they can't ignore a FOI request and if nothing you're almost certain to get it within the 20 working day time limit. Just ask for the Traffic Management Order governing parking in Park Road, E15.

+1 but in parallel; ask Mr Ali for it directly as well.

Posted by: zcacogp Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:15
Post #1443413

FoI Access Request sent and also an eMail to Mr Ali. I notice that I have yet to hear back from the council themselves.

If I was to go to Newham and ask to see the Traffic Order then what would I do? Go to the front desk of their council offices and simply ask nicely? And if they look at me in a very bemused way and tell me that they can't help me then what happens next?

I notice that I am also a week into the 2-week discount period so think I will write to them to challenge the ticket along the lines of "This offence didn't happen". Clearly it will be rejected but it will buy more time. Is this a bad idea?

Thanks again fro your help.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 10:43
Post #1443475

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
If I was to go to Newham and ask to see the Traffic Order then what would I do? Go to the front desk of their council offices and simply ask nicely? And if they look at me in a very bemused way and tell me that they can't help me then what happens next?

Then the council would be in breach of regulation 7(3) of, and schedule 2 to, The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/7/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/schedule/2/made

If you were to go down this route, you might want to consider a covert go-pro camera to record the encounter. If you were to make a firm but polite request to view the documents under the regulations, and even after speaking to a manager they were to repeatedly and flatly refuse, that may amount to a ground of appeal in its own right (If a breach of LATOR 18 is a ground of appeal, I don't see why breaching LATOR 7 wouldn't be).

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:36
Post #1443936

zcacogp

Quick question.
Have you tried to view the Council evidence pics for this online, via the 'pay PCN' portal ?

If not, I suggest you do so and report back what happens.

Posted by: zcacogp Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:31
Post #1443969

Neil,

Good idea, thanks.

I've now done this and there are photos that show the following;

- The car parked where it was
- The visitors permit I put in the windscreen
- The wheels of the car by the kerb
- The parking sign which I parked underneath
- A permit for another London Borough in the windscreen (the borough in which I live)

The photos are date and time stamped, the date is correct and the time stamp is one minute after the "Time of Contravention" listed on the ticket.

It looks to be in order to me although - again - I don't know what I am looking at or for. There are no details of the (alleged) offence nor a copy of the Traffic Order for the street. (I know that last point was wishful thinking but - hey! - it's Christmas!)

There is no sign of a copy of the Traffic Order from the person at the council whom I spoke with. I have had a reply from Mr Ali (councillor) saying he will look into it but nothing more than that.

I will start an FoI access request pronto for the Traffic Order.

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 15:46
Post #1444020

FOI delays things and is only advisable for general research.
Has Clr Ali responded at all?
And note cp8759's comments about obtaining the Order in person.

I asked about the website because the other 20 min bay case, linked by Stamfordman,
displayed no pics but an odd message. Since discovered to have been cancelled on day of issue.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:00
Post #1444025

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:31) *
I will start an FoI access request pronto for the Traffic Order.

In post 18 you said you'd already made a FOI request? If that is indeed the case, the deadline is 18 January. The FOI request should only be a backstop, you should try and get it by other means if at all possible.

Posted by: zcacogp Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:49
Post #1444110

Neil,

Thanks. I've re-read the link provided by Stamfordman and can't see any mention of a 'dodgy message'. I didn't see anything that looked like a dodgy message when I logged in to the Newham site - it just showed the photos, although with no explanation of the alleged offence.

How did you discover that it had been cancelled on the day of issue? Or is it that the dodgy messages occurred because it had previously been cancelled?

No reply from Ali yet. I will chase him up by eMail. Going to the council offices to ask to see the Traffic Order in person is yet an option. How big will the document be? Is it a side of A4 or several hundred pages? Will I have a chance of understanding it? Will I be able to take a copy of it?

CP8759,

Yes I had indeed placed an FoI request - I remembered when I wrote my last post. They have since replied with a standard message saying that they will give a full response by the 17th Jan.

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:10
Post #1444184

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:49) *
How did you discover that it had been cancelled on the day of issue? Or is it that the dodgy messages occurred because it had previously been cancelled?

I know the appellant personally. They phone Newham in response to an odd on-screen message and ------ yes.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:44
Post #1444202

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:49) *
Going to the council offices to ask to see the Traffic Order in person is yet an option. How big will the document be? Is it a side of A4 or several hundred pages? Will I have a chance of understanding it? Will I be able to take a copy of it?

You were in the original part of PN zone which is long established.
I can't even find the Notice of an Order creating it. That would be a large document yes.
But these 20 min bays are newish; 3 years max, so there must be an amendment/variation Order changing
the use of the bays. That would likely only refer to a few streets, so a much smaller document.

The problem with calling in is that I have no faith in Newham staff being competent enough to even know
where to look.
Ideally everything should be index filed, i.e. name a street and they should instantly know it is mentioned
in w Order, x Order, y and z Orders. But can they?

So your best hope is probably the Councillor.

But time is not on your side, so -
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I notice that I am also a week into the 2-week discount period so think I will write to them to challenge the ticket along the lines of "This offence didn't happen". Clearly it will be rejected but it will buy more time. Is this a bad idea?

No it's the only idea we have left.

'The contravention did not occur'.
State that and explain you have tried to obtain the relevant Order to check if you have done anything wrong;
you have been obstructed by them in your efforts to obtain it, e.g the switchboard customer team being unable
to even tell you where to view it.

And state that you require a copy of the relevant Order in any response.


That's my take on it at the moment. Others might see it differently.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39
Post #1444253

You should not say the offence did not happen: the sign is there and clear and you have no evidence that there is no TMO.

What you do have is logic and reasoning.

I parked my car at the location and anticipated that the restriction would be the same as in every other local parking place both in Park Road and Portway, namely permit holders Mon-Sat. I read the sign as indicating shared use i.e. permit holders or free but with a limit of 20 minutes. Given the geography of the area, this would be a sensible restriction at this junction. In effect, I anticipated that the word 'or' was in the restriction but the authority's photos show that it is not.

It therefore appears that either the council have created a restriction with no clear beneficial traffic management purpose or that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

And then you can talk about the order. But don't dive straight in to challenging the order!

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:51
Post #1444284

I broadly agree with the gist of what HCA is saying -

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
no clear beneficial traffic management purpose

Is indeed local attitude to these bays but I don't see how it's a basis for challenge?

And this -
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

We don't know that?



Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 12:41
Post #1444338

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:51) *
And this -
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

We don't know that?

I agree, if the order requires the word "or" to be there then the contravention did not occur and it's fairly cut and dried, but we've not seen the order yet.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 13:22
Post #1444358

My draft is a preamble to set the scene for the OP's challenge.

It is a reasonable assumption, albeit that it might be wrong, that the sign is incorrect because in traffic management terms such a restriction makes no sense - any Newham permit holder for 20 minutes, why? There's nothing local to suggest this or to give a reason to differentiate between permit holders and others, given that the permission is of such limited value.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 14:33
Post #1444378

I wouldn't submit anything on that basis until we've had sight of the order.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 15:55
Post #1444410

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 13:22) *
It is a reasonable assumption, albeit that it might be wrong, that the sign is incorrect because in traffic management terms such a restriction makes no sense - any Newham permit holder for 20 minutes, why? There's nothing local to suggest this or to give a reason to differentiate between permit holders and others, given that the permission is of such limited value.

Makes perfect sense, despite being, I think I recall, a complete reversal of your view in a previous thread involving that sign?

It is indeed a ludicrous restriction/facility: There's nothing near most of these bays that warrants a 20 minute visit and I've already
mentioned the view of locals.

But on your reasonable assumption; this an extract from Notice of an extension to the same zone, to the Southwest.

"Any zone permit holders parking places, for use during the operational hours by vehicles displaying resident or business permits issued for use in any Newham CPZ, for a maximum period of 20 minutes, with return to that parking place within a period of 1 hour prohibited"

(NOT including THIS bay)

And I think you're missing why I want to see the relevant Order: I have every indication Newham cocked up drafting of an Order for another
zone, on these bays. There's an outside chance here too maybe.

----
There's another aspect I offered in that previous thread, which was poo-pooed at the time.

That is:
3/4 mile away, in FG zone, the Notice for the latest bays says exactly the same as the Notice I've quoted above.
But 1/4 mile further on, in FGN zone, the only Notice I can find states the opposite, taking your interpretation of the sign, i.e. sign wrong, missing 'or'.
Note the PCN in the other recent case, FGN zone, was mysteriously cancelled, on the day of issue.
Your interpretation of the sign was further confirmed correct by a local councillor, via social media, 20 months ago,
presumably having submitted a member enquiry and the Order having been checked.
But ONLY for that other zone.

How can it be ok or lawful for identical signs in the same Borough to mean two different things! ? Some in very close proximity.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 16:56
Post #1444418

The risk-free period for reps is 14 days and this does not change because the OP claims to not have been able to obtain a copy of the order.

They should therefore make the best reps they can within the 14-day period.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 17:22
Post #1444425

If it gets to the end of the 14 day period and the order has not been obtained, I would challenge them to show that the order doesn't include the word "or", but I wouldn't make an unqualified assertion as to what it contains. If the challenge says "the order says such and such" and it later emerges that that isn't the case, it really doesn't help the OP or his credibility before the tribunal. The burden of proof is on the council, there's no reason to bluff with stuff we aren't sure of. We're not playing poker.

Posted by: zcacogp Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:19
Post #1444454

Thanks very much for the continued input. I'll confess that I can only just understand much of the discussion but I get the gist.

I did indeed post a reply to the council saying that 'The offence didn't take place' and hope that it will act as a hold to allow me to get something else together.

No reply from Mr Ali. I eMailed him again this morning and he said that he will chase it up.

I also went to the council offices today to see if I could see a copy of the Traffic Order. I went to the main offices as listed on their website (328 Barking Road) and asked at the main desk to see a copy of the Traffic Order for Park Road E15. The lady was polite and genuinely seemed to want to help but said she wasn't able to show the documents to me and that they were not available for inspection in that building (her words). I asked whether they were elsewhere as I wanted to see them and she told me to write to the address on the website, and even opened the website to show me the relevant page. She also gave me the 'phone number that was on the website. I explained that I had already called that number and they hadn't been able to give me a copy of the Traffic Order but she said that that was all she could do. I asked to speak to someone in their 'Roads' or 'Parking' department and she said that no manager would be available to speak to me.

I recorded the conversation on my 'phone but fear I may not have saved it correctly. However I have the date and time of the visit and name of the the lady I spoke with. For what it's worth, I also have photos of the building before I went in and after I came out.

So, for completeness, here is the list of times and methods I have tried to obtain a copy of the Traffic Order;

- 17/12/18, 3.35pm. Called 020 8430 2000, spoke with <name> to ask to see a copy of the Traffic Order. Was told that the 'Street Design Team' were responsible for this and that <name2> would eMail me back within 24 hours.

- 18/12/18, 8.10am. eMailed councillor Zulfiquar Ali to ask for a copy of the Traffic Order. Was told that he would "take this up with officers to establish further details" and get back to me.

- 18/12/18. 8.12am. Submitted FoI Access Request on Newham's website asking for a copy of the Traffic Order.

(- 18/12/18, 4.39pm, posted letter to council saying that the offence didn't happen.)

- 20/12/18. 8.09am. eMailed councillor Zulfiquar Ali again to chase up the copy of the Traffic Order. Was again told that Ali would look into it.

- 20/12/18 1.30pm Visited Newham council offices and asked to see a copy of the Traffic Order, was told to call the number on the website - which I had already done on the 17th.

If the Traffic Order is the document that governs what the parking rules are for the street then I think I can say that I have tried hard to get hold of a copy and that the council are not allowing ready access to it. This feels like a reasonable basis for a challenge, and I am further encouraged by CP8759's comments of the 18th.

I note also that there is the possibility of a challenge as listed on the other post - namely that in expecting alleged offenders to text to a premium rate fax line they are artificially inflating the cost to the person in question.

So ... what next? Do I wait for them to reply to my letter of the 18th and then write again or do I follow up now with the challenges that they have not made the Traffic Order available and their premium rate fax number is too expensive?

All help welcomed. Thanks very much for the assistance thus far.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:59
Post #1444467

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:19) *
If the Traffic Order is the document that governs what the parking rules are for the street then I think I can say that I have tried hard to get hold of a copy and that the council are not allowing ready access to it. This feels like a reasonable basis for a challenge, and I am further encouraged by CP8759's comments of the 18th.

Well this is going to be fun. By law the council must make all proposed TROs available for inspection at its offices, and all TROs must remain available for inspection once they have been made. If the council is not following these basic steps, it appears they are acting unlawfully and to be honest this could affect almost all PCNs issued by Newham.

At this point make a formal compliant, this should be done in parallel to the PCN but don't mention the PCN as it's a separate issue

https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/Category/Complaints.aspx

-----------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

Under regulation 7(3) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, when the council proposes to make a Traffic Order, "The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents available for public inspection."

Once a Traffic Order has been made, regulation 17(1) provides that "As soon as practicable after an order has been made, the order making authority shall include among the deposited documents a copy of the order as actually made."

Schedule 2 to the regulations provides that a copy of the order, the relevant notice of making, and a map which clearly shows the location and effect of the order "shall, so far as they are relevant, be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours and at such other places (if any) within its area as it may think fit during such hours as it may determine for each such place."

On 20 December 2018 I visited the council's principal offices at 328 Barking Road and asked to see the Traffic Order for Park Road, E15. The lady was polite and genuinely seemed to want to help but said she wasn't able to show the documents to me and that they were not available for inspection in that building. I asked whether they were elsewhere as I wanted to see them and she told me to write to the address on the website, and even opened the website to show me the relevant page. She also gave me the phone number that was on the website. I explained that I had already called that number and they hadn't been able to give me a copy of the Traffic Order but she said that that was all she could do. I asked to speak to someone in their 'Roads' or 'Parking' department and she said that no manager would be available to speak to me.

Regardless of whether the documents are available online, by email or by any other means, the council has a duty under the law to keep Traffic Orders available for public inspection at its principal offices, this is a legal duty of the council and is not discretionary. While clearly no fault can be attributed to the lady on reception, who was as helpful as she could be in the circumstances, it is self evident that the council's processes have broken down.

I now ask that the council now comply with its legal duties by making all current Traffic Orders available for inspection at its principal offices during office hours, as required by The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

Posted by: zcacogp Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29
Post #1444534

CP8759,

Thanks. That's quite heady stuff. I'll tweak your suggested message to add things like the name of the lady on reception but, that aside, shall I just cut-and-paste the whole lot into the link?

Also, and I ask this with great caution, who are you? With the very greatest of respect, and while your posts here show significant knowledge, you are simply someone on t'internet and my natural instinct is to caution. Your signature says that you are not a lawyer although you are giving (at least quasi-)legal advice. In short, how do I know you should be trusted? I am sure you understand my question and please feel free to answer it by PM if you wish.

And another one - if I make this complaint (which I most certainly will be doing), how do I tie this in with the problem of the parking ticket? It won't be hard for Newham Council to link the two as the names on them will be the same.

Thanks again, very much, for your help. It's appreciated.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 09:49
Post #1444588

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
CP8759,

Thanks. That's quite heady stuff. I'll tweak your suggested message to add things like the name of the lady on reception but, that aside, shall I just cut-and-paste the whole lot into the link?

Yes I wasn't sure if you had got the lady's name but adding details like that, plus the time of your visit, is absolutely the right approach

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
Also, and I ask this with great caution, who are you? With the very greatest of respect, and while your posts here show significant knowledge, you are simply someone on t'internet and my natural instinct is to caution. Your signature says that you are not a lawyer although you are giving (at least quasi-)legal advice. In short, how do I know you should be trusted? I am sure you understand my question and please feel free to answer it by PM if you wish.

The general principle of pepipoo is that if someone posts rubbish advice, others will generally jump in and correct them. I am far from infallible and if something I say is clearly wrong, you can expect others to point it out.

However you make a very good point, and my simple answer is that you don't need to trust anything I say. On the contrary, I would encourage you to verify everything I am saying with your own research (to be honest most people who post on here can't be bothered and just want something they can copy / paste), you can read The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made and if you are able to read and understand the regulations, you will be able to speak with a lot more authority at any future tribunal hearing.

The fact that a breach of LATOR can lead to a PCN being overturned has been established in countless tribunal decision, for example see Mr Axxx Jxxxxx - v - Warwickshire County Council (case reference ZQ00003-1801) here: https://www.scribd.com/document/395141982/Mr-Axxx-Jxxxxx-v-Warwickshire-County-Council-case-reference-ZQ00003-1801

Of course, you can't know that I haven't doctored the decision, but if you email the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and ask for a copy they will email you one, so feel free to get one from the tribunal. There are countless similar cases you could find on https://londontribunals.org.uk though you would need to find one yourself as I don't have any case references to hand.

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
And another one - if I make this complaint (which I most certainly will be doing), how do I tie this in with the problem of the parking ticket? It won't be hard for Newham Council to link the two as the names on them will be the same.

It doesn't matter if they link the names, the important reason to keep the complaint separate from the PCN is because, if the compliant were (rightly or wrongly) classed as related to a PCN, Newham might tell you there is no right to compain about a PCN and you must follow the statutory appeals process (which is correct), so basically you want to avoid the risk of the complaint being mis-classified.

But the reason for the complaint is simple: Regardless of the outcome, when your case gets to the London Tribunals, you want to be able to evidence that the council has indeed breached its duties under LATOR, and raising a formal complaint to the council is solid ammunition you can use to support this contention.

There's also the fact that if the council were to admit it were in breach of its LATOR obligations, we can use that against them for almost every PCN (There are some that don't depend on a Traffic Order but they're in the minority), so it could be hugely beneficial to others, at least until Newham get their act together.

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:54
Post #1444646

CP8759,

Thanks for your reply and also for your direct message.

Those links are interesting and I have read the paragraphs of the Local Authorities' Traffic Order Regulations (which is presumably 'LATOR') which you cited and quickly viewed the rest. Thank you for providing them. Out of curiosity, how do councils normally make this information available? I presume they sit you down in an office and someone brings you the documentation you request.

I have also discovered that making a wordy complaint to Newham is not as simple as it may appear as the complaints form on the website can't handle more than a paragraph or two of text. I therefore called them and asked for the complaints eMail address, to be told that there is no such thing and that I would have to write in on paper. I asked for the name of the Head of Complaints and was eventually given a name but was told that the person in question didn't have an eMail address. Thankfully eMail addresses are easy to guess and I have eMailed the person in question with the text you kindly provided (with added details) but I will also put the complaint in writing for completeness.

I have to say that I find the whole thing almost Kafkaesque; no availability of underlying orders to allow them to act as they do and no access to a complaints system that accepts complaints of more than a couple of hundred characters. However this is by-the-by.

I guess I now sit back and wait for a reply to the complaint and then use the reply to defend the parking ticket. As and when I hear anything then I will post it on here. In the meantime, thanks again for your help and for providing some reading over the Christmas period!

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 13:37
Post #1444692

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:54) *
Out of curiosity, how do councils normally make this information available? I presume they sit you down in an office and someone brings you the documentation you request.

I have no idea, the LATOR provisions are there as a last resort, or a backstop to use a term popular nowadays. Normally councils will either publish all their traffic orders online, or at worst they'll provide them on request by email. As it's normally not this hard to get the order I'm not aware of a previous case where someone has actually had to rely on the statutory right of inspection. I know my local council (I'm out in the counties) claims traffic orders are available for inspection at their main offices, maybe I should test it out.

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:54) *
I have also discovered that making a wordy complaint to Newham is not as simple as it may appear as the complaints form on the website can't handle more than a paragraph or two of text. I therefore called them and asked for the complaints eMail address, to be told that there is no such thing and that I would have to write in on paper. I asked for the name of the Head of Complaints and was eventually given a name but was told that the person in question didn't have an eMail address. Thankfully eMail addresses are easy to guess and I have eMailed the person in question with the text you kindly provided (with added details) but I will also put the complaint in writing for completeness.

You've done everything exactly as I would have, it'll be interesting to see their response.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 14:21
Post #1444703

OP, not being able to obtain a copy of the order is not a defence to the contravention.

You can register all the complaints you like, but this fact remains.

You parked and remained where prima facie you could not. That's the objective starting point.

That you failed to read the sign diligently is your fault. The only redeeming factor being that its restriction seems arbitrary and without any traffic management merit. But again your or my opinion on this is not a defence.

Your reps are based on you making a reasonable and honest mistake, but you would still require the authority to accept that the restriction is anomolous and to look at the order, base their response on its provisions and supply a copy.

IMO, what you are writing does not have your 'reasonable and honest mistake' at its heart but a different agenda completely.


Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 14:33
Post #1444708

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 14:21) *
OP, not being able to obtain a copy of the order is not a defence to the contravention.

It is if the order is invalid. If the council did not follow the procedure laid out in LATOR, the order is invalid.

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 15:37
Post #1444728

As a layman I agree with you hcandersen. I did indeed make a reasonable and honest mistake and can see no justification for the unusual restrictions denoted by the sign for those three car lengths or so. However if the council is required to do many things in order to put in a parking restriction and the validity of the restriction relies upon all those things being done then I can understand CP8759's approach.

Is there any reason why the ticket cannot be disputed on both points (i.e. 'reasonable and honest mistake' and 'failure to comply with LACOR') simultaneously?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 16:07
Post #1444733

There's three points to be pursued:

1) Issue 1, let's call it the "signage / confusion" issue and this only really amounts to mitigation
2) The apparent breach of LATOR, this could be accepted as a statutory ground for cancellation
3) The premium rate number for fax representations, as per http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123250&st=20&p=1429835&#entry1429835 which could also be accepted as a statutory ground for canellation

Ultimately you only need to succeed on one ground of appeal to win the case, they need to beat both to have the PCN upheld (and also show that if they reject your mitigation, they have duly considered it before doing so).

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 16:37
Post #1444736

I referred to obtaining, not its provisions.

Anyway, if it's invalid this isn't a defence either:

Ground (g) of the Appeals etc. Regs states:

g)that the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part VI of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act(1) applies, is invalid;


And the order will be, therefore invalidity is no defence.


35If any person desires to question the validity of, or of any provision contained in, an order to which this Part of this Schedule applies, on the grounds—

(a)that it is not within the relevant powers, or

(b)that any of the relevant requirements has not been complied with in relation to the order,

he may, within 6 weeks from the date on which the order is made, make an application for the purpose to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session.


The law draws a line under validity, it cannot continue to be revisited by disgruntled motorists.


What is a defence, however, is if the provision as signed is not the provision as in the order.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 17:40
Post #1444752

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 16:37) *
I referred to obtaining, not its provisions.

Anyway, if it's invalid this isn't a defence either:

You seem to think that if the council doesn't allow inspection of the TRO, contrary to the requirements of LATOR 17, that isn't a valid ground of appeal. Personally I think either the council has to comply with its LATOR duties to enfore the PCN, or it doesn't. It doesn't make sense that they can ignore LATOR 17 but not LATOR 18. We obviously have different views on this so we'll have to leave it at that, at least until we get a tribunal ruling.

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 17:16
Post #1452933

HI, Happy New Year to all.

Minor update on this one:

- No reply yet from the council on any of the following;
1. The letter claiming that the alleged contravention didn't take place
2. The posted complaint about the TRO not being available in their offices
3. The eMailed complaint about the TRO not being available in their offices

However they have responded to the FoI access request with copies of TROs. I'll admit that I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet but a quick glance suggests that I don't know what I am looking at or for. I am sure I will be able to understand them but it may take some time.

Here are links to the four documents sent, although I think that the third one is the relevant one. (There was a fifth document but that was simply a covering letter.)

https://mega.nz/#!cFpxUQzb!ON6MyRSdjoSyRAKbARHIRuWp-6G0kdU0XLJvPziSSqg

https://mega.nz/#!oNx3nQwC!sVxai30bSHSpKVz1WwYrgy7pmXZmANrFVFfCppN9nG4

https://mega.nz/#!cdo1AYJY!DLBfYNKZCI4E5Y5MNmsRDxYcB8DE2NeibKZM_yyVVN8

https://mega.nz/#!oAwziKxB!ubxc9x1vpJ0S1ofkbUibgM8giOyAFB_0fFk-cpiHKgE


All comments welcome. Additionally, how much time does the council have to take action after an alleged offence before they lose the ability to do so?

Thanks.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 18:34
Post #1452976

The third document you posted (the Amendment n. 9 Order 2017) supports the restriction for the location where you parked. They have six months from the date of service of the PCN to issue a Notice to Owner. To be honest all things considered, I would pay the discount if they re-offer it. The contravention is banged-to-rights and using LATOR 17 is untested and may well not be accepted.

Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 12:49
Post #1492841

Guys,

An update on this one. We're now over 6 months down the road, and during that time there have been various letters sent back and forth between me and the council. The last one was a formal notice to me as owner of the vehicle in which I stated the reasons why I thought the penalty was invalid (TRO's not held at council buildings, requesting communication by a premium-rate fax line, confusing signage) and I heard nothing for a couple of months.

I was away this week but when I arrived home I found the following letter on the doormat. It's self-explanatory.





It looks like they are going back to allowing me a 14-day period to pay the reduced fine of £40, or they will take me to 'London Tribunals' for the full £80.

My understanding is that anything placed before a tribunal has to be done so within 6 months of the alleged offence. Given that the alleged offence date was 11/12/18, the letter above was dated 10/6/19 and the date now is 16/6/19 then we are outside of this 6 month window. Does this affect things?

(The letter from them doesn't address all of the points I raised in my letter to them, just the 'unclear signage' point. Is this relevant as well?

Thanks again for your help.


Posted by: Neil B Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 14:43
Post #1492850

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 13:49) *
My understanding is that anything placed before a tribunal has to be done so within 6 months of the alleged offence.

No.

On balance, can't see you can win on this.

Offering you the discount at this stage is unusual.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 20:15
Post #1492933

The only hope would be if more than 56 days passed between the date when you served your formal representations on the council, and the date of service of the notice of rejection. If it's more than 56 days, you have a winning appeal. If it's 56 days or less, you should pay the discount.

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 22:46
Post #1493261

Guys,

Thanks for the reply.

I have written to them several times but believe that the letter that they would count as 'formal representations' was on the 25th April, which would mean 46 days between then and the date of their letter to me rejecting my appeal. No dice there then.

Their letter does not respond to all of my points of appeal though - only one of them (and not the strongest one - namely their non-compliance with LACORS). Is this relevant?

How long after the offence can they carry on kicking the can down the road? Or is there no hard and fast answer? (Speeding offences have to be placed before the magistrates within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence. Is there something similar for parking offences?)

Thanks again for your help.


Posted by: Incandescent Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 23:37
Post #1493268

There are two periods defined in law: -

1. Notice to Owner must be served within 6 months of the alleged contravention date.

2. Response to reps to a Notice to Owner must be sent within 56 days of receipt of the reps or those reps succeed and PCN is cancelled

The above applies only to parking under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Their letter re-offers the discount, but if you don't pay within the period defined, then the full £80 is payable. If you ignore the matter, you'll end up with bailiffs at your door. They will not take you to adjudication, only you have that right. The discount option is lost if you go to adjudication.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:10
Post #1493414

The current position is that you must pay the discounted penalty by midnight on 25th June, or the full penalty by midnight on 9th July, or you must appeal by midnight on 9th July. If you appeal, the discount option is gone should you lose (which at present appears to be the likely outcome).

If you do none of these things, the council can increase the penalty by 50% and you will have no right of appeal. If you still don't pay, they can ultimately instruct bailiffs to come and recover the money, and there will be no avenue of appeal at that stage. Once it gets to that point, the cost can easily escalate to £500+

Based on the information we have, the best outcome for you would be to pay the discounted penalty of £40.

Posted by: zcacogp Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 22:27
Post #1493572

Guys,

Thanks for your answers. They are both helpful and both clear, particularly on the point of timescales.

Is there any mileage in the point that they have failed to answer the three points of my appeal? The most substantive one (namely that they are not compliant with the requirement to keep TRO's at their offices) has been missed entirely.

I can see that you think my chances of winning an appeal to The Tribunal as being slim but I'm aggrieved about this, and also about the fact that they appear to have ignored the fact that I have pointed this out to them. I also think that I have spent quite a lot of time and effort on this to date and am almost tempted to throw the dice by going to The Tribunal if there is any change of success.

Thanks again for your help. It's appreciated.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 23:14
Post #1493581

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 23:27) *
I can see that you think my chances of winning an appeal to The Tribunal as being slim but I'm aggrieved about this, and also about the fact that they appear to have ignored the fact that I have pointed this out to them. I also think that I have spent quite a lot of time and effort on this to date and am almost tempted to throw the dice by going to The Tribunal if there is any change of success.

I'll repeat again and echo those that agreed, you don't have a great chance.

Then there's determination and I have to admire yours.

If you decided to fight on I'm sure we'd try to help but, as said, it's gonna be thin.

I have some whacky ideas; experimental as appeal points but might just throw them.

I haven't looked at any of your TRO links because of where you've put them btw.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 12:02
Post #1493664

If you decide to carry on we might as well pursue the LATOR 17 ground, I have some ideas on how to word it and Newham do appear to be in default of a legal duty. I wouldn't advise risking the discount on this basis, but if you decide to go for it anyway we might as well try.

Posted by: zcacogp Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 22:33
Post #1493874

Guys,

Thanks for your replies. I am fed up with the thing thus far and am viewing it as being a cost of £40 and a LOAD of time already. I'm happy to take a chance on another £40 in the hope of getting the thing overturned. If you are able to assist then I'll be most grateful. (An aside but can I claim costs of time and money if it does go to Tribunal?)

So .... what next? I'll reply to say that they have not considered all the grounds of my appeal and that if they do not do so then I will refuse to pay the amount claimed, and update this thread when I hear more from them. Or should I do something else?

Doing nothing is not an option, that I can see!

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 19:15
Post #1494085

You've been told the chances of winning if you appeal are slim to say the least.

If you want to appeal, register your appeal on the tribunal website, write "detailed grounds to follow" in the reasons box and the tribunal will notify the council. If the council decides to contest the appeal, the tribunal will then email you a deadline for you to submit your representations and you should confirm this date to us as soon as you get it. The likelihood is that you'll lose and have to pay £80, but there's always a chance, however small, that you might win (the council might mess up the evidence pack or make some other blunder).

Alternatively, cut your losses and pay the £40 before you put any more time and effort into this.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 23:49
Post #1494154

Re 'whacky' idea.
I'll post asap

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 15:25
Post #1494240

We know that adjudicators are always reluctant to examine signs at a different location to
the alleged contravention. Normally refusing point blank.
But I stand by my early comments in this thread.

With little else to offer, I suggest we try to get the adjudicator to look at this.
i.e. to insist Newham explain what each of these signs mean.

For the first, we've already heard from them and the TMO amendment supports them (I assume
since I've still not seen it! angry4.gif }

https://flic.kr/p/2ghHXyQhttps://flic.kr/p/2ghHXyQ by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156188007@N06/, on Flickr

And then what does this (identical) one mean, just 1.5 miles away (by road) and also erected by Newham?

https://flic.kr/p/2ghrE2nhttps://flic.kr/p/2ghrE2n by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156188007@N06/, on Flickr

Because it's apparently something completely different.

I'm thinking this supports LATOR issues already mentioned and even the possibility of 'legitimate expectation'.

----

Maybe more later, again connecting to LATOR but head running away with me at the mo.

Posted by: zcacogp Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 09:52
Post #1496066

Thanks for your replies.

By way of an update, I have been to the Tribunals website and entered my details with the comment 'Detailed grounds to follow". I've chosen a hearing date of Monday 29th July should it come to a hearing.

This is new to me. If anyone can help with advice on what to put as my 'detailed grounds', or have some advice on what to say if/when it comes to the hearing, I'd be very grateful. In the meantime I'll see what I can write and post it up here for approval.

Thanks.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 13:17
Post #1496092

See sign 13.46 on page 169.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

The sign referred to here is shared use and is of exactly the same format as the one in situ.

OP, your defence is simple: you interpreted the sign as indicating shared use, in this case unrestricted use by any holder of a permit issued by the council and non-permit holders for no more than 20 minutes.

The 2019 Traffic Signs Manual, which you consulted after the event, gives exactly this form of sign as an example of a shared use sign.


Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 17:11
Post #1496111

I would definitely include the fact that the Traffic Order is not made publicly available by the council, in breach of LATOR 17.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post #1496112

??

But as this is not a duty imposed by the TMA or regs made thereunder, then how does this help?

We know that an enforcement authority is not under an obligation to provide an order in response to fishing requests by disgruntled motorists. The route for a complaint under LATOR would be the complaints procedure...ombudsman, not adjudicator.

The sign allowed you to park, irrespective of what an order might have provided.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 20:08
Post #1496124

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 18:22) *
??

But as this is not a duty imposed by the TMA or regs made thereunder, then how does this help?

You could say the same about LATOR 18

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 20:35
Post #1496140

Chalk and cheese.

If the restriction is not signed correctly, then the contravention could not occur: different angle completely.


Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 30 Jun 2019 - 19:02
Post #1496244

Thanks for the replies.

In turn:

NeilB, what is the difference in meaning between the two signs whose pictures you have provided? They are clearly the same but your post suggests that Newham claim they mean different things.

hcandersen, that is the root of my misunderstanding; I thought that the sign in question (i.e. the one I parked in front of) meant either one of two different things, very like the one you refer to in the Traffic Signs Manual. However there is no 'Or' on the sign I parked in front of. Surely that is their challenge to this defence?

cp8759, I certainly will point out that they are not compliant with the legislation and that if they are required to do something and have failed then surely the parking restriction is not valid?

Thanks for your input.

Posted by: zcacogp Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 07:56
Post #1496584

Update: I've been sent the ETA Schedule Personal Notification. I'm guessing that means that Newham have decided to contest it.

All advice welcome, thanks.

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 09:42
Post #1496615

QUOTE
I've been sent the ETA Schedule Personal Notification.


Which conveys what information, precisely?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 12:51
Post #1496652

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Sun, 30 Jun 2019 - 20:02) *
NeilB, what is the difference in meaning between the two signs whose pictures you have provided? They are clearly the same but your post suggests that Newham claim they mean different things.

Exactly.
According to the TMOs they are different.
The Cranmer Rd one and others in FGN zone, means as you understood it.

It is wholly ridiculous, them being in the same borough.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 17:50
Post #1496717

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 08:56) *
Update: I've been sent the ETA Schedule Personal Notification. I'm guessing that means that Newham have decided to contest it.

All advice welcome, thanks.

So is the council's evidence on the tribunal website?

Posted by: zcacogp Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 18:03
Post #1496724

John UK, sorry - I should have explained. It seems to be a letter (eMail attachment) that gives the date and time and address of the appeal and the case number, vehicle registration number and so on. It doesn't progress the discussion, it appears to simply formalise the hearing.

NeilB, thanks. Can you point me to the pages in the TMO's where these signs feature? It may save me hunting through them all if you can give me page numbers, although I am aware that I should do the research anyway.

cp8759 - good Q! I've just checked and the only 'Evidence' is my submission saying that there are detailed grounds to follow. I presume that the council will put something up there in due course and I'll post it here as and when they do.

Thanks again for your input.

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 20:47
Post #1496777

QUOTE
John UK, sorry - I should have explained. It seems to be a letter (eMail attachment) that gives the date and time and address of the appeal and the case number, vehicle registration number and so on. It doesn't progress the discussion, it appears to simply formalise the hearing.


So the date of the hearing is?
Personal or postal?

Posted by: zcacogp Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 20:51
Post #1496778

29th July.

Personal I guess as it's not postal.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 21:25
Post #1496789

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 19:03) *
NeilB, thanks. Can you point me to the pages in the TMO's where these signs feature? It may save me hunting through them all if you can give me page numbers, although I am aware that I should do the research anyway.

I've never seen the FGN TMO.
Neither have I seen yours but was ignored when mentioning it?

I have the Gazzete notice though, which details 'shared use' bays of this type.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2594634

I have, in the past, searched for subsequent amendments but never found any. A PCN a few months
ago, in that Cranmer bay, we discovered cancelled on the day of issue, without challenge.

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 21:51) *
29th July.

Personal I guess as it's not postal.

"Guess" ?
What did you ask for?

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 07:14
Post #1499426

Neil,

Thanks for your post. I only come to this thread occasionally and am aware that I need to write my appeal for the Tribunal so your posts are helpful.

Forgive me going a little slowly here as I need to get this right, but you refer to the sign on Cranmer Road as meaning as I understood it (i.e. it allows free parking for 20 minutes OR for someone with a permit to stay for the time limit of the permit - namely several hours), and you later refer me to the gazette notice which says this is the case in the Forest Gate North (FGN) zone - which is where Cranmer Road is. However this notice in the gazette doesn't give a picture of the sign which would be displayed in such a case. Is there anything linking the required sign with the gazette notice?

I didn't realise that you hadn't seen copies of the TRO's although having re-read I can see you did say you couldn't access them. Here is a link to the four documents in DropBox - is it any more use to you?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/oyiclx19xa5m898/AAAyBNA10MRBRh_eV2jFUfA8a?dl=0

Thanks again for your help.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention: I've been back to the Tribunals website and there is nothing uploaded from the council. I notice there that the type of hearing is listed as 'Personal' so I must have asked for a 'Personal' hearing. I don't know what this means though and don't remember asking for it. The Appeal Stage is 'Appeal' and the Appeal Status is 'Listed for hearing'.

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:54
Post #1499462

Update: I've now done a first draft of the appeal document which I propose to upload to the Tribunals website in due course. If anyone wants to have a look at it and make comments then I'd be very happy to hear them. It's here, in DropBox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zc0gtf0unv6sqb4/Appeal.pdf?dl=0

All help welcomed, thanks.

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 13:13
Post #1499543

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:14) *
Forgive me going a little slowly here as I need to get this right, but you refer to the sign on Cranmer Road as meaning as I understood it (i.e. it allows free parking for 20 minutes OR for someone with a permit to stay for the time limit of the permit - namely several hours), and you later refer me to the gazette notice which says this is the case in the Forest Gate North (FGN) zone - which is where Cranmer Road is. However this notice in the gazette doesn't give a picture of the sign which would be displayed in such a case. Is there anything linking the required sign with the gazette notice?

Very good question.

The answer is no.
BUT
In the second category of 'shared use' in the notice, the roads listed are the only roads in FGN with
signs mentioning 20 minutes. And those signs are identical to yours.

Adjudicators are usually adamant they will not look at unrelated locations but there's a point to be
made here.
Identical signs used by the same council should not mean two different things. Surely that fails the
LATOR requirement for clarity.

Posted by: zcacogp Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 13:54
Post #1499552

Neil,

Thanks.

Did you manage to download the documents from DropBox? If so then is the text of the Appeal I wrote suitable? (I can paste it here as a post but it would be a little unwieldy).

Thanks again.

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 21:53
Post #1499646

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 14:54) *
Neil,

If so then is the text of the Appeal I wrote suitable?

Busy at mo.

When I can.

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 14:21
Post #1499720

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 14:54) *
If so then is the text of the Appeal I wrote suitable?

Let's be honest, you don't have a great case, legally.
That I've highlighted Newham's dual and conflicting use of that sign isn't directly relevant to
the location you parked at.
But an adjudicator might just grasp the relevance.

That said, your text reads excellently imho and with clear layout.

There were a couple of things I thought of last night that might enhance it. I'll have to read again
to recall them and post later.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:23
Post #1499928

I think the argument regarding the sign has merit, how can the same sign have different meanings on different roads? And how would you know what the restrictions mean if the council uses the same sign to convey different meanings?

Are you going for a personal hearing? I think that would greatly enhance your chances in a case like this.

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 11:24
Post #1500057

Neil, cp8759,

Thanks for your answers. Neil, I think I've accepted that my case is not the strongest but I'm viewing this as an education (never done something like this before) based on a grievance (I was genuinely mistaken by the sign) and the fact that it will only cost me £40 (the minimum cost was £40, the maximum was £80, with a small chance of my case being won and hence free). It's a bit of a roll of the dice to see what happens, and the help of you two is particularly appreciated.

cp - yes, it's a 'Personal' hearing. (I'm not sure how this happened).

If you can't see any obvious improvements to make to the document then I'll submit it to the tribunals website and see what happens a fortnight today (date of the hearing).

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 12:31
Post #1500089

Sorry, I do want to add something but struggling today.

Wait a day?

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 12:32
Post #1500090

Sure, that's fine. I think they allow submissions up to 7 days before the hearing.

Thanks again.

Posted by: zcacogp Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 14:56
Post #1500660

Quick update: Newham have sent me a large wadge of paper with a covering letter acknowledging that I have appealed to the Tribunal and that they intend to contest it. There is also a copy of all the letters sent back and forth, photos of the car in the space during the (alleged) contravention, photos of the signs, scans of the parking warden's pocket book, lists of abbreviations and so on. I don't think there is anything new in there - i.e. it is not moving the discussion on, merely a re-statement of the situation.

Given that I need to submit my document before next Monday then please let me know of any improvements that could be made within the next couple of days in order that I can meet the deadline. Thanks again for your help with this.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 15:22
Post #1500668

I'll try tonight, soz.

Post their case summary from that pack.

Posted by: Neil B Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 23:15
Post #1500803

Soz.
A lot going on for me.
If you don't hear from me in 24 hours, go ahead.

But others will still want to see that council summary.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 03:12
Post #1500811

Ok, let's look at the bits you need to enhance.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 14:13) *
Identical signs used by the same council should not mean two different things. Surely that fails the
LATOR requirement for clarity.

The part of LATOR we're referring to is >
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;


(My bold.)

But then -
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 14:13) *
Adjudicators are usually adamant they will not look at unrelated locations but there's a point to be
made here.

It is likely something you would have to press the adjudicator to look at, as politely as possible, at the hearing.

The further relevance is that such duplicitous use of identical signs opens up the issue of 'legitimate expectation';
an appeal point in itself.
FGN residents queried these signs shortly after their introduction, via a local councillor. The answer reflecting the
Gazette notice I've shown you and being the same as your own original interpretation.
The effectis that any residents of FGN or visitors to FGN could legitimately expect the sign to mean the same everywhere
else in the borough.
Whether that applies to you directly or not, the point is still valid.

------

Still got a little more --- later.

Posted by: zcacogp Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 08:29
Post #1500834

Neil,

Thanks. That's all very helpful stuff. Keep me posted with other thoughts. If you have chapter and verse on the query to the local councillor that may be helpful too.

(An aside but you clearly know a lot about parking in Newham. I presume you are a local resident with an interest in such things. In which case, thanks for being so diligent in following local affairs!)

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 09:50
Post #1500848

Adjudicators are usually adamant they will not look at unrelated locations but there's a point to be
made here.


Possibly.

In which case the OP should relate these sites.

As I understand it, the essence of their case as regards the sign is that it is used to indicate a different restriction by the council elsewhere and therefore a motorist cannot know which restriction actually applies, which is precisely the function signs are required to perform.


If true....

I have parked in the borough and this road using a *** permit on many occasions in parking places with exactly the same sign as was present on the day in question but without issue as regards time. I was therefore perplexed as to how the same sign could in this case lead to a contravention and me being penalised. I put the matter to the authority in representations but without receiving any satisfactory response. Clearly parking should not be a lottery with the motorist the potential victim and given that I will be parking in the area in the future I needed to establish what's what. This has proved difficult without the council's co-operation, however I have managed to discover the following ......your

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 10:49
Post #1500871

Adjudicators are usually adamant they will not look at unrelated locations but there's a point to be
made here.



In which case the OP should relate these sites.


If true, then..

I have parked using a *** permit on many occasions in parking places with exactly the same sign as was present on the day in question but without issue as regards time. I was therefore perplexed as to how the same sign could in this case lead to a contravention and me being penalised. I put the matter to the authority in representations but without receiving any satisfactory response. Clearly parking should not be a lottery with the motorist the potential victim and given that I will be parking in the area in the future I needed to establish what's what. This has proved difficult without the council's co-operation, however I have managed to discover the following ......your gazette link ...for which the sign in pic * is still displayed.

As the asj will see, this has exactly the same wording as in my case but for a restriction which would not have given rise to a contravention. Luckily I carry coins in my glove compartment for parking purposes but little did I realise that these might include tossing a coin - heads I can park, tails I cannot.


IMO, your appeal must be led by and be substantially about YOU. what you did, what you inferred, why and why the events give rise to your appeal. As I keep posting, adjudicators know the law, what they cannot know unless you tell them is what you did and why.


Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 00:32
Post #1501602

Update: Thanks to hcanderson for some good words. I've used them (well, some of them - I missed out the bit about flipping a coin as I don't know how that sort of thing will go down with the Tribunal people) to reinforce my Appeal document and uploaded it to the Tribunals website.

Big Day a week on Monday. Wish me luck.

(SeriousQ: what's the general tone of such a hearing? Formal, like a court? Informal, like a meeting with a jovial colleague? Somewhere in between? I'm guessing that I need to dig out some smart troos and a jacket rather than shorts and a ripped T-Shirt? Any other suggestions for a noobie to such an event? Thanks!)

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 07:48
Post #1501615

Glad you omitted the coin, it wasn't meant for inclusion!

But keep in mind because it's a suitable analogy which you could slip in if the opportunity presented itself.


Posted by: Neil B Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 23:20
Post #1502286

zcacogp.
Can you tell me your tribunal case number please?
I have something in the pipeline for you.

Posted by: zcacogp Sun, 28 Jul 2019 - 22:39
Post #1503455

Neil,

JUST seen your post, and the tribunal is tomorrow! I'm curious what you may have in the pipeline ....

Tribunal case number is 2190264386.

If you see this before around 9.30am tomorrow then I look forward to seeing what you have in the pipeline. If not then everyone else can wish me luck (even if it is to say "You haven't a hope but all the best anyway!")

Thanks again.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 00:09
Post #1503461

Well about time; last minute. rolleyes.gif

pm me your email address for something that might help.


Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 10:43
Post #1503518

Update: The appeal was allowed.

More detail: The adjudicator looked at the paperwork that I had with me and referred to details on his screen. He looked up the area on Google Maps and spent much time thinking about the first point (identical signage in different locations having different meanings). He looked at the second (documents not available for inspection at the local authority offices) and third (premium rate fax number) points more briefly. He agreed to allow the appeal on the first point although did comment that he wouldn't have parked there himself under the same circumstances as he had more experience of parking signs and thought it probably prohibited doing what I was given a ticket for.

He commented that the documents not being available at the local authority offices was something he would alert the Town Clerk to but wasn't really a basis for appeal. He had come across the point about premium rate fax lines being used by councils in other hearings and thought it had merit but he probably wouldn't allow the case on this basis.

So .... the right result. Apparently he writes to me and to the local authority and I don't have to pay the fine.

Which means I owe a significant debt of thanks to you chaps for your assistance. Thank you. Is there a protocol for what to do in this instance; can I contribute some bottles to the Pepipoo Christmas Party? Is there a favoured charity that I can make a donation to? Please name the cause and I will be happy to give.

Again - thank you.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 14:06
Post #1503587

Can you give us the case reference please?

Posted by: zcacogp Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 14:09
Post #1503588

Sure, it's 2190264386.

I've checked on the London Tribunals website and it is still listed as at stage "Appeal" and the status as being "Listed for hearing". I presume they update this in due course.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 14:46
Post #1503598

They get published in the register by about 10am tomorrow.

Sorry woke way too late to get my thang to you.
It was just a witness statement from the person who got the PCN at the 'other sign'.
Supporting the winning point anyway.

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