Tree works outside home. Aaaahhhhhhhhhh! Options

[truthwillout]

Dear All

It's been a few years - but I was preoccupied this time - and got caught out by planned tree works outside my home.

I will post the PCN , streetview and suspension notice. Needless to say no work was going on or had been going on for the hour I was parked there.

Do I have any grounds to appeal?

Thanks for any advice.












This post has been edited by truthwillout: Thu, 31 May 2018 - 11:34

[Advertisement]

[Wretched Rectum]

The Deregulation Act 2015 is an interesting Act that says many things (I have used it myself in the county courts), but is has nothing to do with council PCNs. It's regulation 4(3) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 that creates the 10 minute period during which, although a vehicle may be parked in contravention, no PCN may be issued. It is not a grace period. It's not the end of the world, as we can fix this in the formal representations, but I suggest it might be best to post a draft of your representations here before sending them to the council.

The deregulation act amended the TMA 2004, paving the way for 10 mins of grace http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/53

[PASTMYBEST]

The Deregulation Act 2015 is an interesting Act that says many things (I have used it myself in the county courts), but is has nothing to do with council PCNs. It's regulation 4(3) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 that creates the 10 minute period during which, although a vehicle may be parked in contravention, no PCN may be issued. It is not a grace period. It's not the end of the world, as we can fix this in the formal representations, but I suggest it might be best to post a draft of your representations here before sending them to the council.

The deregulation act amended the TMA 2004, paving the way for 10 mins of grace http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/53

that prevents the use of CCTV note al the contraventions where they can still be used under TMA are stopping

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 19:33

[Brian Haytred]

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
(England) General Regulations 2007
Made 10th December 2007
Laid before Parliament 14th December 2007
Coming into force 31st March 2008
These Regulations are made by the Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sections 72, 73(3), 79, 88 and 89 of the Traffic Management Act 20041
, by paragraph
6 of Schedule 9 to that Act, and by the Lord Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred on
him by sections 78, 81, 82 and 89 of that Act



The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Made5th March 2015
Laid before Parliament6th March 2015
Coming into force6th April 2015
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 72, 73(3) and 89 of the Traffic Management Act 2004(1) makes the following Regulations—

This post has been edited by Brian Haytred: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 19:36

[truthwillout]

Ok thx. I'll post my draft when I receive the NTO.

[truthwillout]

NTO received. Mostly cutting and pasting but here is my proposed response:

To Camden Council
PCN CUxxxxxx
I wish to make formal representations regarding this penalty notice. I received the notice at 08.36 and the bay restriction started that day at 08:30 . Therefore I was still parked within the 10 minute grace period and no contravention took place. The following case sets a precedent for my assertion:

2170123723

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

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

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


Decision Date
24 Jun 2017
Adjudicator
Henry Michael Greenslade
Previous decision
Appeal allowed
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons
This is an application for review by the Enforcement Authority on the basis that the original Adjudicator has erred in law.
In effect, Enforcement Authority ground is that the original Adjudicator should not have held that Regulation 4(3) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, as inserted by Regulation 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015, that no penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, does apply.
The Enforcement Authority submit that when a bay is suspended, as was the position in this present case, the prevision cannot apply.
In many cases it will not and certainly will not if the vehicle is parked after the suspension comes into force.
In this case the suspension came into force at 08:00 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 08:02.
The vehicle was in a resident parking bay for which it was assigned a resident parking permit. The owner had paid to park their vehicle in the bay by purchasing the permit. It is irrelevant whether it is a physical or virtual permit. Regulation 4(4)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, as amended therefore applies because a period of parking that had been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place and that period ended at 08:00.
Considering the submission before me carefully I find no ground for review of the original Adjudicator’s decision, which therefor stands.

[Mad Mick V]

OP----emphasise that the case quoted is for a suspended space and the authority concerned is Camden. Put it to the Council that their rejection is in direct conflict with this Decision and put it to them that you require justification for their departure from the adjudicators ruling.

Mick

[hcandersen]

Far too long and most is paddng.

Cut to the chase, IMO:

Grounds - penalty exceeded ....... circumstances of the case. (It is not ‘contravention did not occur’ because it did. It’s just that for 10 minutes a penalty is not payable)

The circumstances were that on *** I was parked in a parking place which was to be suspended at ***. I remained parked after the parking place was suspended. While a contravention occurred, by virtue of regulation **** of the General Regulations a penalty did not become payable until 0841, that is until a full 10 minutes had elapsed.

The authority issued a PCN at 0836 stating that a penalty was payable. It was not and the PCN must be cancelled.

For information, I enclose an adjudication decision (including a reviewing adjudicator’s decision) on this matter which makes the point that, contrary to some authorities’ belief(and misinterpretation of the law), the provisions of the regulations apply in this case.

I prefer to get the uncontested facts upfront because it should stop them waffling on about that you should not have parked there, blah, blah. There seems to be a single key issue here, so let’s get to it.

[cp8759]

I agree with hcandersen, make the reps simple and to the point.

[Mad Mick V]

But also remember that if the case is put to the Council in terms of my last post it sets the OP up for a costs submission as per:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1192993
Mick

[truthwillout]

Hi

I put my appeal in as suggested . The council have now rejected and it is going to PATAS. Can I please get some help with the PATAS application including how to make a costs submission as suggested by Mick

I have copied my appeal letter below followed by images of council rejection.




Grounds: The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

Circumstances: The circumstances were that on 25/05/2018 I was parked in a parking place which was to be suspended at 08.30. I remained parked after the parking place was suspended. While a contravention occurred, by virtue of amendments made in the Deregulation Act 2015 a penalty did not become payable until 0841, that is until a full 10 minutes had elapsed.

The authority issued a PCN at 0836 stating that a penalty was payable. It was not and the PCN must be cancelled.

For information, I enclose an adjudication decision (including a reviewing adjudicator’s decision) on this matter which makes the point that, contrary to some authorities’ belief (and misinterpretation of the law), the provisions of the regulations apply in this case.

I believe the case quoted is for a suspended space and the council concerned is Camden and this puts the rejection to cancel this notice in direct conflict with this Decision and I therefore require justification for the councils departure from the adjudicators ruling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2170123723

Adjudicator
Jennifer Shepherd
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed

....... and so on

[hcandersen]

I prefer to get the uncontested facts upfront because it should stop them waffling on about that you should not have parked there, blah, blah

Hope over expectation, again


OP, why do you contnue to refer to the Deregulation Act (and the authority for that matter). All this did was to amend the regulation making scope of the ‘appropriate national authority’ under the TMA which led subsequently to the amendment of the General Regs.

References should be to the General Regs, as amended - not the Amendment Regs, they’re history, the General Regs have been amended and that’s it.

Register your appeal - you’ve lost 21 of your 28 days already.

Penalty exceeded..circumstances of the case.

Get your case number from ETA.

Write back to the authority ...

Re: PCN *******. ; VRM *********; ETA Case Number *******

Dear Sir,
As you will see, I have registered my appeal in this case. To assist me in formulating its detail I should be grateful if you would confirm the authority’s position, as stated in the NOR(page 2, paras. 1&2 refer), that the administrative power available to the council under the TMO to suspend the use of all or part of a parking place affects its status as being designated and that the council are permitted to consider a part-suspended parking place as being de-designated only for that part and for as long as the suspension applies but not de-designated for the unsuspended part.

Regards,