PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN and Towed in Haringey, Towed after parking on road with temporary restrictions
charmander21
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 17:40
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Hi all,

I am looking for some advice after my car was towed from Markfield road in Haringey, London. When I parked, I did not see the notices about temporary restrictions on the road. I believe that normally, this road is not within a controlled zone. I was not parked in a bay, and not parked on yellow lines. Within about an hour of me parking, the car was towed. I have attached all the documents handed to me at the pound. It is not reasonable to suggest that my car was blocking the road. Despite the restrictions the road is regularly used by people loading/unloading.

It's worth mentioning that when I went to take photos of the street, the notice nearest where I had been parked did not have the stapled on details (see image). This was the case with a few of the other temporary notices down the street as well. I have included a photo of one of the notices that did have the terms stapled to it.

I have notices that they have provided me with their (haringey copy) in pink - and not the white copy as suggested at the bottom of the pink page. I doubt this makes any difference?

Additional photos of the street are here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_08iGiRk...MWlIdWVrRmZfN28

I'd really appreciate any advice,

thanks.










This post has been edited by charmander21: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 18:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 17:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 18:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The whole of that road is closed --did you pass road closure signs?

This is a Sect 14 restriction so if they posted the Notice (TRO) they can get away with that blank suspension sign.

Might not be a total closure order if they allow access and they can amend timings----Yes! the TRO is as clear as mud.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 19:17
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Hi Mick,

thanks for your reply - the road is definitely not closed to traffic if that's what you mean, there's constant access to the public and no road closure signs (I will double check). The sign mentions operational times, but none are stated on the sign. It says "see board for operational times"

Below, the sign states "the provisions of the order shall apply only at such times and as directed by traffic signs prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002"

Should times for the restriction be clearly stated then?

This post has been edited by charmander21: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 19:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 20:23
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP-- This is where it gets messy because, as you say, by the time you got back to take photos the timings on the yellow sign may have been removed. I would see whether the Council has uploaded the CEO's photos to its web page under disputing or paying a PCN.

If you parked in the street without a "board" that's a viable ground, if you parked on the street and the "board" had no timings that's a better ground. I still maintain that, if this was a road closure, there must be signage at the entrance indicating the closure and its timings.

Let others comment but I would put the Council to task as regards inadequate signage.

The other issue appears to be that the vehicle was towed within 10 minutes of the PCN being served--I doubt that's in the rulebook.

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:14
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Ok thanks,

So I checked the evidence provided by the CEO, and the photo provided is of the same TMO public notice above, which does not state times, only to see "board" for operational times. No photo of the "board" has been uploaded by the CEO, and I have no idea where this would be, though I will try and check next time I am there.

Additionally, I checked Haringey's website and there are no TMO's listed for this location. Also I noticed that on all other TMO's I saw, the time of the restrictions is clearly stated.

Yes, also I was towed within 10 mins of PCN being served, though I can't find any information online to say whether this is allowable or not.

EDIT
Eventually I did find this TMO on the council website: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_08iGiRk...eDNRelJNN0hVSms

On the website, unlike on the street, it does state times.

I also noticed this wording in the TMO:

"Nothing in this Order shall apply to:
. . .

(d) any vehicle requiring ingress to, and egress from, a property in a prohibited length of road, if the
works allow"

Now I was parked here to unload equipment at the address I am parked right outside. I can prove this. I originally parked inside the premises off road but then moved so as not to block in other people who were pared there. Perhaps I could argue this?

This post has been edited by charmander21: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:24
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
Yes, also I was towed within 10 mins of PCN being served, though I can't find any information online to say whether this is allowable or not.


You need to search for something like

"London Borough of Haringey" Parking Enforcement Policy/Guidance Removals or somesuch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:51
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Thanks John, I did find their guidance document and it does state:

"any vehicle parked in contravention may be subject to immediate authorisation for removal to the vehicle pound
following the issue of a PCN."

So looks like 10 mins is ample.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 08:16
Post #8





Guests






The temporary order does not support the contravention on the PCN. The order prohibits entering Markfield Road. It does not prohibit parking and loading. You contravened a moving road traffic contravention (code 51 Failing to comply with a no entry restriction) but had they signed this prohibition you would not have contravened.

So your primary challenge is that the contravention did not occur.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 08:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:59
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
Thanks John, I did find their guidance document and it does state:


There should be something there about order of priorities for removal and also about re-location.

As with most representations following a removal, you will be make reps (and if these are unsuccessful, appealing to the adjudicator) against two things:-

1) The PCN itself
... if this succeeds, then the removal also fails, leading to refund of all monies paid on release.

2) The removal... even if the PCN stands, the removal may be illegal or disproportionate. Success here leads to refund of removal and storage monies paid on release.

So you need to start drafting your reps.
Against the PCN Bogsy has given you a solid reason why the contravention did not occur. This should be enough, but Councils are too fond of keeping the penalty money, so also make reps

Against the removal some of the grounds you need to explore are

a) did they follow Council's own and statutory guidance?
b) why they did not relocate
c) any errors in paperwork
d) was this a first offence?

The experts here will doubtless find others.
------------------
The draft reps should be posted here for comment before sending.
Thewy will sserve as a basis for an appeal to the tribunal if/when the Council reject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 10:19
Post #10





Guests






If no parking contravention occurred the removal was unlawful (because the CEO had no legitimate basis for directing removal) and all charges should be refunded. No doubt the council will deny any error but they can't impose a parking penalty when the penalty (if any) should be for a moving traffic (no entry) contravention. I expect the council will think the OP did something wrong and so must be punished regardless of any cock up and technicalities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 12:09
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Thank you all for you replies. I will begin to draft a reply later today.

I just want to clarify the below:


QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 11:19) *
If no parking contravention occurred the removal was unlawful"


With regards to this, although the TMO does not specifically list Markfield road as having suspended parking, at the bottom of the "general effect of order" column it does list "no stopping/waiting/loading/unloading" and the PCN contravention (code 02) lists "parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading /unloading restrictions are in force"

are you saying you could lawfully park even though "no stopping/waiting/loading/unloading" restrictions are in force?

thanks again.

This post has been edited by charmander21: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 12:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 07:46
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,050
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



The order gave Haringey the right to remove the vehicle. How did they get the right to issue a PCN?


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at the tribunal & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 16:33
Post #13





Guests






QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 08:46) *
The order gave Haringey the right to remove the vehicle. How did they get the right to issue a PCN?


The CEO had no legal basis to instruct removal since he had no legal basis to serve a parking PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 17:24
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,050
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



Sorry, I wasn't being clear with my question.

Did the publication of the traffic order automatically create the right to issue a PCN?


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at the tribunal & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 18:56
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



We have the old dichotomy between the Notice (post 1) and the Order:-

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_08iGiRkn...lJNN0hVSms/view

The posted Notice does not even refer to the temporary order whilst the order states the the restrictions end in November even though they are supposed to apply until February 2018.

I just wonder if the phrase "all other enabling powers" in the order answers Mr M's point.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 09:29
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Ok so here is a first draft of my letter. I'm still unsure about the point I raised above:


Although the TMO does not specifically list Markfield road as having suspended parking, at the bottom of the "general effect of order" column it does list "no stopping/waiting/loading/unloading" and the PCN contravention (code 02) lists "parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading /unloading restrictions are in force"

are you saying you could lawfully park even though "no stopping/waiting/loading/unloading" restrictions are in force? Doesn't this automatically mean parking is suspended as well?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal against the PCN and subsequent removal of my vehicle from Markfield Road, on the 6th of October.

I appeal against the appeal on the following grounds:
1. The CEO had no legal basis to serve a parking PCN since the TMO does not state suspension of parking on Markfield Road.
2. The on street signage pertaining to the TMO and restrictions therin is unclear: while the TMO states to refer to a board for operational times, no signs on the entrance to Markfield road from Constable Crescent and Stamford Road (Which is the direction from which the vehicle entered the road) show operational times. Additionally the photos supplied as evidence by the CEO fail to show any operational times.
3. The removal of the vehicle within nine minutes of the PCN being issued show this removal was treated as a priority. However, the council's own Code of Practice for Civil Parking
and Traffic Enforcement states that:

"the council's main removal priorities are vehicles which are considered 'persistent evaders' and ones parked in restricted places and causing obstruction"

Since this was the drivers first 'offence' in the borough, and the CEO's evidence photos show the vehicle was not causing an obstruction, (the vehicle was not moved to allow for works, or access, the section on which is was parked is untouched as of today) the priority removal of the vehicle (if at all legal) runs counter to the council's own guidelines.

thank you.

This post has been edited by charmander21: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 09:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 09:51
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,548
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Not my way.

Arguments don't start with traffic orders, they start with road markings and signs.

We've yet to have absolute confirmation from the OP, but subject to this the following apply:

There were no road markings conveying the restriction allegedly contravened. Therefore unless an exemption applies the contravention did not occur.

What exemptions? In the circumstances of this case those afforded by s14 AND regs made thereunder.

Do these come with conditions? Yes.

Which are? The clear display of prescribed traffic signs and the placing of s14 notices at the entrance to the road.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/contents/made

Were there prescribed traffic signs? We've not seen any.

Your witness Mr Authority.

Or have I missed something?

NB. these are not s14 notices (these apply when time is short and an order cannot be made), these are notices giving information regarding an order made under s14, and these are not the same.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 11:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 13:04
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 10:51) *
Arguments don't start with traffic orders, they start with road markings and signs.



Thanks - Markfield road normally has no restrictions, it is not in a CPZ. There were single or double yellow lines where the car was parked, and no permanent signs. On the street entrance at broad street (NOT the entrance I used) there are signs saying road closure, and the times ARE stated. See pic 1 and 2 These signs are about 160 metres away from where I was parked. There is also a sign at this entrance stating restrictions to goods vehicles. and other temporary signs. Here are photos showing the entrance to constable crescent from Stamford road:


The route into markfield road that I took was from stamford road > constable crescent.

There are no signs at the entrance to markfield road from constable crescent. At the entrance to constable crescent from stamford road (see Pic 3 and 4) there are temporary signs, but no times stated.

I don't see section 14 notices anywhere.

Also, shouldn't road closed signs be over the mouth/middle of the road rather than placed at the side?

thanks.


PIC 1:

PIC 2

PIC 3


PIC 4

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 19:44
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497



Bump - just wondering if anyone has any last comments on the above before I send in my appeal letter to the council?

Thanks.

This post has been edited by charmander21: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 12:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charmander21
post Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 12:53
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,497




Here is my final draft letter in case anyone wants to point anything out. It's taken me a little longer than hoped to get around to this but need to get it sent off pretty soon now.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal against the PCN and subsequent removal of my vehicle from Markfield Road, on the 6th of October.

Firstly I would like to clarify that I entered Markfield road from Constable Cresent and Stamford road, not from the Broad street entrance.

The space in which I was parked had no road markings or permanent signs conveying the restriction allegedly contravened.
The PCN I received refers to contravention of an exemption afforded by s14 and regulations made thereunder.

However, signage relating to this temporary order is wholly inadequate and does not meet the regulations relating to the clear display of prescribed traffic signs.

Firstly and most significantly,
According to The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992

"4. A copy of the notice shall be displayed in a prominent position at each end of the length of the road to which the notice relates and at the points at which it will be necessary for vehicles or pedestrians to diverge from the road, stating the effect of the notice and, where applicable, the alternative route or routes available for traffic."

However, the entrance to Markfield road from Constable crescent bears no signage. The restriction, and resulting PCN are therefore unlawful.


Secondly, the restriction fails to cover parking restrictions on Markfield Road as the TMO does not specifically state suspension of parking on Markfield Road. As a result, the CEO had no legal basis to serve a parking PCN.

Thirdly, the on street signage pertaining to the TMO and restrictions therin is inadequate: while the TMO states to refer to a board for operational times, no signs on the entrance to Markfield road from Constable Crescent and Stamford Road (Which is the direction from which the vehicle entered the road) show operational times. Additionally the photos supplied as evidence by the CEO fail to show any operational times.

Finally, the removal of the vehicle within nine minutes of the PCN being issued show this removal was treated as a priority. However, the council's own Code of Practice for Civil Parking
and Traffic Enforcement states that:

"the council's main removal priorities are vehicles which are considered 'persistent evaders' and ones parked in restricted places and causing obstruction"

Since this was the drivers first offence in the borough, and the CEO's evidence photos clearly show the vehicle was not causing an obstruction, (the vehicle was not moved to allow for works, or access, the section on which is was parked is untouched as of today) the disproportionate priority removal of the vehicle (if at all legal) runs counter to the council's own guidelines.

I demand evidence that the suspension has been correctly authorised by a Notice under section 14(2) of the RTRA 1984, and that it contains all the details as required by regulation 10(2) of the Temporary Restrictions Procedure Regulations 1992. Furthermore, I ask for evidence that regulation 10(3) has been fully complied with regarding notifying statutory bodies such as the Chief of Police. I require additional evidence that Notices were erected in accordance with the regulations Schedule part 2 and that part 3 of the Schedule was also complied with in regard to the placing and removal of traffic signs.

These details will be necessary should I need to prepare my defence at adjudication. If you fail to provide these I will be asking the adjudicator to ask you why you failed, and will seek the further ground of procedural impropriety to be considered as reason for cancellation.


thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 23rd June 2018 - 06:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.