01a Parked in a Restricted Street during prescribed hours, Lambeth PCN |
01a Parked in a Restricted Street during prescribed hours, Lambeth PCN |
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 13:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 13 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,372 |
HI,
I just successfully had a PCN cancelled by London Borough of Lambeth, having parked in a suspended bay. On a separate matter, I received a separate PCN and my car was moved during the Clapham 10k run. Again, the parking bay was suspended (I believe after I had parked in the bay) on a road which I have a valid permit for. I attach via links at the bottom of this thread pictures of the PCN (which I received on 16/09/2018 and challenged on 16/09/2018), the Notice to owner which I received on 08/11/2018 as well as photographs of the parking suspension sign on the day. My thoughts are to go along the lines of the notice not being one authorised by the dft, that this suspension was for a temporary event and further details should have been provided in plastic wallets (which is wasn't). Is anyone able to help with what I should be saying. I am confident having previously fought the other PCN I had, on the grounds of wrong dft notice, disputing the date that it was implemented (after I parked there). Many thanks for any help received https://ibb.co/inowtV https://ibb.co/cDhd7q https://ibb.co/daEx0A https://ibb.co/m3Bo7q https://ibb.co/fDZx0A https://ibb.co/nmOPfA |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 13:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 14:14
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
post your challenge and the rejection. having looked at the authorised sign I think it the one in place would be found SC. but if parked before the sign was put up that has legs
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 15:25
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 13 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,372 |
Interestingly, I never received a response to my Challenge and I am starting to think that either it was not received through the Lambeth Website (I have , the letter didn't arrive at my flat or they never sent it.
Annoyingly, I am unable to find a copy of my initial challenge to the PCN. I have just gone on to the Lambeth website and looked up my ticket. Do I have grounds that the contravention description was wrong. I wasn't waiting, I was parked and not in my vehicle and it is not a restricted street (only the parking was suspended for a 10K run): Contravention 01a-Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours This contravention occurs when a vehicle waits during the prescribed hours in a restricted street (i.e. on a yellow line) Location Larkhall Lane Seen at Sun, 16 Sep 2018 07:57 Please note: Payment balance on this PCN is currently £130.00. This will rise to £195.00 on Wed, 12 Dec 2018 if it is not paid. Images: https://ibb.co/cJOXHq https://ibb.co/b8Lq3V |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 17:06
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,072 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The back of the PCN please, when the NTO arrived and a photo of the envelope in which it arrived.
And of course the council's photos. Back of PCN To enable us to check the required regulatory wording and to see whether the authority undertook to re-offer the discount where a challenge was issued within the 14-day discount period. Envelope To see, if we can, whether the NTO was posted on 7th. At the moment: The PCN claims that the restricted street was created under a Temporary Order. Without this, they're b******d; The NTO omits the Temp Order info - essential when the contravention occurred within a parking place; The sign makes no reference to an order, but it has to because this has to be displayed. If the authority undertook to re-offer the discount, then prima facie they didn't, all you got was the NTO. They could rebut this with evidence that they sent a response, but that's their burden and at present it's valid grounds i.e. penalty exceeded the amount applicable......' Pl get away from DfT authorisation of the sign, it's a red herring because this is not a suspended parking place contravention. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 20:38 |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 18:17
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 13 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,372 |
The back of the PCN please, when the NTO arrved and a photo of the envelope in which it arrived. And of course the council's photos. Back of PCN To enable us to check the required regulatory wording and to see whether the authority undertook to re-offer the discount where a challenge was issued within the 14-day discount period. Envelope To see, if we can, whether the NTO was posted on 7th. At the moment: The PCN claims that the restricted street was created under a Temporary Order. Wihout this, they're b******d; The NTO omits the Temp Order info - essential when the contravention occurred within a parking place; The sign makes no reference to an order, but it has to because this has to be displayed. If the authority undertook to re-offer the discount, then prima facie they didn't, all you got was the NTO. They could rebut this with evidence that they sent a response, but that's their burden and at present it's valid grounds i.e. penalty exceeded the amount applicable......' Pl get away from DfT authorisation of the sign, it's a red herring because this is not a suspended parking place contravention. Thank you very much for your help, it's greatly appreciated! Back of PCN and envelope that it arrived in - there is no stamp date: https://ibb.co/mKHhiV https://ibb.co/g8Pv3V https://ibb.co/bEZHHq Photos taken by the enforcement officer: https://ibb.co/nPOBcq https://ibb.co/i7fDqA https://ibb.co/cVPHHq https://ibb.co/nQTSHq https://ibb.co/b6rgcq https://ibb.co/bxfk3V I can't recall the exact date that the NTO arrived but it was around the 8th/9th November. Interesting - that is correct I never received a letter but equally they may very well have sent one and it didn't arrive - I've never had an instance where post hasn't arrived. Where does it mention on the PCN that a temporary order was created? Subject to your response, I would be planning on effectively adding the points that you have raised in to my responding argument. Many thanks for your time. |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 18:26
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Where does it mention on the PCN that a temporary order was created? The suffix "a" denotes the PCN refers to a temp. order. It doesn't evidence a temp. order was created. You should check that out. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 18:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
It looks like the location is CPZ zone S a Mon to Fri restriction, so they would need a TTRO for the SYL
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4688743,-...6384!8i8192 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4724174,-...6384!8i8192 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 20:45
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,072 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The PCN states clearly:
'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours(temporary traffic order)!' Ain't no order in sight. If it isn't a TTO, then: The contravention's wrong; As the whole bay was suspended then the traffic sign HAD to be covered, it wasn't. If there is an order: Were all the requirements of the regs followed (rhetorical, of course they b****y weren't) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/uksi/1992/1215/made |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 20:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The PCN states clearly: 'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours(temporary traffic order)!' Ain't no order in sight. If it isn't a TTO, then: The contravention's wrong; As the whole bay was suspended then the traffic sign HAD to be covered, it wasn't. If there is an order: Were all the requirements of the regs followed (rhetorical, of course they b****y weren't) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/uksi/1992/1215/made I take it that you refer to 7© of part III of the schedule? no TTRO listed here https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transpor...c-order-notices -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 09:29
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,072 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
All relevant parts i.e. notice of making, notice after making, display and placing of traffic signs.
|
|
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 11:33
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
+1 to what hca said
"Ain't no order in sight" and more importantly not in the CEO's photos. The sign cannot be effective without a TTRO being attached to a post/lamppost nearby. No doubt the Council can produce a TTRO at adjudication but there is no evidence that one was posted where the OP could read it. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:02
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 13 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,372 |
Thank you all for your help on this topic, it's very much appreciated and I have taken this onboard.
I am proposing to make the following representations and was wondering if I am missing anything/ should remove anything: Dear Sir/ Madame, I write in relation to the Notice to Owner and would like to make a number of representations in respects of penalty charge XXXXX: 1. The PCN was contested on 16/09/2018 (within 14 days from the date of issue) – The challenge was neither accepted or rejected I contested the PCN within 14 days from the date of issue. I received no correspondence between that date and when a Notice to Owner was received on 08/11/2018. Therefore, procedure hasn’t been followed. 2. No Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was Present and therefore the parking suspension sign was not valid The PCN clearly states the details of the contravention as follows: 01a Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (temporary traffic order) The Notice to Owner received on 08/11/2018 states the contravention as ‘01a’, denoting a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. However it omits details of the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order, which is essential when a contravention is said to have occurred in a parking place. There was no Temporary Traffic Regulation Order present or indeed visible at the time that the contravention was said to have occurred, as evidenced by the photographs taken and provided on www.lambeth.go.uk/mypcn, as well as photographs taken by myself on the day that the contravention was supposed to have occurred. Part III (7) of The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 states the following, which was clearly not undertaken: 7. The authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a) before the instrument comes into force, the placing on or near each road to which the instrument relates of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purposes of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the instrument is made available to persons using the road; I am therefore led to believe that the requirements of the regulations were not met and therefore the parking suspension sign was not valid. There was no Temporary Traffic Regulation Order attached to the permit parking post for the bay in question or indeed anywhere in sight. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was posted where I could read it. 3. If there wasn’t a temporary traffic order in place, the contravention is incorrect I am satisfied that a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was either not present at the time that the contravention was said to occur or there wasn’t one in place. If there wasn’t one in place, the contravention issued (01a) is incorrect and therefore not valid. Furthermore, as the whole bay was suspended, the traffic sign had to be covered and this was not the case. 4. Insufficient Warning Received I maintain that my car was parked in the bay before the sign went up. This is the second time in recent months that I’ve had an issue whereby I have parked and the bay has then been suspended after I have parked there. Whilst I appreciate that it is my responsibility to check the car often to ensure that I am complying with any suspension signs brought in, I simply do not feel that there was sufficient time given to warn me that the bay was to be suspended. I would request photographic evidence of my car NOT parked in the location at the time that the signs went up. |
|
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 20:38
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 13 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,372 |
The PCN states clearly: 'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours(temporary traffic order)!' Ain't no order in sight. If it isn't a TTO, then: The contravention's wrong; As the whole bay was suspended then the traffic sign HAD to be covered, it wasn't. If there is an order: Were all the requirements of the regs followed (rhetorical, of course they b****y weren't) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/uksi/1992/1215/made Thank you all for your help on this topic, it's very much appreciated and I have taken this onboard. I am proposing to make the following representations and was wondering if I am missing anything/ should remove anything: Dear Sir/ Madame, I write in relation to the Notice to Owner and would like to make a number of representations in respects of penalty charge XXXXX: 1. The PCN was contested on 16/09/2018 (within 14 days from the date of issue) – The challenge was neither accepted or rejected I contested the PCN within 14 days from the date of issue. I received no correspondence between that date and when a Notice to Owner was received on 08/11/2018. Therefore, procedure hasn’t been followed. 2. No Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was Present and therefore the parking suspension sign was not valid The PCN clearly states the details of the contravention as follows: 01a Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (temporary traffic order) The Notice to Owner received on 08/11/2018 states the contravention as ‘01a’, denoting a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. However it omits details of the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order, which is essential when a contravention is said to have occurred in a parking place. There was no Temporary Traffic Regulation Order present or indeed visible at the time that the contravention was said to have occurred, as evidenced by the photographs taken and provided on www.lambeth.go.uk/mypcn, as well as photographs taken by myself on the day that the contravention was supposed to have occurred. Part III (7) of The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 states the following, which was clearly not undertaken: 7. The authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a) before the instrument comes into force, the placing on or near each road to which the instrument relates of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purposes of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the instrument is made available to persons using the road; I am therefore led to believe that the requirements of the regulations were not met and therefore the parking suspension sign was not valid. There was no Temporary Traffic Regulation Order attached to the permit parking post for the bay in question or indeed anywhere in sight. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was posted where I could read it. 3. If there wasn’t a temporary traffic order in place, the contravention is incorrect I am satisfied that a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was either not present at the time that the contravention was said to occur or there wasn’t one in place. If there wasn’t one in place, the contravention issued (01a) is incorrect and therefore not valid. Furthermore, as the whole bay was suspended, the traffic sign had to be covered and this was not the case. 4. Insufficient Warning Received I maintain that my car was parked in the bay before the sign went up. This is the second time in recent months that I’ve had an issue whereby I have parked and the bay has then been suspended after I have parked there. Whilst I appreciate that it is my responsibility to check the car often to ensure that I am complying with any suspension signs brought in, I simply do not feel that there was sufficient time given to warn me that the bay was to be suspended. I would request photographic evidence of my car NOT parked in the location at the time that the signs went up |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:31 |