01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours : Rear wheel and boot on DYL, Ticketed for having the rear wheel and boot beyond the parking bay Options

[sir.liegelord]

Good morning

Re: CODE 01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours

I was ticketed for having the rear wheel and boot beyond the parking bay.

1) Rear wheels were 8-10 inches overhanging beyond the T-point of the DLY end-point
2) It was a Saturday
3) CEO observed the vehicle for 1 minute between 10:17 to 10:18 printed on PCN
4) Vehicle was parked in this position for 3 -4 minutes
5) 10 pictures taken
10:17:43 Picture of vehicle from rear wheel on DYL
10:17:50 Picture of windshield no PCN
10:18:58 Picture of vehicle from side
10:19:02 Picture of PCN on windshield
10:19:10 Picture of registration number
10:19:15 Picture of drivers side window
10:19:19 Picture of contravention
10:19:29 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand
10:19:39 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand
10:19:48 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand

Images:


Any advice would be appreciated please.

Best regards

[Advertisement]

[John U.K.]

Opens here too (Win 7 + Firefox)

[PASTMYBEST]

I can see nothing about waiting restrictions in that TMO ,only chargeable parking. That it is a CPZ does not diminish the need for a TMO for the particular waiting restriction

Herron Sunderland COA para 19(3) http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...27104711211.pdf

[sir.liegelord]

Greetings!

Received a rejection letter from Waltham Forest Parking Services.

Rejection Letter

Any suggestions would be appreciate please.

Regards

[PASTMYBEST]

Greetings!

Received a rejection letter from Waltham Forest Parking Services.

Rejection Letter

Any suggestions would be appreciate please.

Regards

My suggestion wait for the NTO, make reps have them rejected then straight to London tribunals where there failure to consider will give you a good chance.

[sir.liegelord]

My suggestion wait for the NTO, make reps have them rejected then straight to London tribunals where there failure to consider will give you a good chance.

Thank you PASTMYBEST, would my representation be based on the original appeal? Please let me know if there is already a template available which i can adapt.

Regards

[sir.liegelord]

Today is the last day to make payment at the discounted rate, what are the chances that this appeal will be allowed at the London Tribunals?

Any assurance will be highly appreciated.

[PASTMYBEST]

Today is the last day to make payment at the discounted rate, what are the chances that this appeal will be allowed at the London Tribunals?

Any assurance will be highly appreciated.

we cannot give an assurance, your challenge and future reps are mainly technical the have merit and can win, indeed IMO they should win but never guaranteed So your choice.

Only thing is if you take it to appeal it will be about 5 months before you had to pay if you lost. Saving the cost of a coffee a week will just about cover the difference, so not the worst bet

[sir.liegelord]

Roger that!

I did not pay. Will wait for the NTO.

[ford poplar]

Tribunals (& Council's) dislike templates, preferring your own words. They accept most motorists will have sought some advice, but you cannot appeal to Tribunal until Council have rejected your Formal Reps to NTO, for which Council have provided you with key Grounds. I would suggest is 'Contravention did not occur', which they will prob reject, so you can then expand on that at Tribunal Appeal (face2face or telephone Hearing).

This post has been edited by ford poplar: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 02:01

[sir.liegelord]

NTO arrived.

I will claim 'Contravention did not occur'.

Should I regurgitate the informal appeal as per below or ammend it please?

Dear Sir

RE: PCN_Number

As a registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX, I received a parking ticket on XXXX but I believe the ticket was wrongly issued and I would like to submit an appeal as the alleged contravention did not occur. The PCN referenced above was attached to my vehicle. With alleged offence: "01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours "

The driver accepts that the vehicle was parked on the road with what appear to be valid waiting restriction. road marking However, the appeal is on the following basis:

1. The incursion was trivial and did not go into the prohibited area by the dropped footway;
2. The driver believes that the Double Yellow Lines have been placed only to draw attention to the dropped footway, which is a statutory prohibition and does not require any road markings. Consequently, in the absence of any traffic order made by the council under the Road Traffic Regulation Act (which is a mandatory requirement) there is no waiting restriction at the location and therefore the cited contravention could not have occurred.

In the event that the Waltham Forest rejects the appeal, it must provide a copy of the restriction section from the relevant traffic order. Given that the I have with good reason made representations on these grounds, it would be unacceptable for an officer to merely conclude that the presence of DYL gives rise to a restriction without having first checked this point.

Regards

Registered Keeper Name

[cp8759]

If your appeal is based on the absence of a TRO, there's not much to add to be honest.

[sir.liegelord]

If your appeal is based on the absence of a TRO, there's not much to add to be honest.

Thank you, cp8759 will submit it then.

Regards

[sir.liegelord]

cp8759, Notice of Rejection of Rep arrived by post.

https://imgur.com/a/JfHnBIu

A traffic management order is also attached with an "*" against DA44 and map with another "*" on the following map. Indicating the "No Waiting at Any Time" restriction.

What should be my appeal to London Tribunals?

Thank you.

[peterguk]

A traffic management order is also attached

Let's see it.

[cp8759]

Show us the TRO in full.

[sir.liegelord]

Show us the TRO in full.

Hi cp8759

Only four pages included in the response.

https://imgur.com/VitksL1
https://imgur.com/8QUXFfP
https://imgur.com/5cgBPgS
https://imgur.com/zxJugu3

Regards

[cp8759]

Well without the full TRO you have no way of knowing if there is a waiting restriction in force at the location where you parked. However experience shows the chances of such a glaring error in a TRO is not that high. As I see it your options are:

1) Pay at the discounted rate, or
2) Forgo the discount and appeal on the basis that
a) The TRO that you have been sent doesn't demonstrate that a waiting restriction was in force at the location in question, and
b) Even if the full TRO does prohibit waiting at the location where you parked, by not providing you with the full TRO, the council has impaired your ability to decide whether to pay the discounted rate or appeal, thus breaching the common law principle of equality of arms.

Of course, you could also just ask the council for the full TRO, if you email or call I can't see any reason why they wouldn't provide it.

[sir.liegelord]

Of course, you could also just ask the council for the full TRO, if you email or call I can't see any reason why they wouldn't provide it.

Thank you cp8759, i've written to Waltham Forest to supply the full Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) applicable for Windsor Rd, E10 5LP

Best regards

[sir.liegelord]

Hi cp8759,

I haven't received a response to my query from Waltham Forest Council, written to them via email twice.

I've submitted the appeal to London Tribunal with more information to follow. Can my appeal be on the following basis?

1. The incursion was trivial
2. There is no Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

I will expand the above two points further.

Best regards

[cp8759]

You can appeal on that basis, but to be honest if they pull a TRO out of the bag you will almost certainly lose.