PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hackney, Shared parking Space PCN then Towing
Motofun99
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 15:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



Hi All,

I hope you will be able to give me some advise.

A couple months ago I was renting out car in London, It was difficult to find parking space and I was forced to use "Shared Parking Space" on Laburnum Street in London.

Maximum stay was 4 hours on that parking - from this what I saw from the sign on the street.

I purchase the ticket from "Ringo App" but unfortunately I didn't notice(I was in the rush) that I pay for the wrong car(I was renting this car previously)

I left the car not knowing that I didn't pay for the correct license plate. I come back after the 90 minutes and I see the PCN from Hackney Council for parking without the ticket.

This was really frustrating as my intentions were good. Because I have been fined I was thinking - Now I can live my car anyway, since I am going to pay 65£.

I am coming back again after 4 hours and my car is gone... My car been towed away.

There was no obvious information on the PCN or signs around if I will not move my car - car will be towed away.

Can you please advise on which grounds I can appeal as tomorrow I am going to independent adjudicator.

- So far I my grounds of appeal are that I made genuine mistake(paying for wrong license plate) and there was no obvious information that my car will be towed away.

Sorry for my language I hope I am making some sense.

Thank you in advance for advise.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 15:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 15:13
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Has the rental company passed the PCN and tow to you in your name or has it been paid by them and closed?

If it's a live case, you may have a case for disproportionate towing based on Hackney's policy. In fact I've just driven along Laburnum Street:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5353624,-0....3312!8i6656

The key is whether nearly all the spaces were taken when you were there. Post the PCN.

Policy:

Parked in a bay with nothing valid displayed for that place**

Four hours after a PCN is issued**

** Where we think there is a high demand for parking and the vehicle is taking up space reserved for permit holders, vehicles may be removed from the legal minimum of 30 minutes after the PCN is issued or 15 if the vehicle is kept by a persistent evader.

https://www.hackney.gov.uk/vehicle-removal

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 15:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motofun99
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 18:15
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



Thank you for coming back to me.

The car hire company wasn't involved, I paid myself for everything, as I have to drive back to the airport.

I understand what are you saying, but how can I prove to the adjudicator that there was some parking space available?

Thank you for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 19:07
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,924
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (Motofun99 @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 19:15) *
Thank you for coming back to me.

The car hire company wasn't involved, I paid myself for everything, as I have to drive back to the airport.

I understand what are you saying, but how can I prove to the adjudicator that there was some parking space available?

Thank you for your help.

Difficult, but nothing to stop you saying there were spaces even after you had parked-up. However, as you paid for a different car, as far as the council is concerned at the time the car was seen, no payment had been made to park. In circumstances like this, the tow could be considered justifiable, at least that is what the council will argue at London Tribunals.

I do hope it goes your way tomorrow, but I suspect it won't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 19:32
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



A number of councils would allow an appeal for a wrong car reg on Ringgo for a first contribution so this is an unfortunate one. I don't think Hackney though would have done. The disproportionate tow is the key - what time and day was this? It's not a road that's especially vital but is used as a cut through (by me...).

Did you get your car out of the pound with the rental agreement? I'm surprised all the correspondence then came to you.

What stage is this at - what documents do you have? We can't advise without seeing everything.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 19:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motofun99
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 23:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



Hi Thank you all for the advise. I was fined on the 17th of Jan at 10.49 i received the PCN and the car was towed away at 15:01.

I got the car out with my rental agreement and yes they have send all the correspondence to me.

I have attached all the documents they send to me.

My hearing is today at 10am. A quick response would be appreciated.
Thank you again for all your help.

This post has been edited by Motofun99: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 15:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 08:21
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well the PCN was correctly issued but they have provided no evidence that the car was then a high priority to be towed so I would stress this strongly and use the Hackney policy stated earlier. Show the adjudicator a Google Street View of the Laburnam Road if you can and say this isn't a main road, and as far as you remember there was lots of parking there.

As far as the PCN is concerned you can also say that many councils exercise discretion for an honest first time mistake with the car reg on pay by phone (eg Merton, Westminster etc) and this may well also be a Hackney policy.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 08:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motofun99
post Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 10:17
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



Even though the adjudicator belived that they shouldn't have towed the car away. He couldn't help becuse the law wasn't on our side.
Waste of money and time, but ad list we have nice weather in London.

Thank you All and have good day!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 10:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the case number and we'll have a look at it.

It can be reviewed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 20:54
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Here's the decision in this case - I think the OP was not well served by the system although was asking for trouble by knowingly leaving it in contravention. I thought the tribunal could rule on proportionality of a tow.


Case reference 218010655A

This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice for parking in a resident/shared use bay without clearly displaying a valid ticket.

In short, on 17 January 2018, the Appellant and his partner parked in Laburnum Street in a shared use bay. The Appellant paid on a mobile phone parking 'app'. Unfortunately, the Appellant selected the incorrect vehicle on the app and paid for parking for that vehicle rather than the rental car they were driving.

The Appellant, who made measured and sensible submissions, accepts that this error would lead him to be liable to pay a PCN. However, his real concern is what followed thereafter.

The PCN was issued at 1049, the vehicle was removed by the Respondent at 1501. Anecdotally, and whilst recognising that I sit in this jurisdiction part time, I was somewhat surprised that the vehicle was removed in these circumstances. Indeed, it is this removal that the Appellant in truth wishes to challenge.

I have carefully considered my vires and the statutory framework. Whilst I am surprised (and concerned as to the proportionality) of removing a vehicle that did not appear to be causing any material obstruction, I do not have any statutory authority to intervene if the Respondent has acted intra vires.

I have considered the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986. I am bound to conclude that the Respondent had the lawful authority to remove the vehicle. In reality, again the Appellant does not demur from that position. Instead what he argues is that the Respondent has not properly applied their own policy, or have exercised their discretion unfairly.

I have sympathy with the submission, especially as to the proportionality of the removal. However, I do not have the authority to intercede.

No matter how mitigating the circumstances, in parking cases, this Tribunal is not permitted to compel the Enforcement Authority to cancel a PCN which has been properly issued, that is clear from the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the obiter judgment in R. (on the application of Humphreys) v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service [2017] EWCA Civ 24. The same must be true of the decision to remove a vehicle.

This Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited by statute. If the exercise of discretion is averred to be unreasonable or unlawful then that is in reality a matter for the Administrative Division of the High Court.

It follows that I must dismiss the appeal, but have no doubt that the Respondent will carefully consider the observations I have made supra.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 20:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,075
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



IMO this could be wrong in law which possibly arises from the adj being part-time.

The issue of the POWER of the officer of the enforcement authority to exercise the POWER of the council (not the EA, the council) is central to removal. How many times do they need to be told that the precedent condition of being served with a PCN does NOT of itself give rise to a legitimate power to remove the vehicle. Parliament has prescribed penalties; towing can only be carried out when particular aggravating conditions apply.

But if the OP did not obtain a statement from the authority as to why they removed or this was not in their case summary, then it remains an assertion on their part.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 22:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:13
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



It does seem perverse and open to review

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...amvMDouthit.doc


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:35
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,924
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Adjudicators have ruled on proportionality many times and are entitled to do so under the statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case"

There is absolutely nothing in the statute that defines what "circumstances of the case" are, or even could be. Not only does the statute have nothing to say on the circumstances surrounding a case, there is nothing in any guidance either. So for an adjudicator to say he is constrained by the statute, whilst true, shows that he is either (1), being disingenuous, or (2) is woefully ignorant of his adjudication powers, because there is a statutory ground available that would cover proportionality. A review is essential on grounds of law, surely ?

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 22:22
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,075
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



This might be a useful read:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/713.html

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 22:33
Post #15


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The procedural issue which concerns me is that the adjudicator in the last sentence surely asks that the Council to revisit its discretion. The Direction should therefore be "Appeal refused with recommendation".

However the Direction is "Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days" which is nonsensical since payment has been made and there is no mention of the recommendation.

If the OP is to request a Review these points should be used too.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,075
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, you must post the authority's evidence.

We must get to grips with the evidence in front of the adj otherwise their comments lack proper context.

We need at least the case summary, extract from the council's policy on removal and full NOR.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 07:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 13:05
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:54) *
This Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited by statute. If the exercise of discretion is averred to be unreasonable or unlawful then that is in reality a matter for the Administrative Division of the High Court.

This is absurd and warrants a review on its own. If the tribunal cannot rule on an unlawful exercise of discretion, it's a pretty pointless tribunal. Nor is it sustainable that the only recourse in the circumstances is a judicial review. As the adjudicator has misdirected himself, a carefully worded request for review is virtually bound to succeed.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motofun99
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:31
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



Thank you again for all the comments and help.

It does look like what's happens is wrong but I am unsure how to peruse this further. The adjudicator said I need to go to court for this and I have no finances to do so and I feel I just have to let it go for my sanity.

Also I don't really understand the ins and outs of the law and not that knowledgable.

At this stage if someone could advise what next steps I could undertake would be great.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Motofun99
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:44
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,605



I will send pictures of authority evidence this evening.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:50
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Welcome back. You can request a review of the decision at no cost. But it needs to be carefully written. Others will be along.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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, 30th March 2024 - 06:32
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here