Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ PCN Code 99 Nightingale Lane

Posted by: BernieF Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post #1450613

Hi all,
I received the following Notice to Owner for my car being parked in a lay-by on Nightingale Lane.
The lay-by is clearly marked as a residents' parking bay - see the GSV pics below.
We have a valid residents' permit.
There are zigzags but on the edge of the lay-by closest to the carriageway - NB they are in the lay-by not on the carriageway.
The car is parked between the edge of the pavement and the zigzags.
Is it a parking bay or do the zigzags apply?

Finally, the PCN says the contravention happened in a different postcode to where the photo was taken. Is this important? The postcodes are in fact adjacent

Grateful for any advice and best route for appeal -

Page 1 of PCN


Page 2 of PCN


GSV of same parking space


GSV Close up of parking sign (pole can be seen in photos on PCN).

Posted by: stamfordman Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:02
Post #1450614

Show us where on google street view.

reinstate all dates, times and location on NTO.

What happened to the PCN. Did you challenge - if so post it and rejection.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:34
Post #1450630

Here perchance

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4529217,-0.1495982,3a,75y,344.22h,79.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVN4UwasuLopvJzizB6hkEA!2e0!5s20150501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The restriction applies between the zig zags on each side of the carriageway. Post all the council photos as well as the info asked for by stamf

Posted by: BernieF Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:23
Post #1450727

Stamfordman - Thanks for your quick reply.
Here is the NTO with dates and location revealed.


PASTMYBEST - thanks for your response.
I think you have found the correct location on GSV.
I will provide The council photos in the morning - They are not easy to find but I have and need to do some editing.

I did not challenge the PCN - the notice to owner was the first I knew of this and it was only received on 11/1/2019.

I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019).
Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can.

Thanks once again.

Posted by: BernieF Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:00
Post #1450746

Council photos:

Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:08
Post #1450748

QUOTE (BernieF @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:23) *
I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019).
Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can.



An unreadable PCN can be grounds for cancellation so it's worth finding.


Posted by: BernieF Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58
Post #1450782

Thanks again Stamfordman.
Does anyone have any views on the fact that the NTO says SW12 but the car was in SW4?

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:00
Post #1450793

The illegible would seem best bet here.
Bang to rights on the contravention.... which is also worth 3 points and a criminal charge if police were interested btw.

SW12 v SW4
Don't think so.
There are at least 3 Nightingale Lanes in London.
This one starts in SW4 but seems to change to SW12 fairly quickly so putting SW12 and street name into google finds it.
An adjudicator looking for an excuse to cancel may accept wrong location but I doubt it.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:04
Post #1450796

OP----that would be a ground of "vague locus" but it usually applies to moving traffic contraventions where a postal PCN is served.

The rationale being "I don't know where this contravention took place?"

You parked on a very long road which is covered by two postcodes SW4 and SW12 and I agree the PCN states the wrong one.

However you know where the contravention took place so an adjudicator is unlikely to accept vague locus and will IMO rule the PCN as being substantially compliant.

Mick

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:10
Post #1450817

Essentially the issue is simple: is where the vehicle was parked a designated parking place during a restricted period?

If so, then IMO the contravention did not occur. You cannot have 2 contrary restrictions applying to the same location at the same time.

It is not the motorist's task to sort out which prevails.

I stopped within a marked parking place and on inspection of the road markings and in-situ traffic sign which stated clearly that parking was permitted subject to the display of an applicable permit displayed my permit and left my car.

The authority's belief appears to be that at the applicable time the location, which I would add is not located where stated i.e. SW12 but in SW4, was subject only to a prohibition imposed by zig-zag lines. I disagree.

Any restriction must be conveyed clearly, and implicitly this means that it must not conflict with any other indicated restriction. The traffic authority have erred in placing a zig-zag line through a designated parking place and I would suggest that this is remedied promptly because at present neither of the restrictions imposed by the line and parking place road markings may be enforced.

Up front, no messing about.

You parked there because you believed the markings and sign indicated that the location was a designated parking place. Don't dance round it, take it head-on.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:35
Post #1450829

Not saying don't try it but looking on streetview, ZZs are clear.
And can make out a faint line (which may or may not be clearer in reality) demarking the end of the parking bay, the two do not overlap.

It would have been clearer without the landscaped "layby" but I cannot fault the markings unless it can be shown that the parking bay markings are warn to the point of misleading.
The ZZs certainly are not from the CEo photos.

Which really makes any challenge "I parked on ZZs believing they were wrongly inserted into a parking bay".... not a winner IMO.

Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:49
Post #1450836

While the pavements have been extended past the bays visibility at crossings is paramount and the authority should get rid of those bays. It's bad and unsafe design in my view.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53
Post #1450838

It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.

Posted by: BernieF Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:35
Post #1450862

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53) *
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.

Apologies if it is obvious but can someone tell me what TMO is here please?

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:48
Post #1450870

A parking place may be marked either by prescribed lines or:

3) The bay may be varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays, in which case the marking may be omitted.


So, using the duck test, as all parts of this 'lay-by' are to the eye marked by the same colour and pattern of paving and there isn't a solid or other form of white line parallel to the centre-line, then it's a duck or, in this case, a dog, as in dog's breakfast.

IMO, a motorist has every right to consider this to be a parking place marked by contra-coloured and patterned paving, sub-divided into 2 by the evident partial white line.

Posted by: BernieF Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:51
Post #1450872

The Traffic Signs manual chapter 5 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223667/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf)
Page 93 says the following:
15.21 Where part of a lay-by lies within the controlled area, the zig-zag markings should be laid along the edge of the main carriageway. However, the restrictions extend to the back of the lay-by.

Think I like the tackle it head on approach and say the markings and sign indicate it is a designated parking space and in any case the zigzags do not conform with the Traffic Signs Manual. The zigzags in this case are NOT along the edge of the carriageway but are painted in the lay-by.

Still awaiting original unreadable PCNs... For accuracy I am the owner of the vehicle not the person who parked!

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:20
Post #1450879

QUOTE (BernieF @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:35) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53) *
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.

Apologies if it is obvious but can someone tell me what TMO is here please?

Traffic Management Order, I've asked for it in any event.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 00:14
Post #1451048

Original PCNs are legible but damp.

This is the first in a series of PCN's for parking on the zigzags. There are in fact 3 separate occasions where multiple tickets have been issues and the council's photos on some of them even show the parking sign saying residents parking so even their parking officers are confused.

Just checking if I am able to challenge the parking ticket even though it has now become a notice to owner? Their website has a challenge button so I'll have a go and let you know how I get on.

Thanks to all for your contributions.

Posted by: kernow2015 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 06:38
Post #1451068

Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position?
Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards.

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:16
Post #1451079

QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 06:38) *
Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position?
Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards.



ZZs must run along the edge of the carriageway.
But here it is confused/open to argument as to what is the edge of the carriageway.
HCA offered a draft earlier based on this is obviously a parking bay and you cannot have ZZs in a parking bay.
I happen to disagree with that it is obviously a parking bay but cannot offer anything better.


@Bernie

Once a Notice to Owner has been served you can only Formally Challenge against the NTO.
Which is not to say that errors on the PCN cannot be raised.
Damp but readable is not a winner.


You will need to explain multiple PCNs as well.
Does this mean PCNs on different occasions or one parking session and PCNs placed on consecutive days?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:44
Post #1451088

I think the zig has lost its zag so IMO the road marking in the bay is defective.

I think (others please confirm) that Diagram 1001.4 applies.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

The remarks in column 4 indicate (my bold):-

4. Where the traffic authority is satisfied that the layout or character of the road means it is not practical to lay 8 marks, the number of marks can be reduced to not less than 2

Mick

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:57
Post #1451093

@DancingDad
Thanks for your response.
The Multiple PCNs are where tickets have been issued on multiple days when the car has not moved - the council photos actually show the previous days' tickets on the windscreen. Interestingly the officer issuing the ticket has included a picture of the resident's parking restriction sign in some of the photos which suggests there is a real lack of clarity.

This has happened on 3 separate occasions. The person who parked there assumed they were to do with not having a residents' permit as they were in discussions with the council about that - paid for 12 month's permit in October, followed up with phone calls and emails and eventually permit issued in January and the council agreed to revoke tickets issued regarding the permit.

I will wait to hear if there is anything in the TMO before challenging the NTO.

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:25
Post #1451104

Be careful about waiting. Missing the deadline while waiting for the TMO is no a legitimate reason for being late.

You could at the authority 'quote, harangue and paragraph and with speeches charm the ear' and it would still go over their heads.

They have a mindset.

You challenge their thinking just as much by getting them to consult the TMO.

What you assert can only be countered by them producing a copy of the TMO showing that the location is not a designated parking place. Let them do the work.

You have until 7 Feb. to submit reps, but the 28th day is not a target, it's a limit.


Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:33
Post #1451109

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:44) *
I think the zig has lost its zag so IMO the road marking in the bay is defective.

I think (others please confirm) that Diagram 1001.4 applies.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

The remarks in column 4 indicate (my bold):-

4. Where the traffic authority is satisfied that the layout or character of the road means it is not practical to lay 8 marks, the number of marks can be reduced to not less than 2

Mick


Right diagram.
Two lines at different angles to each other so IMO minimum applies.
But agree that as the first is more or less parallel to the true line of the carriageway it is arguable that it is not a Zig (or zag) and just a spurious white line.
The whole set up is a right pig's ear.
I'm not convinced that we can convince an adjudicator that it is wrong but there is mileage in the confusion.


@Bernie.
The multiples.
Get them together and check both contraventions and dates.
List them all out along with cited contravention, date and whether or not vehicle was moved between first and last of each group.
This situation seems to have been ongoing for some time and that the council seems to have put on hold pending the permit situation lends credence to the challenge on confusion.
It would suggest that they are as confused as the driver was.
And if even one of the PCNs is for not displaying permit, that would really seal the argument.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 00:14
Post #1455168

BernieF I've made progress on the TMO side, see here:

Order: http://bit.ly/2MvRsyN
Map: http://bit.ly/2ROleot

The crossing in question doesn't feature on the map at all, so on the face of it we have a conflict between the crossing zig-zags, which are a section 36 sign, and a TMO which says there's an authorised parking space at the same location. I have queried this with the council and will post when I get any further information.

However in the first instance, show us the PCNs, front side of all of them + the rear of at least 1.

Posted by: BernieF Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 07:48
Post #1455180

Hi cp8759,

Thanks for the information about the TMO. I assumed there was no order for the crossing as I could find no reference to it in the Gazette nor to changes to the original parking bay.

I won't post all of the PCNs as I have already submitted an appeal.
Here is a summary of the PCNs including two for code 12 which I hope will be cancelled as the relevant permit had been paid for, approved but not received (now received with expiry in November 2019).
I have grouped them into what I believe are consecutive tickets and have used both of adjudicator Teper's arguments in my appeal. The Y/N at the end indicates which PCNs included a picture of the resident's parking sign in the photographic evidence.

Issued Date Issued Time Amount Contravention Street Pic of sign?
29/11/2018 10:08:52 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
02/12/2018 09:25:54 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
03/12/2018 12:25:35 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
04/12/2018 08:25:42 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N

09/12/2018 14:29:45 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N

11/12/2018 13:35:14 £110.00 12 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1)
12/12/2018 13:57:36 £110.00 12 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1)

14/12/2018 12:44:07 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) Y
15/12/2018 10:24:48 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
17/12/2018 13:06:43 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) Y

02/01/2019 09:12:44 £110.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N

07/01/2019 12:29:59 £55.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
09/01/2019 08:14:43 £55.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N
10/01/2019 09:13:10 £55.00 99 NIGHTINGALE LANE, SW12 (H1) N

Thanks again for your help and hard work.


Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 17:00
Post #1455369

QUOTE (BernieF @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 07:48) *
I won't post all of the PCNs as I have already submitted an appeal.

An appeal or a representation? In any event, neither prevents you from showing us the paperwork. Show us the front of a code 99 PCN, and a code 12 PCN, + the rear

A zebra crossing doesn't need a TMO as it's a section 36 sign, however there shouldn't be a designated parking place at the same location.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 10:39
Post #1461302

TMO: http://bit.ly/2SrZnmY
TMO map: http://bit.ly/2RTApHX
Plans for zebra crossing: http://bit.ly/2DuZyUn

The council have confirmed as follows:

I can confirm that the Traffic Management Order provided to you previously is the most up to date order relating to the parking places on this part of Nightingale Lane. With regard to the raised zebra crossing I can advise that this was constructed in late 2012/early 2013 as part of a scheme to improve traffic management and road safety in Nightingale Lane and a number of adjacent side roads. I have attached a copy of the drawing showing the revised layout.

It therefore appears they have installed the zig-zags inside a designated parking space (because the TMO was never amended)

Posted by: BernieF Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 23:09
Post #1462018

cp8579 many many thanks.

I'll update when I hear from the council.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 22:40
Post #1470084

Notices of rejection received from council. Here is one - they are all for PCNs code 99 - parking on Zig Zags.


I will be appealing.
Grateful for advice in the light of zig zags not being along the main carriageway, the lay-by is a designated parking bay and anything else that might help.
I will also ask them to consider mitigation re the consecutive PCNs - yes the car has moved but there are 4 separate occasions where multiple PCNs were put on the car. You can even see multiple tickets in the photos they took.
Finally, they say the lines of the zigzags are not faded on the photos I provided. This is not surprising as they are then from Google and clearly state they were taken in September 2014! Their photos show faded lines which would not stand out in the dark damp winter night.
Council photos:
Faded lines:




Multiple tickets and faded lines:


How many tickets?

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 22:53
Post #1470093

What did you send to them? Do not appeal without our help or you'll likely lose.

Posted by: BernieF Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 23:29
Post #1470393

Hope you can read this - here is the representation I sent.




Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 18:16
Post #1470600

So please confirm, do you have 12 Notices of Rejection for the 12 PCNs issued for code 99?

Have you heard anything back for the code 12 PCNs? If not, can you see the status online?

Also the one thing you need to explain, because the adjudicator will ask this, once the first PCN (or set of PCNs) was found on the car, why was the car parked there again?

Posted by: BernieF Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:01
Post #1470650

Hi,
12 for code 99.
2 for code 12.
Both code 12s cancelled.
It was assumed that the PCNs were all for parking without a permit.
It was only when I became involved that it was spotted that 12 of the notices were for parking on a zigzag. The notices arrived at home between the 8th and 19th of January. I work away from home and only returned home to read the PCNs on Friday 11th January. There are no further contraventions after this date.

The car continued to be parked there because it is a designated residents parking bay and my daughter honestly thought she was entitled to park there and the PCNs were for not having a residents permit.

The car is often left parked without moving for days on end and the journey to work and back does not pass the car hence she was oblivious to the PCNs until she wanted to use the car.

The car was also parked in the dark with a lot of mud and leaves accumulated at the ends of the bays where she parked.

She was in an ongoing dialogue about the resident's permit with the council via phone (often unanswered or cut off) and email. The documents originally supplied (certificate of insurance and proof of address) were in order before Christmas however the insurance is renewed over the Christmas period hence in January when she contacted them she had to provide a new certificate of insurance. It was therefore a natural assumption that the PCNs were for parking without a residents permit.

Thanks for taking an interest.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:08
Post #1470654

QUOTE (BernieF @ Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:01) *
The car continued to be parked there because it is a designated residents parking bay and my daughter honestly thought she was entitled to park there and the PCNs were for not having a residents permit.

So she didn't bother reading the PCNs at all then, this is far from ideal. On what basis did she think she was entitled to park there? Did she just think that because she was "entitled" to a permit, she could park there regardless of whether she actually had a permit or not?

So do you have 12 notices of rejection for the code 99 PCNs?

Posted by: BernieF Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:29
Post #1470660

To be fair the tickets were a soggy mess when she eventually retrieved them and no she did not read them. An assumption was made because of the ongoing dialogue.

She thought she was entitled because she had paid for a permit, had been granted a temporary one in November while the paper one was being sorted out. The temporary one was granted on the basis of documentation already provided.

The delays at the Council in issuing the permit meant she was without a physical permit but phone conversations with the council reassured her a permit would be issued, the erroneous tickets would be cancelled and she could carry on parking there.

So far we have 8 rejections. for the 99s.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:32
Post #1470664

QUOTE (BernieF @ Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:29) *
...but phone conversations with the council reassured her a permit would be issued, the erroneous tickets would be cancelled and she could carry on parking there.

Is there any written confirmation of this?

Cos at the moment it's going to look to the tribunal like she chose to park there in defiance of the restrictions. We really want to avoid giving that impression.

Posted by: BernieF Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 20:31
Post #1470997

I'm checking emails and phone records. I will update as soon as I have these.

Posted by: Incandescent Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:39
Post #1471012

Surely to be legal the zig-zags have to be on the main carriageway ? In any case, how can you have zig-zags in a designated parking bay as per a TMO ! It does seem as if the council have cocked up royally here.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 13:18
Post #1471157

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:39) *
In any case, how can you have zig-zags in a designated parking bay as per a TMO ! It does seem as if the council have cocked up royally here.

Yes I totally agree, when it comes to drafting the actual appeal wording we must focus on the fact that the car was pared in a designated parking space. The council should have updated the TMO to de-designate that part of the bay, but it looks like they got lazy.

Posted by: BernieF Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 18:17
Post #1471694

Here is a summary of the email correspondence.

7th October 2018: received acknowledgenent of application for permit and told “In the interim period parking rights have been added to your registration to enable you to park in the controlled parking zone applied for pending a decision on your permit application.”

17th October 2018: received notice that application had been referred - “Incorrect/insufficient Proofs - Please supply an alternative proof of residence we do not accept tenancy agreements from property management companies “
Same email says “Please respond within 10 days of your initial application or your application will be cancelled and you will need to re-apply.” Difficult to comply as email only received more than 10 days after application.

12th November 2018: plea saying tried to get in touch with the council but cannot get through on phone lines because the queuing time is over an hour and lines close at 5pm. Also stating that documentation was provided to the online account which suddenly disappeared and became inaccessible.

16th November 2018: Email saying cut off while speaking to a member of staff (first name given) and requesting a direct line or email address.

16th November 2018: Password reset

19th November 2018: acknowledgement that council have granted permit for 2 weeks while council awaits receipt of confirmation of address and ownership of the vehicle which is provided with this email.

16th December 2018: Request for council to explain why no response and no permit after sending requested documentation.

24th December 2018: Insurance certificate expires - this is not an email but I thought it pertinent and explains why documentation already sent was no longer acceptable

4th January 2019: test email sent to council employee’s email address.
4th January 2019: email from 16th November forwarded to 2 council email addresses
4th January 2019: email stating application has been referred due to insufficient documentation. Again stating “Please respond within 10 days of your initial application or your application will be cancelled and you will need to re-apply.”
5th January 2019: email to named council employee’s email account thanking him for assistance and including the requested proofs.

I will draft an appeal and post it this week for thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:44
Post #1471776

I think you need to show us redacted copies of the correspondence.

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 08:32
Post #1471807

I think we're getting off the subject. The contravention does not relate to a permit therefore at best this simply sets the background but cannot be a determinant legal factor.

You must appeal all NORs. So, what are their dates pl?

If they relate to the same set of facts i.e. the car did not move, then a single appeal could be made for them all. But we must know the dates of the NORs.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 10:45
Post #1471851

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 08:32) *
I think we're getting off the subject. The contravention does not relate to a permit therefore at best this simply sets the background but cannot be a determinant legal factor.

You must appeal all NORs. So, what are their dates pl?

If they relate to the same set of facts i.e. the car did not move, then a single appeal could be made for them all. But we must know the dates of the NORs.

The problem really is that the driver parked, got a bunch of PCNs, then parked there again, got more PCNs, didn't bother reading any of them them, then got more PCNs... (see post 26, first PCN dated 29/11/2018 last one 10/01/2019). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the issue, this won't look good to any adjudicator.

If the adjudicator takes the view that the driver knew, or reasonably should have known, that parking at that location was not permitted (and the man on the Clapham omnibus would probably say that after you've got 10+ PCNs, you should realise parking is not allowed), he might make short shrift of any technical arguments over the fact that the zig-zags extended into a designated parking place.

On top of this, it's not as if the driver parked because she was entitled to park in the bay (she wasn't). She parked there because she thought that the fact that she was entitled to a permit meant she was entitled to park in the bay regardless of whether she did or didn't have a permit, again this is legally incorrect and, in the legal sense, unreasonable.

Of course the saving grace would be an email or letter from the council confirming that she was entitled to park in the bay and any PCNs would be cancelled. So no, I don't think we're getting off subject at all.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 20:37
Post #1472088

Email saying parking allowed


Email saying decision referred


Working on appeal wording.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 20:58
Post #1472098

Well the email of 17 October only covered her for a further 10 days, so on what basis did she think she was entitled to park beyond 27 October?

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 21:41
Post #1472121

I beg to differ - I don't think the email of 17th says she has another 10 days.
It says send us more documents which was done.
It says do this within 10 days of your original application which actually is the 17th October...

I get your point - she continued parking there because she had complied with their requests and the email of 7th October does say "parking rights have been added to your registration". Having complied with their requests its was reasonable to assume parking rights continued!

I know, come on here asking for advice and arguing etc etc just putting my opinion out there. I'll get back to my appeal wording.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 23:05
Post #1472138

Another thought: permit has been backdated to 8/11/18 so was assumption on entitlement fair?
Appeal 75% ready. Will sleep on it then review.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 10:52
Post #1472196

QUOTE (BernieF @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 23:05) *
Another thought: permit has been backdated to 8/11/18 so was assumption on entitlement fair?

I stand by my assertion that the email of 17 October, without more, only covered her for another 10 days.

If she sent a reply with additional documents, do we have a copy of the cover letter / email? Did they acknowledge receipt?

If the permit was backdated to 11 November, that would be a trump card, but did they at any point indicate they would waive any penalties that were issued in the first place?

Posted by: BernieF Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 21:01
Post #1474029

Hi all,
Grateful for advice and builds on the appeal. First here are the four pages of the appeal form. I will be submitting appeal online so appeal form is for info only. Apologies for quality but best I can do for now.


To bring everyone up to date, of the 12 code 99 PCNs, I have received 8 NORs. I know I said 12 earlier but I made a genuine mistake.

Nothing received for the others so if and when NORs do arrive I shall be appealing as follows:

There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority:
Time expired PCNs

I sent representations for PCNs XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX on the 21st January. I received acknowledgements for each of these on the 21st January in which it says “Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have up to 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.”
More than 56 days have now elapsed so please confirm that these 4 PCNs are now considered cancelled.

Finally, here is the bit I am requesting Forum's assistance and advice with.
Each NOR has its own code for use on the appeals website so I'll be using the same form of words on each.
All of the NORs are for parking on zig zags.
Where I have mentioned evidence items, they are items referenced in earlier posts and I will provide them with the appeal.

I wish to appeal the Penalty Charge notices on the following grounds:
1. the offence did not occur
2. there are compelling reasons why the penalty should not be paid and request that they make a recommendation to the council that they cancel the penalty.

The offence did not occur
The Notice of rejection (NOR) dated 4th March 2019 says that the basis for the representations was that the zig zags fail to clearly denote a zigzag as required by the Traffic Signs Manual and the markings are faded.
The NOR has not addressed the issue that the lay-by is a designated residents’ parking area.
The vehicle was parked within a designated residents’ parking bay, as designated in Traffic Management Order (TMO) 1999 No 37 as parking place 79 in schedule 2. I have attached the relevant TMO as Evidence 1.
Schedule 2 of the TMO states no minimum total length not to be occupied by parking spaces which I understand to mean the whole of the designated parking bay is to be used for parking.
This TMO has not been amended.
The resident’s parking permit is valid from 8th November 2018 hence the offence did not occur.

Compelling reasons why the penalty should not be paid
1. The Council has added zig zags to a designated parking bay without amending the relevant Traffic Management Order.
2. The Traffic signs Manual states that zig zags should be marked “along the edge of the main carriageway”. These deviate away from the main carriageway and into the designated parking bay.
3. When the car was parked, it was dark and wet and the markings were not clear.
4. The markings are faded.

It was honestly believed that the PCNs were for parking without a permit.
1. On 7th October, the council emailed (evidence item 2) to say parking rights had been added to the vehicle. The council emailed a referral on 17th October (evidence item 3) requesting further documentation. The documentation was provided. However, the motorist did not park in the parking bay until after speaking with the council on the phone and being reassured that the documentation in possession was now sufficient and a temporary permit had been put in place to cover the period whilst waiting for receipt of physical permit. This was done as a measure to apologise for the inconvenience caused.
2. Prior to this telephone call and grant of temporary permit, my daughter had arranged alternative parking during September, October and November. Only with the reassurance of the council did she park in a designated parking place.
3. Immediately on receiving the email of 17th October (evidence item 3) the requested documentation was uploaded to the online account. The system crashed and the account couldn’t be accessed; it showed an error message to say the account did not exist.
4. It was following this that she emailed the council to request clarification on the matter and supplied the documents by email. After having not heard for a week, she tried emailing again.
5. She then tried calling them and asked her mother to try calling them as she was struggling to get through to them on her lunch break and she did not leave work early enough to call after work.
6. Only once she had got through to the council and received the ok did she proceed to park in the designated parking place which required a permit.
7. There was a continuing dialogue with the council about the parking permit and about the fact that PCNs had been issued.
8. When the PCNs were retrieved they were damp and soggy so were not read and they were assumed to be for parking without a resident’s permit because of the ongoing dialogue. Emails sent to the council on the 12th, 16th and 19th November (evidence item 4) demonstrate the problems experienced communicating with the council. It was clearly believed that the requested documentation had been provided.
9. The car was parked there because it was believed the markings and sign indicated that the location was a designated parking place and that the resident’s permit was being arranged.
10. The permit was backdated to 8th November 2018 so covers all of the dates the PCNs were issued.

Consecutive parking notices:
While there is no precedent set by prior adjudications, it is worth noting adjudicator Carl Teper’s comments in appeal 2140276022 from August 2014 in which he says he has changed his mind about a previous decision (2110166557 in Haringey in May 2011). He says his earlier decision (in which he said consecutive PCNs are in fact a continuation of the same contravention and not separate contraventions) encouraged motorists to commit longer contraventions. I believe the current case can be distinguished on the facts; it was reasonably believed that the car was parked in a residents bay so rather than being encouraged to continue committing a contravention, it was believed there was an entitlement to park having purchased a permit. I therefore request that the following “sets” of contraventions be treated as single contraventions.

Consecutive set 1
PCN WA99999999 was issued on the 29th November. PCNs XXX XXX and XXX were subsequently issued on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of December when the car had not moved. The motorist was unaware of the PCNs. The council’s own photos clearly show the car in the same position and with multiple PCNs on the windscreen.
These 4 PCNs were issued consecutively when the car has not moved and I therefore request that these four PCNs be treated as one.

Consecutive set 2
PCN WA8888888 was issued on the 14th December. PCNs XXX and XXX were subsequently issued on the 15th and 17th December and it can be clearly seen the car has not moved. Again the council’s photographs clearly show the car in the same position and with multiple PCNs on the windscreen.
These 3 PCNs were issued when the car has not moved and I therefore request that these PCNs be treated as one.

The car was not used every day hence it was left in the resident’s parking bay. The PCNs on the windscreen were not seen until the car was used as there was no reason to walk past the parked car as it was believed to be parked legally in a designated residents' parking bay.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 12:03
Post #1474528

The whole appeal needs re-writing. For now just register the appeal and put "detailed grounds to follow" in the reasons box.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 5 May 2019 - 15:45
Post #1482780

Looks like Mr Teper had a good breakfast on Friday.

219013976A

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zigzag lines when in Nightingale Lane on 29 November, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15 and 17 December 2018.
The Appellant denies the contravention and has explained in two lengthy documents his reasons, which I have read and considered.
I have allowed these appeals for the following reasons:
First, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is ambiguity as to the status of this location.
Second, I find that the location appears to be a shared use bay due to the proximity of the signage.
Third, with the second point in mind, I find that the zigzag markings are too worn and degraded to be enforceable.
Fourth, where an ambiguity exits the law is that it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages.
Fifth, I find the Appellant's evidence to be stronger than that of the Authoity's
Taking these matters together I find that these Penalty Charge Notices are not proved.
The appeals are allowed.

Posted by: BernieF Sun, 5 May 2019 - 15:58
Post #1482783

Indeed he did! icon_cheers.gif
Wonderful news to receive yesterday!
I will post chapter and verse when I have a few minutes in the hope that it helps others.
I also have some explaining to do as I had appealed 4 cases when I had not received NTO's... Just followed the council website's invitation to see all PCNs and appealed the lot of them.
Consequently 2 of these are about to be appealed on the exact same grounds. Watch this space.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 13 May 2019 - 21:17
Post #1484889

This is the appeal I finally sent in:






Posted by: BernieF Mon, 13 May 2019 - 21:27
Post #1484891

The four PCNs mentioned in section 4 were not allowed in the appeal as there had been no official NTO.
I tried to claim that I had been invited to view all PCNs on the council website and that this was effectively the owner being notified.
I also suggested this was further evidence of the Council's procedural impropriety.
Unfortunately the Tribunal disagreed.
The council obviously read my appeal and immediately sent me emails saying they were going to issue NTO if payment not received in 14 days.
So the process starts again.

Wish me luck and thanks for your help and advice.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 15 May 2019 - 20:43
Post #1485421

The Notice to Owner is a formal document that has to be served, the fact that the owner has had notice of the issue does not allow the council to dispense with service of the actual NtO. Post them up when they arrive.

Posted by: BernieF Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 19:51
Post #1491426

Thanks for your patience. All PCNs cancelled but here is some more detail for the archives.

2nd April 2019 - Appeal registered at London Tribunals for 12 Code 99 PCNs
4th April 2019 - Tribunal sends copy of appeal to Wandsworth council (email timed at 10.25)
4th April 2019 - Wandsworth email the following at 23:44, 23:45, 23:47 and 23:49 (one for each of the four PCNs they have not sent NTOs for)
"I refer to your enquiry received on 21/01/2019 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
This PCN was issued because your vehicle was stopped on a pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked by zig-zags.
You have stated that the road markings are faded and fail to clearly denote a zig zag as required by the Traffic Signs Manual. I have investigated this matter further and viewed the civil enforcement officers photographs, along with the ones you have supplied which clearly show that the zig zag lines are visible. Whilst the lines may be a little faded, the start lines are still visible.
Given the above, I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and regrettably, you have not established sufficient grounds for cancellation of this penalty charge. As your enquiry was received within the discount period the amount of £55.00, will be accepted if payment is received within 14 days of the date of this letter.
To make a credit or debit card payment please call our 24 hour automated payment line on 0800 021 7763 or pay online by visiting www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
Alternatively, your cheque or postal order should be made payable to “Wandsworth Borough Council”, clearly identified with the Notice number written on the reverse side and sent to: Wandsworth Borough Council (Parking), PO Box 521, Twickenham, TW1 9PJ.
If payment is not received as detailed, I shall assume that you wish to pursue the matter and shall arrange for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle so that formal representations may be made. Should these be rejected, the registered keeper of the vehicle will then be afforded the opportunity to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator.
I should point out that, should you decide to take this course of action, on the expiry of the discount period you will forfeit the right to pay the Penalty Charge at the lower rate and the full charge of £110.00 will be due.
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle e.g. the vehicle is a company or lease/hire vehicle, or being used with the owner’s consent, I suggest you advise the keeper that a Notice to Owner (NTO) will be issued.
The options are therefore to pay the PCN or follow the statutory process to submit a formal representation as explained above. Any further information or evidence for the Council's consideration should only be included as part of the formal representation made by the registered keeper. Any additional communication received prior to the issue of the NTO will be filed for information purposes only without a response, although it may be considered if formal representations are received.
This concludes the Council’s dealings in this matter at this stage."

All 4 emails state £55, one has a typo in my name!

13th April 2019 - email received from Tribunals saying they can't include the 4 PCNs that have not had NTOs issued.

13th April 2019 - NTOs received for 2 of the 4 outstanding PCNs.
NTO's are for £110.

14th April 2019 - I write to Tribunal requesting them to reconsider and include all PCNs in the appeal on the basis that I received individual acknowledgements of my challenges to the PCNs in question.

18th April 2019 - Tribunal respond saying they can't consider them as Notices of Rejection have not been issued.

4th May 2019 - Tribunal allow my appeal - decision received by email

7th May 2019 - I challenge the 2 NTOs and receive acknowledgements from Wandsworth

content of challenge pretty much same as before with the following addition:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re penalty charge notices WA8XXXXX0, WA80XXXXX1

I am writing to you to challenge the above listed parking permits, on both grounds specified on your website, that;
- the tickets should not have been issued; and
- there are special reasons why they should be cancelled.

Additionally, these PCNs were incurred in exactly the same circumstances as the 8 PCNs which you rejected but were allowed on appeal by Adjudicator Carl Teper in case reference 219013976A.
The vehicle was parked within a designated residents’ parking place, as designated in Traffic Management Order (“TMO”) 1999 No 37 as parking place 79 in schedule 2.
Schedule 2 of the TMO states no minimum total length not to be occupied by parking spaces which means the whole of the designated parking bay is to be used for parking.
This TMO has not been amended, reviewed or changed in any way since it was issued in 1999.
Compelling reasons why the penalty should not be paid
It was not known, nor evident to the motorist, that the vehicle was parked on zigzags.
The Council has added zig zags to a designated parking bay without amending the relevant Traffic Management Order.
The Traffic signs Manual states that zig zags should be marked “along the edge of the main carriageway”. These deviate away from the main carriageway and into the designated parking bay.
As accepted in the NOR’s received for the other PCNs covered by the Tribunal case mentioned above, the markings are faded.
Please also note that the car was parked in dark and wet conditions, meaning the faded markings were not visible to the motorist.
In addition, there is a sign over the space marking it as ‘H1 Permit Parking Area’. This sign was clearly visible at all times and presented the spot in the bay as a designated parking place.
Procedural impropriety
• The PCNs were issued in January 2019 but the council did not issue notices to owner until April 2019. It is my opinion that there is evidence of procedural impropriety on the part of the council. I appealed these two PCNs in January after having viewed the PCNs on the council’s website.
• I sent representations for PCNs WA80610580 and WA80630511 on the 21st January. I received acknowledgements for each of these on the 21st January in which it says “Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have up to 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.”
• When I lodged my appeal referenced above, I also included these two PCNs in my appeal. Immediately I lodged this appeal, you emailed me (spelling my name incorrectly I must point out) on 4th April 2019 to say that the representations are rejected. This is 74 days after you acknowledged my representations. This letter then says I have 14 days from the date of this letter to pay £55 (I believe the delivered date has a legal definition which leads me to believe that this is Friday 5th April). However, you then send me a notice to owner dated 7 days after this and delivered to me on the 8th day afterwards in which the amount of the PCN has doubled to £110. You have not allowed me 14 days before sending the NTO at the increased rate.
• Finally, your acknowledgement of receipt of my representations says “All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order”
This has clearly not happened in this instance.

30th May 2019 - 2 challenged PCNs cancelled.
1st:
"I refer to your enquiry received on 07/05/2019 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice.
I note from your letter that you have had other Penalty Charge Notices cancelled for parking at the location. I can confirm that the above Penalty Charge Notice has already been cancelled. With regards to the other Penalty Charge Notices you will receive a reply under separate cover."

2nd:
"I refer to your enquiry received on 07/05/2019 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice.
I note from your letter that you believe that the above Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled in light of the recent Adjudicators decision. I can confirm that the above Penalty Charge Notice has already been cancelled and the charge is now closed."

1st June 2019 - the two remaining PCNs cancelled:
"I refer to your enquiry received on 17/04/2019 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notices.
The Penalty Charge Notices were issued for being stopped on a pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked by zig-zags. The restriction is in force at all times.In order to view the photographic evidence, please visit our website on www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline, and enter the PCN number and vehicle registration number.
I note from your letter that other Penalty Charge Notices have been cancelled due to the adjudicators recent decision.
In view of the above I am pleased to inform you that I have cancelled the above Penalty Charge Notices. I apologise for the inconvenience caused."

In respect of the enquiry made on 17th April, I assume this was the enquiry made by London Tribunals as their email of 18th April says: "The London Borough of Wandsworth have confirmed that formal Notices of Rejection have not been issued."

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)