PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 12r - No evidence in photos. Hounslow, PCN 12r - No evidence in photos - Church Street - Isleworth
jayb2011
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 10:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Member No.: 51,676



Hi All,

My neighbour received a PCN from Hounslow Council (See attached photos). Her shift at West Middlesex Hospital overran, she was the main doctor on that night and didn't get to her car before the 9am CPZ came into effect. Although she said she did not notice any restrictions when she initially parked.

On the photo evidence attached there are no pictures of the signage or any yellow lines to indicate any restriction, would this be good enough reason to have the PCN cancelled? Unfortunately the google/bing map images are too old to show any lines/signage as the CPZ started in 2018 I think.

Any advice much appreciated - the NHS already have a hard enough job.

Regards, Jay




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 10:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jayb2011
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 17:30
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Member No.: 51,676



@hcandersen

"Whether there are any road markings indicating the 4 dropped kerbs on the south side of the road"
No there are not any marking for the dropped kerbs .



What markings and traffic signs are on the north side of Church Street e.g. GSV currently shows a part-time yellow line?
This is the same as the old google street view - a part time yellow line.

Let me know if you need any more info/pictures or need me todo another visit.

@cp8759
The V5C has been checked and the address is up to date.


Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jayb2011
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 08:44
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Member No.: 51,676



Hi All,

The NTO has arrived. I will start drafting up a formal appeal and let you know how I get on. Suggestions welcome.



Kind Regards, J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 19:15
Post #23


Member


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



Wait for other to comment but this would be my initial draft:

-----------------------------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I challenge liability against the PCN on a number of grounds.

Ground 1: The alleged contravention did not occur:

I have consulted The London Borough of Hounslow (No. 4) Experimental Order 2018 published on your website and I note Article 4 provides that:

"This Order introduces a controlled parking zone in parts of Church Street, Mill Plat
and Park Road, Isleworth and shall have affect as though:
(a) the items numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be added to Schedule 7 indicating
resident parking bay locations as set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.
"

Taking the words "the items numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5...as set out in Schedule 1 to this Order" literally would mean that the sections of Schedule 1 to the experimental order titled "Interpretation", "Designation of parking places", "Number and situation of parking spaces", "Manner of standing in a parking place" and "Vehicles for which parking places are designated" are to be incorporated into Schedule 7 of the principal order, however this is hard to reconcile with the fact that Schedule 7 of the principal order lists streets which are "Side streets (adjoining restricted streets specified in schedule 1) excepted from the definition of a restricted street (see article 3(1))"

This approach also begs the question, if only items numbered 1 to 5 as set out in schedule 1 to the experimental order are to be incorporated into the principal order, then what is the purpose of items numbered 6 to 28 of schedule 1 to the experimental order? These provisions would end up having no effect at all.

It might be that by "items numbered" the council intended the "sections" of schedule 1 to the experimental order, but there are only three numbered sections, so items 4 and 5 would be missing, so this does not appear to be correct either.

A more sensible interpretation might be that Schedule 7 of the experimental order, which does in fact refer to Church Street, is to be incorporated into the principal order, but that begs the question of where within the principal order. Schedule 7 of the principal order appears to do nothing other than list streets which are not subject to the restrictions created by article 5 of the principal order, in which case, once Schedule 7 of the experimental order is incorporated into schedule 7 of the principal order, the net effect is simply to exempt Church street from the definition of a restricted street.

To add to the confusion, schedule 1 to the experimental order lists a section titled "Interpretation" which includes some terms that are already provided for in the principal order. It is not clear whether this new "Interpretation" section is intended to replace the "interpretation" section of the original order, or whether it only applies to the restrictions that are created by the experimental order. It is also unclear, where the original and the new definitions are not aligned, which interpretations should prevail and in what circumstances.

In essence, it is utterly unclear which parts of Schedule 1 to the experimental order should be incorporated into the principal order, it is unclear whether the provisions of schedule 1 are intended to replace any conflicting provisions in the principal order, and none of the articles of the experimental order appear to designate any parking places. It may be that the provisions outlined in schedule 1 to the experimental order were meant to be incorporated into the articles of the principal order, but nothing in the experimental order makes such a provision.

It is also noteworthy that the experimental order make repeated references to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, which were repealed in April 2016.

Even if if the council could overcome all these difficulties, Schedule 7 to the experimental order (which I note is not incorporated into the principle order by any of the articles of the experimental order) provides "Parking places in respect of which a vehicle may be left during the permitted hours if it displays a valid residents’ permit or a valid residents’ visitor parking card.", and column 3 specifies "Minimum number of parking bays", but at the time of the alleged contravention I was not parked in a bay at all. It is therefore hard to see how I could be in contravention of this schedule to the experimental order, regardless of how the council might try to shoehorn it into the principal order.

I also note that schedule 1 to the experimental order provides, under paragraph 2(2), that "The limits of each parking place and the limits of each parking space within a parking place shall be indicated on the highway in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002", even if we overlook the fact that the 2002 regulations are no longer in force, the fact remains that nothing on the highway indicates the limits of each parking place and the limits of each space within a parking place: Not only is there no bay divided into spaces, as the wording of the order suggests, there is simply no bay at all.

Finally I note the explanatory note to the experimental order is illuminating:

"This Order amends the Order of 2008 by amending the times of operation for those waiting and
loading restrictions in Church Street, Mill Plat and Park Road, Isleworth and introduces resident
parking bays in parts of Church Street, Mill Plat and Park Road, Isleworth which will operate
Monday to Friday 9am-11am.

This Order amends the Order of 2009 by amending the times of operation of the parking places
in Paxton Road, Short Road and Sutherland Road.
"

The first part of the explanatory note confirms there are meant to be parking bays on Church Street, but there are none. The second part of the note, which refers to Paxton Road, Short Road and Sutherland Road, suggests the reason why the TRO is an utter mess is because it's been assembled by copy / pasting one or more previous documents and nobody took the time to proof-read the resulting order, let alone check that the provisions properly flowed into the principal order.

Finally in relation to this provision:

"The Order provides that the Head of Traffic, Transport & Environmental Services, or a person authorised by him, may, if it appears to him or that person essential in the interests of the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic or for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which any road affected by the Order runs, modify or suspend the Order or any provision thereof."

I would add that the only way in which this officer's post may be authorised to act as above (both unilaterally as regards the order and as regards delegating such authority) is if this is provided for in the Scheme of Delegation, given the obvious drafting issues with the experimental order, you will appreciate my scepticism in this regard.

I would go as far as saying that the order is so fundamentally flawed as to be bad on its face, I am therefore challenging liability against the penalty charge notice on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because the traffic order does not create the restrictions which the enforcement authority says it does.

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority: The wording of the allegation is duplicitous:

The wording of the allegation is:

Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a
valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or
voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required,
or without payment of the parking charge


The recipient is therefore confronted with an allegation of being parked in a parking place, or a zone, without displaying one of three possible things, or in the alternative of failing to make payment. Especially in an unmarked parking place, it is of fundamental importance that the allegation identify the grounds on which the PCN has been issued, the motorist should not have to guess or look elsewhere to determine what she is being accused of.

As the wording of the allegation is bad for duplicity, the council has committed a procedural impropriety by failing to comply with the schedule to the general regulations, which require that the PCN state the grounds on which the authority believes the penalty is payable. I note the legislation states "the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable", it does not state "a number of grounds, one of which is the ground on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable", as this would leave the recipient having to guess which allegation is relevant to her.

In light of this procedural impropriety, the PCN must be cancelled.


--------------------
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
jayb2011
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:32
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Member No.: 51,676



That's amazing. Thanks cp8759!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jayb2011
post Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 19:36
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Member No.: 51,676



Just for info the ticket got cancelled!

Here is this response:



Thanks All!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 19:54
Post #26


Member


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



Thanks for updating - those reps from CP should be framed. A true masterpiece.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 19:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 00:05
Post #27


Member


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



Oh good, reading over that again made me smile and I have to confess drafting it was fun.

Someone in the traffic team will have to bring in a round of doughnuts I imagine.


--------------------
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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:13
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