Hackney: The 'Garden Walk' to Hell!, Towed from a single yellow line at 9.00 pm Options

[Brassens]

Hi Guys! First what a great site! I have already rcommended this to friends – and I only came across it this morning! (At 6.00 when I couldn’t sleep having been towed away for the first time in 41 years of driving.)

I’ll keep it short. I parked at 8.30 in Garden Walk Hackney (Hackney Council’s preferred income revenue source as far as I can see.) I returned about an hour later to find my car gone. A telephone search uncovered that it had ben towed and was in the Levens St. pound in Canning Town (Another of the outer circles of hell.)



I had fortunately read al good deal of the material on the posts regarding the Garden Walk location and how to approach the whole matter of collecting my vehicle. Unfortunately I was presented with the appeal form and had to sign that I had accepted it.



On my return I retraced my route of last night and took the attached shots. My car was parked n a single yellow line in front of the tall green building. I had not been aware that I had entered a CPZ and was not surprised when I saw that the sign on the corner of Riverton Road when entering from the south is almost at right angles to the very clearly displayed one way sign next to it (making it totally un-noticeable when entering from this direction.)



Garden Walk is a wide street with a ‘recess’ for cars. It is not a bus route. There is signage along it but further than the point at which I parked. Since I did not see the CPZ sign on entering Riverton Road I was not looking out for any special restrictions and this is what I intend to say in my appeal.



When I returned to where I had left my car the tow team were already back hoisting another car (next to where I had parked) onto the lorry. There were only the two members of the team there and no CEO. This suggest to me that no CEO was present when my vehicle was taken. I will refer to this in my appeal and ask to see the notes of the CEO.



That is the basis of my claim.



Practicalities:

I will be out of the country for a month as of this Thurs. so I wanted to get this up and running asap.

I have appealed and won the case in some 7 PCN cases and one CPZ. I quoted the following which I came across which I think may serve as an excellent argument in a defense. I will be quoting it again.

… “This very point was raised by Martin Wood, the Chief Parking Adjudicator for London, (no less) who described Controlled Parking Zones as 'archaic' and illustrates the difficulties:


"Essentially in a Controlled Parking Zone there is no requirement for there to be signs at the point of parking... So you can enter a zone, drive half a mile, decide to park and then you think, "Have I passed a sign? What on earth did it say?" ... I think the Controlled Parking Zone in particular does cause a lot of confusion."

Similarly the Seventh report of the Select Committee on Transport says: "The Department for Transport and the local authorities need to review the use of Controlled Parking Zones. These Zones need to be signed taking full account of the requirement of the motorist for clear and helpful signage at the point of parking. This is not the case at present where the relevant regulations can be out of sight. This leads to confusion and frequently unintended breaches of the rules. Much more signage should be provided within and throughout Controlled Parking Zones, and not just on the boundaries. Drivers must have the best opportunity possible to understand what restrictions are in force before, and as, they park their vehicles. They should not need to walk half a mile to find the regulations. In the Government's response to this report, the Department should confirm that it will cover the treatment of Controlled Parking Zones in its forthcoming guidance. "



The only thing I have not done thus far is check the wording of the documentation handed to me. I will post it after posting this text. (It has been a long day, up early and a schlep from North London to darkest Canning Town with a photo and edtiting session in the middle.)



Any feedback from the wise very welcome. Many thanks,



Brassens

[Advertisement]

[Spitfire_55]

Can you post up Everthing etc..

Appeal Forms , etc

[dave-o]

Where that red car is? Need to see all of that bay to check if it's correct.

[Brassens]

The closeup photo of the sign is the one sited above the red car in the shot. I was parked approx where the dark blue estate is located behind the BMW on a single yellow line. I will endeavour to post all remaining docs but had some trouble doing so at the initial posting. I will compose my appeal and get that online asap. (Leaving country for a month on Thurs. and need to get it in before then - As if I didn;'t have enough to do without this!)

Thanks for your interest.


Brassens

[Bernie the Bolt]

Your best claim IMHO is inadequate signage - the sign at the entrance to the CPZ as askew and unreadable. Do not say that you were not looking out for signs. Also there is not one on the other side of the road. I am not certain that one way streets are exempt from the requirement for there to be signs on both sides of the road, all other roads have to be signed in this way at the entry to the CPZ. Go for the contravention did not occur because of inadequate signs.

You do need to watch timing if you are travelling to meet deadlines.

At some point, if you get the chance, check the traffic order to ensure that the YL restriction is valid.

[Brassens]

This post has been edited by Brassens: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 - 08:48

[Brassens]

Thanks for your feedbackand interest. I have now posted the appeal ducumentation.

I thought that the invalid signage would be the best way to go. I do not know whether signs on each side of the road stating that the driver is entering a CPZ are madatory. (Others may be able to advise on this.) I know that at the entry to the Fins. Park CPZ they are on both sides.

Re. your advice:

"check the traffic order to ensure that the YL restriction is valid."

please clarify terms 'traffic order' and 'YL restrictions'. Am a newbee and unfamiliar with terms.

Many thanks once again.



Brassens

[Brassens]

This is the draft of the defence I intend to submit. Any feedback welcome. Thanks in anticipation.


Brassens


I am appealing against this ticket on the following grounds: -



Background



On ***** 2010 I drove northwards along Great Eastern Street and turned right into Rivington St. From there I turned right into Garden Walk where I parked on a single yellow line at approx. 8.30 pm, two hours after standard parking regulations end. When I returned to the location some one and a quarter hours later I found my car had been taken. Via the police I discovered that it had been towed and was in the Canning Town pound.



Signage.



Typically the entrance CPZs are identified by clearly visible signs on either side of the road at the entry to the zone. On turning right into Rivington St. as the enc. photo shows, the single CPZ sign is set at a 45 deg angle to the road. Both the one way signs are at right angles to the road making them clearly visible. Hackney Council have chosen to place only one sign at the entrance to the CPZ at this location and appear to have angled it so that it will be visible to those cars turning left into Rivington St. driving in a southerly direction along Great Eastern St. This means that it is to all intents and purposes obscured those drivers approaching, as I was, from the other direction.



Having parked my car on a single yellow line after 6.30pm, and not been alerted to the fact that I had entered a CPZ, seeing no signs along the stretch of the yellow line I left my car feeling confident that I had complied with traffic regulations.



When I returned to the location of my car a local resident was warning another driver against parking his car in the gap left after mine had been towed away. She said: “If you leave it there you will be towed. They come round here all the time. It’s just a money making venture. It’s horrible.” She also said, tellingly, “There used to be a sign here warning people but they took it down.”



Shortly after this a tow truck arrived and one of the crew started to hoist another car parked on the same stretch of single yellow line onto the back of the lorry. I spoke to the other crew member who said that this was a favourite place for the council from which to tow cars. It seems as though there is a regular shuttle between Garden Walk and Canning town until 12.00 midnight.



My experience is corroborated by those in the same predicament I found myself.



“I parked on a single yellow at after 9pm which normally in London is fine. There were no immediate notices to say otherwise. I left the car for twenty minutes and when I returned it was gone. The ticket was issued at 22:08 and the car was towed at 22:15. I spoke to the man at the car pound who said that this was a popular street for towing cars from - no doubt because it's a quiet and wide street.”



Here, another driver who experienced the same fate.



“At 21:45 on the evening of 16th December I parked my car on Garden Walk. I parked on a single yellow line and looked for any signage to check for restrictions. I could find none in the immediate vicinity and include a photograph to prove this.


On my return to Garden Walk at 22:20 my car was gone. I called the police and then the tracking service they recommended. I was aghast to find it had been towed away..


I had a conversation with one of your attendants who goes by the name of 1053. He revealed that Garden Walk is one of your most popular towing locations in the whole of Hackney. I imagine this is the because it's a quiet and wide street perfect for your trucks and because like me, many others are confused by your lack of signage. I have explored this matter in some detail an understand that any controlled zones must have CPZ signs at every entry point on both sides of the road. Your parking zone on Garden Walk does not meet this criteria.”



(I can supply the refs if required. I am sure I could find many more such accounts.)



Only the two man towing team were present when the car I witnessed was towed away. I understand that it is a requirement that the CEO is present when this occurs. Since the team in the case I witnessed failed to comply with regulations I have my doubts as to whether correct procedure took place in my own case. I would be grateful if you could let me have the CEO notes relating to the towing so that I can verify whether or not a ‘procedural impropriety’ had occured.



It appears that Garden Walk is a preferred source of income for Hackney Council. I will be contacting the Council authorities shortly to request information, under Freedom of Information legislation if necessary, as to the number of cars towed annually from Garden Walk and the revenue derived therefrom.




Perhaps you could advise what recommendations are given to the CEOs. Are they ever encouraged merely to issue a ticket but NOT recommend towing. (See notte below re. the recommended circumstances for towing.)





Missing Documentation



On collecting my car the following day pound I was not presented with the relevant removal authorisation form nor was it affixed to my vehicle (which I believe is procedurally incorrect.) As you are aware the authorisation form displays the actual time of the tow, so without it, it is not possible for the owner of the vehicle to determine if the correct period of time had elapsed before authorisation. (This information will be on the CEO’s notes so this should be clear as and when they are supplied to me as requested above.)


The required "REPRESENTATION AGAINST A REMOVED VEHICLE" form that was handed to me on recovery of my vehicle has at least two errors that invalidate the document. This document is required to conform to the CEoPC Representations and Appeals Regs 2007. The errors are as follows:

a) The document I received at Leven Road Pound states:
'representation must be made within 28 days from the day from which you have paid in full and been given this form'. The CEoPC regulations require it to state:'28 days beginning with the day on which you are advised of your right to make representations'. These two dates are not necessarily the same. The use of the word "from" twice in the sentence makes the instructions ambiguous to say the least and could result in an appellant to making representation after the due date.


b) The same document states: 'You may appeal to the Adjudicator within 28 days'. The CEoPC regulations require it to state:'28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of rejection'. Use of the word "within" adds an extra day to the stated time period, and could again cause an appeal to be submitted out of time. No start date is mentioned. This should be specified as per the CEoPC regulations.



There was no official stamp in the area marked ‘Official Stamp’ (!?) (Perhaps the official stamp had been lost…)



Generalities



Inappropriate response by Hackney Council

[/size]

[size="3"]On a more general point, this is the first time that a car belonging to me has been towed away in 41 years of driving. My vehicle was not causing a hazard or obstruction. It was not parked on a bus route. Garden Walk is a quiet but wide street. (This is probably why it is so popular with the towing teams. They can park alongside the row of cars, remove a vehicle and still allow plenty of room for other vehicles to pass. (See enc. photo.)



The Department for Transport’s guidance in “Operation Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement, TMA 2004” section 8.88 states:

“The Secretary of State is of the view that towing should only be used in limited circumstances such as where the same vehicle repeatedly breaks parking restrictions and it has not been possible to collect payment for penalties, primarily because the keeper is not registered, or is not properly registered, with the DVLA…. removal activity should only take place where it gives clear traffic management benefits.” None of the criteria for towing applied in my case.

I believe that the decision to tow my vehicle was disproportionate to the unwitting infringement caused. But then, of course, allowing my car to remain in situ would not have created a space for another unsuspecting driver such as myself to park and in turn itself be towed away thus maximizing the Council’s revenue for that evening.







I had never been to Hackney prior to this incident and have no desire to return. I looked at the regulations for parking in the CPZ in Hackney. They are as follows: -



Borough Boundary

Congestion Charging Scheme Boundary

A Wenlock Monday - Friday 8:30am to 6:30pm

B(s) South Shoreditch Monday - Friday 8:30am to 6:30pm and

Saturday 8:30am to 1:30pm

B(n) North Shoreditch Monday - Saturday 8:30am to Midnight

C Dalston Monday - Saturday 7:00am to 7:00pm

D(s) Hackney South Monday - Saturday 8:30am to 6:30pm

D© Hackney Central Monday - Saturday 8:30am to 11:00pm

D(n) Hackney North Monday - Saturday 8:30am to 6:30pm

E Stoke Newington Monday - Saturday 7:00am to 7:00pm

E(ext) Stoke Newington Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm

and Saturday 8:30am to 1:30pm

F Hoxton Monday - Friday 7:30am to 6:30pm

and Saturday 7:30am to 1:30pm

G Brownswood Monday - Friday 8:30am to 6:30pm & Match Day

G2 Finsbury Park Monday - Saturday 7:00am to 6:00pm & Match Day

H De Beauvior Monday - Friday 8:30am to 6:30pm

J Queensbridge Monday - Friday 8:30am to 6:30pm

M Clissold Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm

and Saturday 8:30am to 1:30pm & Match Day

N Homerton & Monday - Friday 7:30am to 6:30pm

Lower Clapton

Match Day Restrictions

Zone G Monday to Friday 8:30am to 8:30pm

Saturday, Sunday & Bank Holidays 12:30pm to 4:30pm

Zone G2 Monday to Friday 7:00am to 8:30pm

Saturday 7:00am to 6:00pm

Sunday & Bank Holidays 12:30pm to 4:30pm

Zone M Monday to Friday 8:30am to 8:30pm

Saturday 8:30am to 4:30pm

Sunday & Bank Holidays 12:30pm to 4:30pm

Match Day Area

New North Road

Old Street

Regent’s Canal

Eagle WharfRoadBracklyn Street

Parr Street

Cropley StreetWimbourne Street

Shaftsbury Street

Napier Grove

Forston St.



As you can see there is no consistency regarding permitted parking times.

This in itself places the hapless road user at a distinct disadvantage especially since the vast majority would not have this information to hand when seeking a parking space.



Finally, the Chief Parking Adjudicator for London, (no less) described Controlled Parking Zones as 'archaic' and illustrated the difficulties:
"Essentially in a Controlled Parking Zone there is no requirement for there to be signs at the point of parking... So you can enter a zone, drive half a mile, decide to park and then you think, "Have I passed a sign? What on earth did it say?" ... I think the Controlled Parking Zone in particular does cause a lot of confusion."

Similarly the Seventh report of the Select Committee on Transport says: "The Department for Transport and the local authorities need to review the use of Controlled Parking Zones. These Zones need to be signed taking full account of the requirement of the motorist for clear and helpful signage at the point of parking. This is not the case at present where the relevant regulations can be out of sight. This leads to confusion and frequently unintended breaches of the rules. Much more signage should be provided within and throughout Controlled Parking Zones, and not just on the boundaries. Drivers must have the best opportunity possible to understand what restrictions are in force before, and as, they park their vehicles. They should not need to walk half a mile to find the regulations. In the Government's response to this report, the Department should confirm that it will cover the treatment of Controlled Parking Zones in its forthcoming guidance. "

For the above reasons I request that the PCN be waived and that the full £260.00 paid be refunded.

Should this appeal not be met with a sympathetic response I will take the case to PATAS adjudication. I will require the docs. requested above (and possibly more.) It is likely that there would be costs. These I would claim if successful.

I have appealed 7 PCNs in recent years handed out by over-enthusiastic councils and have been successful in all cases including one issued (in error) in a CPZ. This was as a result of an appeal to PATAS. (I will quote a precedent if this case goes further.)

I trust that the information I have submitted will be given due consideration and look forward to hearing from you.



Please note I shall be out of the country on business from 11 Feb. till 13 Mar. and will only be able to respond to further correspondence after that date

[J_Edgar]

You can add into your appeal that the Representations Against a Removed Vehicle form provided by the pound states:

“…your representation must be made within 28 days from the day from which you have paid in full and been given this form.”

This misinforms you of your true legal position by adding a day to the time prescribed in law for making representations. This is misleading and a procedural impropriety. As per PATAS key case Al’s Bar v Wandsworth.

Also the form says “Please ensure that you tick a box to show the ground(s) under which your are appealing”

Restricting you to a box fetters your ability to make representations where more than one of the grounds applies. This is misleading and a procedural impropriety.

I would say this is also confusing as they refer to a as in one box but then have a bracketed pluralisation of ground(s).

This post has been edited by J_Edgar: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 - 14:23

[Brassens]

Many thanks I have incorporated these elements in the appeal. It will be off shortly - like me!


Brassens

[Bogsy]

The more I look at removal paperwork the more it seems completely unlawful.

A reg 9 PCN was served and yet there is no NtO served. Just a bit of paper mentioning your right to make representations (an attempt to be an NtO but 28 days since the PCN was served has not passed). Also the person only gets the PCN at the same time as this "representations" form and yet these two documents give contradicting advice.

There seems to be so many irregularities that I think awkward questions to certain London Boroughs will be shortly submitted.

This post has been edited by Bogsy: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 - 20:02

[Brassens]

I am new to this end of appeals so all feedback like this is very welcome. Given the injusticies which have been highlighted by those in authority as well as the hapless driver it seems that representation to parliament should follow.

Getting my appeal in today.


Thanks to all for input (please feel free to keep it coming even though the appeal is in as I may haver to go to the next stage -PATAS.



Brassens

[Brassens]

H Hackney

Parking Services 2 Hillman Street, Hackney, E81DY

Our ref:


**/03/2010

Dear Sir / Madam

Notice of Rejection

of representations against removal

Penalty Charge Notice Number:

Vehicle registration:

Date of contravention:

Location of contravention: Garden Walk

Time of contravention: 20.58

Nature of contravention: 01, Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours

Thank you for your letter received **/02/10 challenging the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

Your letter states that the vehicle was parked causing no obstruction or hazard.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes for the time in question confirm that the vehicle was parked on a restricted street during prescribed hours. Garden Walk is part of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), which is in operation Monday to Saturday, 08:30am to 12 midnight.

The signs stating the restrictions are clearly signed at each entrance to that zone. There are no requirements for additional signage relating to yellow lines within the zone, unless their restriction times differ to those of the CPZ.

Referring to your quote from the TMA 2004, section 8.88, what The Secretary of State means, with that statement, "primarily because the keeper is not registered, or not properly registered with the DVLA, is that if you have a valid driving licence, you must have read and understood the Highway code to know what sign is for what or what they mean.

And knowing at the sign you are referring to, in the third photograph taken The Civil

Enforcement Officer, that sign says zone ends zone, meaning you came in the wrong way

without seeing the CPZ sign, but then, if you came from Great Eastern Street as you claim, you



must have seen the CPZ sign within the zone





The onus is on the driver to ensure that they check the signage prior to parking their vehicle. Further information on yellow lines can be found in the Highway Code.



After carefully considering your representations we have found no grounds for appeal. This letter is therefore issued as a formal Notice of Rejection.

You can appeal to the independent adjudicator before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date that this letter was served (i.e. the date it was delivered).

If you wish to appeal further, please read the guidance notes attached to the appeal form

enclosed with this letter then complete the form and send it to: Parking and

Traffic Appeals Service, PO Box 279, Chertsey, KT16 6BU. Please do not send the appeal

form to us.

The adjudicator will consider your appeal and make a final decision. Please note that an

adjudicator can not allow an appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances but may refer the

case back to the authority for further consideration. An adjudicator can not normally award

costs but may do so if he considers that either party has acted frivolously, vexatiously or wholly

unreasonably.


Hackney

"


nmsruK IN HXi«>:


Parking Services

2 Hillman Street, Hackney, E8 1DY

Telephone: 020 8356 8877. Website: www.hacknev.aov.uk/parking

Monday to Friday 8:00am-8:00pm and Saturday 9:00am-1:00pm





This is the letter of Rejection from Hackney Council. I have been abroad and have to get a response in by 27 March.

[Brassens]

Hackney have ignored the following points which I raised in my appeal: -

*Typically the entrance CPZs are identified by clearly visible signs on either side of the road at the entry to the zone. On turning right into Rivington St. as the enc. photo shows, the single CPZ sign is set at a 45 deg angle to the road. Both the one way signs are at right angles to the road making them clearly visible. Hackney Council have chosen to place only one sign at the entrance to the CPZ at this location and appear to have angled it so that it will be visible to those cars turning left into Rivington St. driving in a southerly direction along Great Eastern St. This means that it is to all intents and purposes obscured those drivers approaching, as I was, from the other direction.

*Only the two man towing team were present when the car I witnessed was towed away. I understand that it is a requirement that the CEO is present when this occurs. Since the team in the case I witnessed failed to comply with regulations I have my doubts as to whether correct procedure took place in my own case. I would be grateful if you could let me have the CEO notes relating to the towing so that I can verify whether or not a ‘procedural impropriety’ had occured.

*Perhaps you could advise what recommendations are given to the CEOs. Are they ever encouraged merely to issue a ticket but NOT recommend towing. (See notte below re. the recommended circumstances for towing.)


* On collecting my car the following day pound I was not presented with the relevant removal authorisation form nor was it affixed to my vehicle (which I believe is procedurally incorrect.) As you are aware the authorisation form displays the actual time of the tow, so without it, it is not possible for the owner of the vehicle to determine if the correct period of time had elapsed before authorisation. (This information will be on the CEO’s notes so this should be clear as and when they are supplied to me as requested above.)


They have ignored the points I raised concerning the wording of the documentation and pretty much everything else I wrote in the letter.

I have to get my appeal in by 27 March. Any feedback would be welcome.

On a more general point I would like to get figures relating to the number of cars towed away from Garden Walk on an annual basis and the revenure derived therefrom. (Any idea how I can go about accessing this information?) The council’s argument is that the signage was adequate. My argument is: if it were adequate there would not be X number of hapless individuals such as myself towed away each year. I believe that it suits the council very well not to have sufficient signage at the point of parking thus boosting the council’s revenue.

All feedback and advice on the above much appreciated.


Brassens

[peodude]

Referring to your quote from the TMA 2004, section 8.88, what The Secretary of State means, with that statement, "primarily because the keeper is not registered, or not properly registered with the DVLA, is that if you have a valid driving licence, you must have read and understood the Highway code to know what sign is for what or what they mean.

I have no idea at all how they come to that conclusion. The meaning is quite clear, car not registered with the DVLA.

[Brassens]

To cut a long story short I appealed to PATAS and won! I got my £260 back. 84% of cases who appeal to Patas re. Hackney council are successful. I need to post my defence. Take heart it could work for you!

BB

[J_Edgar]

I do enjoy these removal success stories. The council has to eat humble pie and refund as well as bear the cost of the adjudication and man hours to defend.

Well done and congratulations on retrieving your hard earned.

[bama]

To cut a long story short I appealed to PATAS and won! I got my £260 back. 84% of cases who appeal to Patas re. Hackney council are successful. I need to post my defence. Take heart it could work for you!

BB

Congrats !

please post up the written decision when you get it

[roythebus]

Well done; no doubt you enjoyed lending Hackney £260 interest-free for several months while you were probably paying 19.9% interest to your credit card provider for that privilege. I don't think.