Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Suspended parking
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
E.J.
Hi All,

My appeal has been rejected by Newham Council. I want to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator and I need someone to help me to get justice.
On 15.04.15 I was traveling abroad for my wedding. I left my car by my house within designated parking space with valid parking permit displayed. There were no signs of upcoming parking suspension. When I came back on 24.04.15 I found my car has been relocated, one tire was flat because of damage to a wheel valve. There was a penalty notice attached to my windscreen. Parking was suspended for Murphy Group and it was not an emergency works. Can someone help me to fight back greedy Newham Council, please. I'm a bit struggling to upload attachments, hopefully will sort this out soon.

Click to view attachment
Trampilot
Hi and welcome.

You need to post up the pcn - both sides and make sure you remove any details that can identify you. Also you will need to include what you appealed on as well as their rejection.

Importantly though you do need to find out what was written on the signs giving notice of the suspension. Hopefully the warden who gave you the ticket also took a picture of it. You can request their notes from the council. In addition the council has to fulfill regulations when suspending parking. If they have got it wrong then you may have a case.

Others will follow with more specific advice.
Mad Mick V
The Council's rejection letter is incorrect in two regards--you did not park whilst the bay had been suspended and a motorist is under no legal obligation to check their car every day or indeed any day. Furthermore I would imagine your representations indicated that you were on holiday when the suspension came into effect so the Council has failed to consider mitigating circumstances/compelling reasons.

If you could post up the docs and your appeal this would be helpful. Presumably there is no photo of the suspension sign available.

For some background cases see post 13 on this thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...100518&st=0

Mick
PASTMYBEST
Was just going to post the humphrey's case The high court set's precedent on this, so a council have to comply with the ruling.

A procedural impropriety is doing some thing that the act does not allow," Like telling porkies "

I would send a follow up e mail to your informal reps point this out to them and invite them to cancel now
Enceladus
Looks like you have no discount option so you might as well appeal to the adjudicator. You have no financial incentive to do otherwise.

Please proceed in the tried and tested manner. Please post up scrubbed scans of both sides of all pages your PCN and Notice To Owner. Complete pages only please. And please download & post up any evidence photos available from the council website. And all the remaining pages of your Notice Of Rejection.

Scrubbed = obscure or redact your name & address if applicable, PCN number and vehicle reg. Please leave everything else visible especially all time, date, location and council info.

Photos are fine if you have no scanner. Please make sure the images are flat and well lit. Use close-up / macro mode if available. Try and have the images the right way up, some of the members won't even try and read them if they are sideways. Don't try and re-size the images, let the forum software handle that.

Some judiciously cut up pieces of paper, eg post-it note, are good for obscuring. Please leave visible all time, date, location and council/enforcement authority info.

Please open a free of charge basic account on somewhere like http://tinypic.com or dropbox.com or similar. I use tinypic without complaint. There are numerous others. Log in and upload your scans, photos etc. Copy and paste the provided IMG links into your posts on here. Et voilà!

Have you still got the envelope for the NTO? Does the franking mark agree with the NTO date?
Likewise Notice of Rejection?
And does the date of the NOR agree with the "EA" date on the London Tribunals appeal form?
E.J.
Hi, Click to view attachment

Signs: and
E.J.
I thing the sign was not registered but I don't remember where to check it. Thank you guys for helping me.
i need help
DURING THE HOURS OF RESTRICTED PARKING

not good enough
E.J.
I have a valid residential parking permit, I am allowed to park at any time.
hcandersen
OP, you have already lost most of the 28 days in which to register your appeal which should be submitted by 9 August and which only requires you to compete the form. This is your first priority, you make you full appeal later.

You must post the full NOR.

You must post the authority's evidence photos.

In both cases, host the photos externally and link to here.

As regards I Need Help, you've missed their point.

Whether you were in contravention depends on where you were and when. As regards where, I discount your comment that you parked outside your property, I want to see the authority's photos. As regards when, during what periods did the suspension apply? The motorist doesn't know and you are not required to look for another sign, the suspension sign should be self contained, and it isn't. So we need the authority's photos to see if these show the traffic sign to which the sign refers. I think there's a sign immediately above the suspension sign, but is this shown in their evidence?
E.J.
Dear Hcandersen, There are 30 pictures available on Newham web side. Can you please be kind to enter www.newham.gov.uk, click 'Pay it' and click 'Parking Penalty Charge Notice', enter PCN number PN12042334 and reg. nm02dzv. I checked the authorities pictures and there was no parking control signs to be seen on them but they actually were in place, above suspension signs. You could see one in my pictures, but because of the angle I took the picture the content is not seen . Also it was a yellow leaflet on my windscreen 'AUTHORISED FOR REMOVAL' that was not filled at all. My be it could help me to win?
hcandersen
Although it means introducing a new argument in your appeal (which would be looked at more critically than those which you've used in your representations) you should include - contravention did not occur. This arises because the authority have not provided in evidence the 'Hours of Restricted Parkng' during which the contravention is alleged to have occurred.

But there are issues of tactics regarding whether you bring this forward now in your appeals form or wait until you submit your appeal after you receive their evidence pack.
PASTMYBEST
HCA agreed that the photo's do not show the hours of restriction and that an adjudicator would look critically at this as a submission. It's a resident parking zone a resident should be expected to know these. But leaving aside what i believe is the strongest point, (When the op parked there where no signs nor any suspension) What a stupid suspension 2 hours a day for 5 day's how does that help the work going on? and is it legal?

hcandersen
I think this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I'm also conscious that although the owner is liable and could be the occupier and could hold the permit, this does not mean that the driver knew. IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective that the sign is non-compliant because it does not state clearly the hours of restriction. Their subsequent failure to even provide evidence of this at the hearing only compounds their predicament.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 15:27) *
I think this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I'm also conscious that although the owner is liable and could be the occupier and could hold the permit, this does not mean that the driver knew. IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective that the sign is non-compliant because it does not state clearly the hours of restriction. Their subsequent failure to even provide evidence of this at the hearing only compounds their predicament.


Agreed, the authorization states information regarding time of day shall be shown. Conscious of the guidance regarding internet forum advice re challenges and appeals i would be inclined to present everything now, and give no opportunity for the council to cry foul.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3033.pdf
i need help
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 14:38) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 15:27) *
I think this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I'm also conscious that although the owner is liable and could be the occupier and could hold the permit, this does not mean that the driver knew. IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective that the sign is non-compliant because it does not state clearly the hours of restriction. Their subsequent failure to even provide evidence of this at the hearing only compounds their predicament.


Agreed, the authorization states information regarding time of day shall be shown. Conscious of the guidance regarding internet forum advice re challenges and appeals i would be inclined to present everything now, and give no opportunity for the council to cry foul.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3033.pdf




Your appeal should read like this:


I have a residents' parking permit which allows me to park in the relevant bay at all times. The permit no. is xyz12345, it is valid from x date to y date.


I refer the adjudicator to the Council site photos and the Dft authorisation.

The yellow triangle sign erected by the Council states the the suspension is in force:-

"DURING THE HOURS OF
RESTRICTED PARKING

FOR MURPHY GROUP"


The sign does not say what the hours of restricted parking are for "Murphy Group", or anyone else for that matter.

The sign therefore does not convey a prohibition of any kind. Therefore the contravention did not occur.

The Council has no reasonable prospect of resisting this appeal. The Council should bare in mind the potential costs implication in pursuing a hopeless case.




File appeal online

https://londontribunals.org.uk/
DancingDad
Sorry I need help, but I would have thought that first question an adjudicator would ask is how does anyone know what the restricted hours are?
Answer, it's on the sign immediately above.

While I appreciate where you are coming from, I suspect that the strength will be down to the adjudicator on the day. And we know they can be contrary.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (i need help @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 18:28) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 14:38) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 5 Aug 2015 - 15:27) *
I think this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I'm also conscious that although the owner is liable and could be the occupier and could hold the permit, this does not mean that the driver knew. IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective that the sign is non-compliant because it does not state clearly the hours of restriction. Their subsequent failure to even provide evidence of this at the hearing only compounds their predicament.


Agreed, the authorization states information regarding time of day shall be shown. Conscious of the guidance regarding internet forum advice re challenges and appeals i would be inclined to present everything now, and give no opportunity for the council to cry foul.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3033.pdf




Your appeal should read like this:


I have a residents' parking permit which allows me to park in the relevant bay at all times. The permit no. is xyz12345, it is valid from x date to y date.


I refer the adjudicator to the Council site photos and the Dft authorisation.

The yellow triangle sign erected by the Council states the the suspension is in force:-

"DURING THE HOURS OF
RESTRICTED PARKING

FOR MURPHY GROUP"


The sign does not say what the hours of restricted parking are for "Murphy Group", or anyone else for that matter.

The sign therefore does not convey a prohibition of any kind. Therefore the contravention did not occur.

The Council has no reasonable prospect of resisting this appeal. The Council should bare in mind the potential costs implication in pursuing a hopeless case.




File appeal online

https://londontribunals.org.uk/




All well and good and even thought of that bit, but then decided that on the balance of probability an adjudicator would feel that the OP understood that the restriction was not only applicable to the contractor carrying out works. So yes put it in if you wish ,but not on it's own.

You have a strong case in the fact that you parked prior to any restriction, that the council misinformed you in their rejection that you have a duty to check your car every day. And that the time of day SHALL BE SHOWN on the sign.

Shall be is important, as the phraseology dictates that it is something that the council must do

And that the council show no evidence that you parked in contravention in any photograph



i need help
What are the restricted hours for Murphy Group?

Mad Mick V
As mentioned we need to see the missing parts of the Notice of Rejection.

It seems the Council has not responded to the OP's argument that he was out of the country and did submit evidence to the Council to that effect. So we have a failure to consider issue which must be added to the appeal. Remember an adjudicator cannot judge on mitigating circumstances but he can on compelling reasons.

Mick
E.J.
Hi Mick, I posted the missing part of the Notice of Rejection in my first replay. It's Click to view attachment. Thank you for your support.
hcandersen
There isn't a single traffic sign in the regulations nor has one been authorised by DfT which is other than wholly self-contained. No traffic sign relies on another traffic sign in order to convey its meaning, for b****y good reason, the other sign might not be there and how could parliament approve something as a traffic sign which relied on something outside parliament's control?

It is irrelevant whether there was another traffic sign and where it was - which isn't even in evidence - the authority's traffic order requires them to place a traffic sign and this one is not a traffic sign because it is neither specified under the regs nor compliant with any other authorisation. It matters not whether it was placed next to a traffic sign because in addition to everything else its wording is sufficiently ambiguous as to cast doubt on whether THAT sign applies.

IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective.
i need help
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 05:58) *
There isn't a single traffic sign in the regulations nor has one been authorised by DfT which is other than wholly self-contained. No traffic sign relies on another traffic sign in order to convey its meaning, for b****y good reason, the other sign might not be there and how could parliament approve something as a traffic sign which relied on something outside parliament's control?

It is irrelevant whether there was another traffic sign and where it was - which isn't even in evidence - the authority's traffic order requires them to place a traffic sign and this one is not a traffic sign because it is neither specified under the regs nor compliant with any other authorisation. It matters not whether it was placed next to a traffic sign because in addition to everything else it's wording is sufficiently ambiguous as to cast doubt on whether THAT sign applies.

IMO, it is unarguable from the authority's perspective.



Correct.
DancingDad
I am still of the opinion not to rely on the sign as a single point of attack.
Too much chance of a contrary adjudicator not being of the same certainty.

Add it as an additional and it may be the winner but not on its own.

Parked when no signs.
No requirement to visit every day, supported by Humphrey case
False information on the NOR
Plus signage issues.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 10:16) *
I am still of the opinion not to rely on the sign as a single point of attack.
Too much chance of a contrary adjudicator not being of the same certainty.

Add it as an additional and it may be the winner but not on its own.

Parked when no signs.
No requirement to visit every day, supported by Humphrey case
False information on the NOR
Plus signage issues.



+1 why only fire one bullet when you have a fully loaded gun
Mad Mick V
A quick draft other members can amend or add points:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NOs. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 21: Parked in a suspended bay or space.

The Appeal

This appeal relates to the PCN noted above and the Notice of Rejection dated ?? /?/2015. It sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made by Newham Council. Each of the appellant points listed below represent substantive issues which impact on the appeal and which can each stand alone in refutation of the Council’s case.

1. Contravention Did Not Occur

My vehicle was in situ when the suspension signs were erected. I did not enter a parking bay whilst the suspension signs were in place and therefore I cannot be culpable. Neither am I at fault if the Council erected signs without my knowledge or took no steps to inform me. The vehicle had been in this position for at least ???? days prior to the suspension coming into effect. It should have been evident from the Council's suspension log that my vehicle was in situ when signage was put in place.

I have already offered the Council evidence that I was not in the country when the suspension came into effect nor when the PCN was issued.

These are not mitigating circumstances as the Council seems to believe but cold hard facts.

In view of the above I contend that the contravention did not occur.

I would direct the Adjudicator to the compelling reasons aspect of the following case which supports this ground :- Humphreys, R (on the application of) v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service [2015] EWHC 713 (Admin) (18 February 2015).

2. Warning of Suspension

As a residents permit holder I have legitimate expectations that I can park in the zone nearest my home but accept that this is subject to the Council suspending parking places providing it gives residents adequate notice. This has not happened; neither the Council nor the concessionaire has given prior notice to me either by phone or leaflet drop. Given that I visit my car infrequently I had no warning that a suspension was imminent. Neither am I under any legal obligation to check my vehicle on a regular basis as per the above judgement.


3. Fettered Discretion

The Notice of Rejection is substantially incorrect and the reasoning is such that the Council has fettered its discretion. The Council maintains that it is up to drivers to check their vehicle every day to ensure their parking bay is not being suspended. This is nonsense; there is no such legal obligation placed on motorists and the Council is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Without any regard to the circumstances of the case, the Council has argued that I parked in a bay where there were clear suspension signs. Totally untrue I never parked in a bay that was suspended and the Council has evidence to the effect that I could not have driven into a suspended place because, being out of the country, I was physically incapable of doing so.


4. Failure to Consider

I am not satisfied that the Council has considered the circumstances of my case, specifically and clearly raised in my representations and appeal. I believe this to be a procedural impropriety.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Regulation 4 (2) allows a representation against a Notice to Owner to be made either on the basis of specific grounds set out in Regulation 4(4) or under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii 'that whether or not any of those grounds apply there are compelling reasons why in the particular circumstances of the case the enforcement authority should cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.'

Regulation 5 clearly states that the local authority is under a duty to consider representations made under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii.

One of the grounds of appeal set out in Regulation 4(4) is that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Procedural impropriety is defined as a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Regulations issued under that Act.

The Council has failed to consider or respond to my key arguments (which correspond to those noted in paragraph 7 of the Humphreys judgement).

There has been no consideration of discretion or indeed the compelling reasons which I have advanced.

The Councils letter of ?????? 2015 is clearly a stock letter which underlines my points above.


5. Defective Suspension Sign

The Department of Transport authorisation of the Newham Council suspension sign specifies that the time of suspension should be displayed. The sign reads
"During the hours of restricted parking" followed by "for the Murphy Group". Clearly this is misleading and confusing and the signage must be regarded as inadequate in terms of Article 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

Therefore if the sign is legally inadequate, enforcement of the parking bay cannot ensue and PCNs so issued are invalid and unenforceable.

A suspension sign cannot be used in conjunction with signage it replaces and therefore must properly denote timings as per the DfT authorisation.

Mick
DancingDad
I'm okay with that.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 22:52) *
I'm okay with that.



It's going in my file of good un's
hcandersen
Hopefully constructive ...

1. The appeal should start with a context particularly as we draw on this so heavily.

The fact that the OP parked outside their house should be brought to the fore, otherwise they could live within a 10-street permit zone, nowhere near the location in which case the argument ( repeated several times) regarding their right to be informed must fail. But they lived next to the parking place.

2. Do not state that 'given that I visit my car infrequently' as this surely only serves to undermine their position.

3. As regards failure to consider, I suggest the letter state words to the effect ...

I refer the adj to my representations in which I set out ... separate arguments under .... statutory grounds. I also refer the adj to the NOR in which the authority's detailed consideration comprises the following:
' We have carefully considered what you say but have decided not to cancel the PCN' .....

'It is up to drivers to check on their cars every day to check that their parking bay is not being suspended."


4. Procedural Impropriety
I refer the adj to regulation 6(2) of the Appeals Regulations which provides:
'A NOR..... may contain such other information as the authority consider appropriate.'

I accept that this gives the authority a wide brief as regards what may be included, however, I respectfully suggest that the wording in the NOR falls outwith that power.

In this respect, I refer the adj to page 2 of the NOR and specifically the paragraph headed 'If you do nothing' , the last sentence of which states that if the surcharged penalty due under a Charge Certificate is not paid the authority:
'.. may apply to the Conty Court to recover the money - plus court costs - from you.'
I suggest that as the Traffic Enforcement Centre is not a County Court, that any sums due may be recovered as if they were due under a county court order, but without the implication that a County Court Judgment would be registered against the person, with all the effects which this would have on a person's credit rating, and that the total of the so-called 'court costs' is £7 and not of the scale implied by the wording in the NOR, the authority have included this sentence for no other purpose than to scare the owner as regards what might befall them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.