Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newham - PCN & Vehicle Removed - Parking Restictions
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
RG35
Hi,

I'm hoping someone here can help me.

My car broke down this Sunday (21/08/16) and refused to start, being completely immobile . After calling the AA they thought it best to tow the car to my usual garage due to what they defined as a 'Suspect body control unit fault'. The car was left on the road, clear of any lines or dropped kerbs that would incur any kind of contravention.

My dad went to the garage today, 23/08/16, to let them know the car was around the corner and move it so they could begin work on it, however when he arrived the car had disappeared. After a phone call it emerged that the car had been removed by the council that morning. The reason given was that there were roadworks taking place and parking was prohibited, however I can confirm that there were no signs stating this on the Sunday. To add insult to injury, the spot where I had parked the car now had a different car in it.

In order to mitigate any further charges I have to recover the car, however I'd like to confirm whether the payment of any fees can be regarded as an acceptance of the contravention.

As it stands I have no information on the alleged contravention; I have not yet been to recover the car and the Trace.London website has no details listed besides the vehicle information and the charges that are currently being applied.

If any further information is required at this stage please let me know. I will hopefully be in a position to provide more detailed information regarding the contravention tomorrow once I am in possession of the car.

Many thanks in advance.


hcandersen
You will have to pay the PCN discount penalty, the towing charge and storage costs in order to secure the release of your car. You may then make representations againt the PCN and/or the removal to recover all or part of these charges.

Pl recover your car as soon as you can and then come back here.
J.Hickinbotom
You can make an informal challenge against the penalty charge (not the removal charge) whilst the vehicle is impounded. However the council charges £40 pd storage after day 2.

Paying the penalty charge and removal fee means the council has to give you a form to make a formal challenge to them and how to appeal the adjudicator.

There is 'live' issue as to whether the council can demand payment before release, this comes to court in London in late Sept.

For now you must pay the release fee and then come back here with all the paperwork posted.

hcandersen
There is no provision for making an informal challenge, pl let's no go there: this is a simple case and the OP doesn't deserve or need to be burdened with the issue which underpins this comment.
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:22) *
There is no provision for making an informal challenge, pl let's no go there: this is a simple case and the OP doesn't deserve or need to be burdened with the issue which underpins this comment.



Check the LT website and it wil give you all the information you need.

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process

Make a challenge against the Penalty Charge Notice

You can write to the enforcement authority challenging the notice and they will consider it.

Please note that this challenge does not extend the 14 day limit for paying the reduced penalty that still applies unless the Enforcement Authority agree to extend the period while they consider the challenge, but you should check with them whether they will do this as they are not required to.

Statutory guidance states:

S.I. 2007/3482, Regulation 3(2). The enforcement authority must consider representations made at this
stage but if it proceeds to serve a Notice to Owner after receiving such representations, then those or other
representations can be made in accordance with S.I. 2007/3482, Regulation 4.


(2) A penalty charge notice served under [ regulation 9 or 9A ]
1
of the General Regulations must,
in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the
General Regulations, include the following information—
(a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations
to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator
if those representations are rejected; and
(b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may
be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i) those representations will be considered;
(ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations,
representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner
and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
hcandersen
Wrong section of the regs I'm afraid.

These are the appeals regs which deal with vehicles removed from the highway. They comprise reps and then appeal to an adjudicator. There is no 'informal' option.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:41) *
Wrong section of the regs I'm afraid.

These are the appeals regs which deal with vehicles removed from the highway. They comprise reps and then appeal to an adjudicator. There is no 'informal' option.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made



The fact that the vehicle has been removed makes no difference. I suggest you read the Nazir case which shows how you
can appeal the penalty charge whilst the vehicle is impounded.

2130028115 is the case no.


peterguk
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:45) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:41) *
Wrong section of the regs I'm afraid.

These are the appeals regs which deal with vehicles removed from the highway. They comprise reps and then appeal to an adjudicator. There is no 'informal' option.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made



The fact that the vehicle has been removed makes no difference. I suggest you read the Nazir case which shows how you
can appeal the penalty charge whilst the vehicle is impounded.

2130028115 is the case no.





Do the daily charges continue to rack up?
Neil B
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:28) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:22) *
There is no provision for making an informal challenge, pl let's no go there: this is a simple case and the OP doesn't deserve or need to be burdened with the issue which underpins this comment.



Check the LT website and it wil give you all the information you need.

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process

Make a challenge against the Penalty Charge Notice

You can write to the enforcement authority challenging the notice and they will consider it.

Please note that this challenge does not extend the 14 day limit for paying the reduced penalty that still applies unless the Enforcement Authority agree to extend the period while they consider the challenge, but you should check with them whether they will do this as they are not required to.

Statutory guidance states:

S.I. 2007/3482, Regulation 3(2). The enforcement authority must consider representations made at this
stage but if it proceeds to serve a Notice to Owner after receiving such representations, then those or other
representations can be made in accordance with S.I. 2007/3482, Regulation 4.

Ok, there's nothing particularly saying he/she can't but apart from being pointless it may delay collection of the vehicle.
It would also be dangerous as it may get taken as formal reps.

You are probably also confusing the OP for whom this is most likely a first experience.

and please stop doing this >
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:28) *
Make a challenge against the Penalty Charge Notice


Please respect other posters by making suggestions or offering opinions NOT issuing instructions.

(I've reported myself for sticking my nose in)
hcandersen
Are the regs as I posted or not? According to the adjudicator in the Nazir case they are:

The relevant provisions are contained in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, Regulation 11 of which requires that a person whose vehicle is removed should immediately be informed of his right to make representations to the Authority and of his right to appeal to the adjudicator if his representations are not accepted. The correspondence shows that the Authority did not inform the appellant of his rights in accordance with Regulation 11. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.


This was not a case of a person making 'informal' reps as of right, it was a c**k-up by the authority.

OP, you may not make nformal reps. You may of course leave your car until it rusts away and hope that a procedural fairy godmother charges to your rescue with £'000s in her chequebook.


J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:49) *
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:45) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:41) *
Wrong section of the regs I'm afraid.

These are the appeals regs which deal with vehicles removed from the highway. They comprise reps and then appeal to an adjudicator. There is no 'informal' option.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made



The fact that the vehicle has been removed makes no difference. I suggest you read the Nazir case which shows how you
can appeal the penalty charge whilst the vehicle is impounded.

2130028115 is the case no.





Do the daily charges continue to rack up?



The charges start from midnight following the day of removal, see statutory guidance.


Regulation 11 of the Appeals Regulations only comes into play if:

The release fee is paid or
The vehicle is disposed of

until then the matter is dealt with like any other regulation 9 or 9A pcn.

Owner does not get the appeals form until they pay the release fee or the car is sold/crushed.


11.— Right to make representations about a removed vehicle
(1) This regulation applies to a person where, as respects a vehicle which has been found in a civil
enforcement area for parking contraventions and removed under regulations made under section
99 of the 1984 Act—
(a) he is required to pay an amount on recovery of the vehicle under section 101A of that
Act;

(b) he receives a sum in respect of the vehicle under section 101A(2) of that Act;
© he is informed that the proceeds of sale of the vehicle did not exceed the aggregate
amount mentioned in that provision; or
(d) he is informed that the vehicle was disposed of without there being any proceeds of
sale.
(2) A person to whom paragraph (1) applies shall immediately upon the happening of an occurrence
referred to in paragraph (1) be informed—
(a) of his right to make representations to the enforcement authority in accordance with
this regulation; and
(b) of his right to appeal to an adjudicator if his representations are not accepted,
and that information must include a statement of the effect of paragraphs (4) and (5).

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:56) *
Are the regs as I posted or not? According to the adjudicator in the Nazir case they are:

The relevant provisions are contained in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, Regulation 11 of which requires that a person whose vehicle is removed should immediately be informed of his right to make representations to the Authority and of his right to appeal to the adjudicator if his representations are not accepted. The correspondence shows that the Authority did not inform the appellant of his rights in accordance with Regulation 11. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.


This was not a case of a person making 'informal' reps as of right, it was a c**k-up by the authority.

OP, you may not make nformal reps. You may of course leave your car until it rusts away and hope that a procedural fairy godmother charges to your rescue with £'000s in her chequebook.



The adjudicator was wrong, you only get the appeal form if you pay the release fee, the language is simple enough. Newham was
correct not to give him the appeals form as he had not paid the release fee.
peterguk
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:57) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:49) *
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:45) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 15:41) *
Wrong section of the regs I'm afraid.

These are the appeals regs which deal with vehicles removed from the highway. They comprise reps and then appeal to an adjudicator. There is no 'informal' option.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made



The fact that the vehicle has been removed makes no difference. I suggest you read the Nazir case which shows how you
can appeal the penalty charge whilst the vehicle is impounded.

2130028115 is the case no.





Do the daily charges continue to rack up?



The charges start from midnight following the day of removal, see statutory guidance.


I know that.

I asked if the daily charges continue to rack up whilst appealing as you recommend? Or, are they put on hold?
J.Hickinbotom
I recommended she pay the release fee before the charges start.

Hackney have been sued on this point a number of times and settled. This time they have decided to fight thus the Sept. court case.
peterguk
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 23:02) *
I recommended she pay the release fee before the charges start.


OK, so in practice, this is a bit pointless:

QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 21:16) *
You can make an informal challenge against the penalty charge (not the removal charge) whilst the vehicle is impounded. However the council charges £40 pd storage after day 2.


Thanks for clarifying.
hcandersen
Sued?

And the causes of action were?

If 'Sept' is going to decide this issue, fine. But OPs need advice on what is, not what might be.

OP, recover your vehicle then we'll take it from there.
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 16:06) *
Sued?

And the causes of action were?

If 'Sept' is going to decide this issue, fine. But OPs need advice on what is, not what might be.

OP, recover your vehicle then we'll take it from there.



My understanding is that the matter is in the county court so will not create precedent until it is appealed to the HC or CA.

The cause of action is under the Torts Interference With Goods Act 1977.


The Bogsey argument is correct. That is why Hackney has settled other claims. This claim was bigger hence they are gambling.


Of course the OP must pay the release fee, to do otherwise would be reckless.
hcandersen
Full circle.

OP, are you clear on your course of action?
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (RG35 @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 10:24) *
Hi,

I'm hoping someone here can help me.

My car broke down this Sunday (21/08/16) and refused to start, being completely immobile . After calling the AA they thought it best to tow the car to my usual garage due to what they defined as a 'Suspect body control unit fault'. The car was left on the road, clear of any lines or dropped kerbs that would incur any kind of contravention.

My dad went to the garage today, 23/08/16, to let them know the car was around the corner and move it so they could begin work on it, however when he arrived the car had disappeared. After a phone call it emerged that the car had been removed by the council that morning. The reason given was that there were roadworks taking place and parking was prohibited, however I can confirm that there were no signs stating this on the Sunday. To add insult to injury, the spot where I had parked the car now had a different car in it.

In order to mitigate any further charges I have to recover the car, however I'd like to confirm whether the payment of any fees can be regarded as an acceptance of the contravention.

As it stands I have no information on the alleged contravention; I have not yet been to recover the car and the Trace.London website has no details listed besides the vehicle information and the charges that are currently being applied.

If any further information is required at this stage please let me know. I will hopefully be in a position to provide more detailed information regarding the contravention tomorrow once I am in possession of the car.

Many thanks in advance.



PAY THE RELEASE FEE ASAP OR THEY CHARGE £40 A DAY STORAGE.
Bogsy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:56) *
Are the regs as I posted or not? According to the adjudicator in the Nazir case they are:

The relevant provisions are contained in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, Regulation 11 of which requires that a person whose vehicle is removed should immediately be informed of his right to make representations to the Authority and of his right to appeal to the adjudicator if his representations are not accepted. The correspondence shows that the Authority did not inform the appellant of his rights in accordance with Regulation 11. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.


This was not a case of a person making 'informal' reps as of right, it was a c**k-up by the authority.

OP, you may not make nformal reps. You may of course leave your car until it rusts away and hope that a procedural fairy godmother charges to your rescue with £'000s in her chequebook.


The appeal regs under Part 4 only become the relevant regs once payment pursuant to section 101A RTRA 1984 is made. The contravention stated on the PCN is a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement. We all know that civil enforcement is regulated under Part 6 of the TMA 2004 and not any part of the RTRA 1984. However, this is not the time to argue this point and the OP should as you advise recover their car as soon as they can to avoid incurring more expense.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 23:15) *
Full circle.

OP, are you clear on your course of action?

I hope so.
I hope RC35 hasn't been put off by the pointless debacle.

Let's hope the basic details of location, contravention, etc. will be revealed soon.
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 Aug 2016 - 22:56) *
Are the regs as I posted or not? According to the adjudicator in the Nazir case they are:

The relevant provisions are contained in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, Regulation 11 of which requires that a person whose vehicle is removed should immediately be informed of his right to make representations to the Authority and of his right to appeal to the adjudicator if his representations are not accepted. The correspondence shows that the Authority did not inform the appellant of his rights in accordance with Regulation 11. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.


This was not a case of a person making 'informal' reps as of right, it was a c**k-up by the authority.

OP, you may not make nformal reps. You may of course leave your car until it rusts away and hope that a procedural fairy godmother charges to your rescue with £'000s in her chequebook.


The appeal regs under Part 4 only become the relevant regs once payment pursuant to section 101A RTRA 1984 is made. The contravention stated on the PCN is a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement. We all know that civil enforcement is regulated under Part 6 of the TMA 2004 and not any part of the RTRA 1984. However, this is not the time to argue this point and the OP should as you advise recover their car as soon as they can to avoid incurring more expense.



This is correct. Until the release fee is paid or the vehicle is disposed of, the EA must deal with the removed vehicle in the same way as
as vehicle which has been issued with a pcn but not removed. If the owner does not pay the release fee then what? The vehicle stays
in the pound forever - as was the case in NAZIR.
Neil B
As many times as members try to lift the train back on the tracks someone has to derail it with a a general discussion that, with respect to mods, imo should be in the Flame Pit - as just that, a general discussion.
The result of someone posting a contentious and largely pointless matter, just to be 'clever', is of no help to RC35 whatsoever, who by now must be thoroughly put off before we've even got basic facts.
RG35
All,

Thanks for the help thus far - I can confirm I am now back in possession of the car after paying the money to recover the vehicle from Newham Car Pound.

I also have copies of the PCNs, attached. There were two; one given by the office at the car pound and one attached to the vehicle. Both are herewith, although only one copy of the rear as they are both identical. Note however that the information given on the front differs between the two.

I also have an appeals form provided at the car pound, I can attach this if required but my scanner is playing up at the moment so I can either take photographs if urgent or scan at work tomorrow.

As mentioned in my email, the car was towed to the spot the car was removed from; I have a breakdown report that confirms the car was recovered on Sunday (21/08/2016), however it does not confirm the location the car was left in.

If any further information is required please let me know.

Again, thanks in advance for any assistance.

Edit: I've just noticed the images don't display very well here. I've shared them on Google Drive; see https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bxc...SmQ3WjBpeU0zUnM for the originals.

PCN 1 - Provided at the car pound

Click to view attachment

PCN 2 - Attached to the car

Click to view attachment

PCN 3 - Rear of PCNs (both identical)

Click to view attachment
J.Hickinbotom
Once the car has been moved you cant claim immunity on the basis of a breakdown.


Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

Please also send me the order (or similar document) made by London Councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 9,
which sets the removal charge at £200."
Mad Mick V
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 17:42) *
Once the car has been moved you cant claim immunity on the basis of a breakdown.


Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

Please also send me the order (or similar document) made by London Councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 9,
which sets the removal charge at £200."


Of course he can claim immunity because the breakdown is only the beginning of the chain of events-it's part of the bigger picture.

I might state the said vehicle was moved in circumstances beyond the driver’s control. He didn't know where the third party had put it, when informed of its location he went there and the car had disappeared. Forget ownership it's all about culpability and IMO the OP is blameless and the adjudicator must rule on unfairness not on the nuances of towing policy/legislation.

Mick
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 11:45) *
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 17:42) *
Once the car has been moved you cant claim immunity on the basis of a breakdown.


Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

Please also send me the order (or similar document) made by London Councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 9,
which sets the removal charge at £200."


Of course he can claim immunity because the breakdown is only the beginning of the chain of events-it's part of the bigger picture.

I might state the said vehicle was moved in circumstances beyond the driver’s control. He didn't know where the third party had put it, when informed of its location he went there and the car had disappeared. Forget ownership it's all about culpability and IMO the OP is blameless and the adjudicator must rule on unfairness not on the nuances of towing policy/legislation.

Mick


The statutory grounds of appeal are set out below:


(5) The grounds referred to in paragraph (4)(a) are—

(a) that the vehicle had not been permitted to remain at rest in a civil enforcement area for
parking contraventions in circumstances in which a penalty charge was payable by virtue
of regulation 4 of the General Regulations;

(b) that a civil enforcement officer had not, in accordance with [ regulation 9 or 9A ]of
the General Regulations, fixed a penalty charge notice to the vehicle or handed such a notice
to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle, before the vehicle was removed;

© that, at the time the vehicle was removed, the power to remove the vehicle conferred
by paragraph (2) of regulation 5C of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations
was, by virtue of paragraph (3) of that regulation, not exercisable;

(d) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the place where it was by a
person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(e) that the place where the vehicle was at rest was not in a civil enforcement area for
parking contraventions;

(f) that the penalty charge or other charge paid to secure the release of the vehicle exceeded
the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case; or

(g) that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority


which one applies?
Bogsy
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 18:45) *
Of course he can claim immunity because the breakdown is only the beginning of the chain of events-it's part of the bigger picture.

I might state the said vehicle was moved in circumstances beyond the driver’s control. He didn't know where the third party had put it, when informed of its location he went there and the car had disappeared. Forget ownership it's all about culpability and IMO the OP is blameless and the adjudicator must rule on unfairness not on the nuances of towing policy/legislation.

Mick


I don't think that immunity will work Mick

1. The AA had control of the car with the owner's consent.

2. Lots of vehicles are parked by a driver who is not the owner (eg: business vehicles such as BT & Taxis) and yet the owner remains culpable despite having no control over how it is parked. There is a key case where the owner of a car gave it to the garage for repair and the garage parked it in contravention and the owner lost at adjudication as no statutory ground for cancelling applied. The OP's case would be stronger if the AA had not moved it from where it broke down.

@RG35....please confirm which of the PCN's has been paid.
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 13:20) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 18:45) *
Of course he can claim immunity because the breakdown is only the beginning of the chain of events-it's part of the bigger picture.

I might state the said vehicle was moved in circumstances beyond the driver’s control. He didn't know where the third party had put it, when informed of its location he went there and the car had disappeared. Forget ownership it's all about culpability and IMO the OP is blameless and the adjudicator must rule on unfairness not on the nuances of towing policy/legislation.

Mick


I don't think that immunity will work Mick

1. The AA had control of the car with the owner's consent.

2. Lots of vehicles are parked by a driver who is not the owner (eg: business vehicles such as BT & Taxis) and yet the owner remains culpable despite having no control over how it is parked. There is a key case where the owner of a car gave it to the garage for repair and the garage parked it in contravention and the owner lost at adjudication as no statutory ground for cancelling applied. The OP's case would be stronger if the AA had not moved it from where it broke down.

@RG35....please confirm which of the PCN's has been paid.



Correct.

Even if the vehicle had been removed from the original place where it broke down that is not a ground of appeal, merely
a MC.
Bogsy
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 20:26) *
Even if the vehicle had been removed from the original place where it broke down that is not a ground of appeal, merely
a MC.


It is common for TMO's to have an exemption from a restriction where the vehicle has been parked due to circumstances beyond the driver's control (eg: a breakdown) which means a penalty charge is not payable and so ground (a) can be claimed.
Mad Mick V
@ J Hickinbottom --Who cares?

You are looking at the wrong section and such a narrow interpretation would constrain an adjudicators consideration.

4(b) 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—

(i)refund some or all of the amount paid to secure the release of the vehicle or deducted from the proceeds of sale; or

(ii)waive its right to recover all or any of the sums due to it on account of the removal or disposal of the vehicle,


Mick
Bogsy
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 20:33) *
Who cares?

You are looking at the wrong section and such a narrow interpretation would constrain an adjudicators consideration.

4(b) 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—

(i)refund some or all of the amount paid to secure the release of the vehicle or deducted from the proceeds of sale; or

(ii)waive its right to recover all or any of the sums due to it on account of the removal or disposal of the vehicle,

Mick


You make a valid point Mick and it is definitely worth a go. Personally I don't see why the AA parking a car in contravention is any more compelling than any other person who has control of a vehicle with the owner's consent and then parks in contravention. Hopefully the adjudicator will feel sympathetic and use this ground.
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 13:33) *
Who cares?

You are looking at the wrong section and such a narrow interpretation would constrain an adjudicators consideration.

4(b) 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—

(i)refund some or all of the amount paid to secure the release of the vehicle or deducted from the proceeds of sale; or

(ii)waive its right to recover all or any of the sums due to it on account of the removal or disposal of the vehicle,

Mick


It wont work, the vehicle should have been towed to a place where it was legal to park.
Mad Mick V
@ Bogsy
Regards

Its about a duty of care and a legitimate expectation that the third party would not drop him in it. Giving responsibility to a third party is conditional not absolute. Unfairness is where the OP has no control of the situation and is chasing his car all over the place and yet is expected to pick up the tab for the third party's incompetence.

Mick
Bogsy
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 20:47) *
@ Bogsy
Regards

Its about a duty of care and a legitimate expectation that the third party would not drop him in it. Giving responsibility to a third party is conditional not absolute. Unfairness is where the OP has no control of the situation and is chasing his car all over the place and yet is expected to pick up the tab for the third party's incompetence.

Mick


I think this is the case where the court decided the owner remains liable despite being parked by a garage owner

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...-wandsworth.pdf
Mad Mick V
Yes, I remember the case that's why I said forget about ownership and concentrate on unfairness/compelling reasons. All you need is an adjudicator who looks at the common law case for unfairness and this case is winnable.

Otherwise the OP might look at cost recovery from the third party as a civil matter.

Mick
Bogsy
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 21:52) *
Yes, I remember the case that's why I said forget about ownership and concentrate on unfairness/compelling reasons. All you need is an adjudicator who looks at the common law case for unfairness and this case is winnable.

Otherwise the OP might look at cost recovery from the third party as a civil matter.

Mick


I agree on fairness but a court of appeal decision sets precedent and the judge did not concern himself with fairness or find anything compelling. It was simply a matter of fact and law. As adjudiactors have to follow precedent it is not guaranteed the OP will win on what the AA did. However, there is nothing to lose by giving it a go. I would as adjudicators often make the law up as they go along. I also think it worthwhile seeking a copy of the "alleged" temporary traffic order to see if it actually exists and if it does, to see if any loopholes are contained within.
Neil B
If I might be excused for taking this back down to basics.

39 Sebert is directly opposite 62 where we have another case.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107962

RC35, I'm guessing you were waiting for Dennis to look at the car?

There ARE suspension signs, both sides of the road and in close proximity.
They've been there throughout despite the OP's assertion to the contrary.

BUT - none actually face the road. I wish I could get the pics up here off my phone.
I'll try again later.

It's notable that had they used Mick's DfT approved version, designed to fold to three sides round posts,
the rotation wouldn't have been a problem.

Potential relatively easy win on those facts alone methinks.

ALSO -
Both PCNs are 01a and hence both wrong, as the other thread.
I can assure members the notices show a loading restriction as well.

I'm yet to hear members' opinions on what an adjudicator might decide for that particular 'wrong contravention'.

-

RC35.
Just a quick suggestion about a previous post >
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 17:42) *
Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

I don't think the wording is wise: That could easily be taken as being your formal reps.
Ask for the evidence fine but not that wording.

Since you can't e-mail them anyway, you'll have to phone - and that means you have to know how to do that >

This is the short version - how to phone Newham parking.

1/. DON'T.
2/. That is, you can't get through to parking - DO NOT waste your time selecting that option.
3/. Go via general enquiries. How >
4/. Talk gobbledygook to the voice recognition gets you to general help: They'll sort it. Note time and name(s).
J.Hickinbotom
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 15:22) *
If I might be excused for taking this back down to basics.

39 Sebert is directly opposite 62 where we have another case.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107962

RC35, I'm guessing you were waiting for Dennis to look at the car?

There ARE suspension signs, both sides of the road and in close proximity.
They've been there throughout despite the OP's assertion to the contrary.

BUT - none actually face the road. I wish I could get the pics up here off my phone.
I'll try again later.

It's notable that had they used Mick's DfT approved version, designed to fold to three sides round posts,
the rotation wouldn't have been a problem.

Potential relatively easy win on those facts alone methinks.

ALSO -
Both PCNs are 01a and hence both wrong, as the other thread.
I can assure members the notices show a loading restriction as well.

I'm yet to hear members' opinions on what an adjudicator might decide for that particular 'wrong contravention'.

-

RC35.
Just a quick suggestion about a previous post >
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 17:42) *
Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

I don't think the wording is wise: That could easily be taken as being your formal reps.
Ask for the evidence fine but not that wording.

Since you can't e-mail them anyway, you'll have to phone - and that means you have to know how to do that >

This is the short version - how to phone Newham parking.

1/. DON'T.
2/. That is, you can't get through to parking - DO NOT waste your time selecting that option.
3/. Go via general enquiries. How >
4/. Talk gobbledygook to the voice recognition gets you to general help: They'll sort it. Note time and name(s).



Try to think logically. What happens if they treat a request for evidence as formal reps?

They accept and OP gets a refund.

If they issue a NoR then OP appeals on the ground of PI that you were given an NoR
before making formal reps which is a PI and so you win at appeal.


fax to 08453 058 106
Bogsy
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 22:22) *
If I might be excused for taking this back down to basics.

39 Sebert is directly opposite 62 where we have another case.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107962

RC35, I'm guessing you were waiting for Dennis to look at the car?

There ARE suspension signs, both sides of the road and in close proximity.
They've been there throughout despite the OP's assertion to the contrary.

BUT - none actually face the road. I wish I could get the pics up here off my phone.
I'll try again later.

It's notable that had they used Mick's DfT approved version, designed to fold to three sides round posts,
the rotation wouldn't have been a problem.

Potential relatively easy win on those facts alone methinks.

ALSO -
Both PCNs are 01a and hence both wrong, as the other thread.
I can assure members the notices show a loading restriction as well.

I'm yet to hear members' opinions on what an adjudicator might decide for that particular 'wrong contravention'.

-

RC35.
Just a quick suggestion about a previous post >
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 17:42) *
Email the council and ask for all their evidence.

"I would like to make formal representations with the benefit of seeing the council's evidence, please send me
all photos, site plans, CEO notes etc. by email to xxxxxxxxxx.

I don't think the wording is wise: That could easily be taken as being your formal reps.
Ask for the evidence fine but not that wording.

Since you can't e-mail them anyway, you'll have to phone - and that means you have to know how to do that >

This is the short version - how to phone Newham parking.

1/. DON'T.
2/. That is, you can't get through to parking - DO NOT waste your time selecting that option.
3/. Go via general enquiries. How >
4/. Talk gobbledygook to the voice recognition gets you to general help: They'll sort it. Note time and name(s).


Newham not accepting email is against the sec of states statutory guidance which in itself could be a procedural impropriety if no regard was given to it.

9.4 Enforcement authorities should offer motorists flexible and efficient ways to contact them, including e-mail and telephone. They should ensure there is an adequate audit trail to rebut any accusations of unfairness.


It is also against E-Govt Policy.

Newham should be challenged on why they are not flexible in accordance with the statutory guidance. The only purpose of being inflexible is to deter people from making challenges/representations. It's unethical especially in the modern age where most councils want you to report things or make payments online.
Neil B
QUOTE (J.Hickinbotom @ Wed, 24 Aug 2016 - 22:34) *
Try to think logically.

Try and have a day off jerk.gif
southpaw82
I'm fed up with receiving reports complaining about posts in this thread. Sort yourselves out, stop bickering, stop measuring each other's c**ks and behave otherwise I'll ban someone just to keep my inbox clear.
hcandersen
OP, I'm confused and devoid of facts, so pl clarify and no dodging pl.

The car broke down and the AA were summoned.
The AA dealt with a responsible person at the breakdown. WHO?
The AA assessed the problem and asked that person which of the options availble under their AA cover they wished to use. The AA do not make this decision. And that person's decision was?
That person did or did not accompany the AA to the new location.
Then the accounts differ: the OP says that there were no restrictions in place at the time (which rather presupposes that the OP accompanied the car, but if not then this statement is hearsay) but other posters suggest that there were/must have been. OP, if you went to the site, were there or weren't there suspension signs. Remember, the council will have photos but these would only apply to the dates of the PCNs. Where are these photos?

IMO, only when we have a full deck of facts from the OP's perspective could we construct the strongest reps including which PCN number is in the receipt from the pound etc. and continuous contravention - was it a continuous or discontinuous restriction? Who knows?
RG35
Hi,

I'm going to try and respond to all the points raised:

The car broke down and the AA was summoned, by me, and I was in the car while it was being towed; I accompanied the AA to the new location.

I'm sure that at the time the car was left there were no signs readily visible on the road outside number 39 nor the immediate area. We circled the block twice in order to find a space and I was there for some time as I waited for a cab home so I can imagine either the AA driver, my passenger or me would have noticed. There may have been visible signage further up Sebert road but we entered via Avenue Road.

I have not seen any photos showing the car at the time of the contravention, and I'm not sure how to obtain these - if anyone can offer assistance on how to obtain these it would be appreciated.

I'm at work currently and don't have the receipt to confirm which PCN was paid but I will update this evening with that info.

Apologies if it appears I'm trying to dodge questions, I can assure you all I am not.

Thanks



J.Hickinbotom
as previously suggested you need all the council evidence etc.

till then you have nothing to go on
Neil B
QUOTE (RG35 @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 11:04) *
I have not seen any photos showing the car at the time of the contravention, and I'm not sure how to obtain these - if anyone can offer assistance on how to obtain these it would be appreciated.
As above, we've told you earlier.
Phone instructions posted and a FAX number.
If you experience difficulty let us know.

--
Is the car now in for repair? Hence, I'm thinking you've probably revisited the location? What did you find?
RG35
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 17:12) *
QUOTE (RG35 @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 11:04) *
I have not seen any photos showing the car at the time of the contravention, and I'm not sure how to obtain these - if anyone can offer assistance on how to obtain these it would be appreciated.
As above, we've told you earlier.
Phone instructions posted and a FAX number.
If you experience difficulty let us know.

--
Is the car now in for repair? Hence, I'm thinking you've probably revisited the location? What did you find?


Thanks, I will try and give them a call today/tomorrow.

When I revisited the location on the day there was a different car parked in exactly the same space, and there had definitely been extra signage added as there was now a road-facing sign parked next to where my car had been.

Neil B
QUOTE (RG35 @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 11:04) *
Apologies if it appears I'm trying to dodge questions,

A bit more surprised you are not asking any.

It's the only gauge we have of how much you understand >

The process,
Your aim,
The points made by members so far.

etc.
RG35
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 17:20) *
QUOTE (RG35 @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 11:04) *
Apologies if it appears I'm trying to dodge questions,

A bit more surprised you are not asking any.

It's the only gauge we have of how much you understand >

The process,
Your aim,
The points made by members so far.

etc.


Just to confirm:

I understand that I have 28 days to make a representation to Newham council.

My aim is to recover some (if not all) of the penalty charge and removal fees.

The questions I have are the approach to the representation; i.e. which of the circumstances and/or evidence is relevant in contesting the charges, and I understand that for this I need to obtain evidence from the council, by calling them and speaking to someone from general enquiries, not from parking, and I am to note the time and date of the call.

FWIW, the PCN mentioned on the receipt is the one ending 7299.

Thanks


Neil B
Ok great.
The reason you don't select 'parking' when prompted is that it just plays a lot of recordings of
basic info.
The general customer service team can speak to parking on your behalf.

It will be interesting to see which sign the CEO photographed: I've got pics of most of them.
RG35
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Aug 2016 - 18:56) *
Ok great.
The reason you don't select 'parking' when prompted is that it just plays a lot of recordings of
basic info.
The general customer service team can speak to parking on your behalf.

It will be interesting to see which sign the CEO photographed: I've got pics of most of them.


Just one more question, when you said:

QUOTE
Phone instructions posted and a FAX number.


What did you mean by the 'FAX number' bit? Am I to ask them for a fax number or have them fax the documents to me?

Thanks
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.