Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for being parked in a suspended bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
RoadWalrus
Hi,

My dad lives on a road that has parking bays for residents with permits.

There's a parking bay suspension notice, I have no idea how long it was up for. He may or may not have already been parked there before the notice went up (though I suspect he parked there afterwards). He got a text from a neighbor yesterday morning at 6am warning him that the suspension had started, but my dad didn't see it until 08:15, and when he went to move his car, he already had the PCN.

My mother is disabled and was a blue badge holder, but as she can't drive anymore, my dad drives her in the aforementioned vehicle.

My dad is extremely overworked caring for my mum, and it's likely that he just didn't see the notice, or forgot about it, which is the only reason I'm asking if there's a way to weasel out of the PCN. I'm fairly sure he was in the wrong, regardless I think the fine is unfair, and in my opinion they should have given nearby residents a written notice.

I'm including a picture of the notice. Sorry about the extensive redacting, it's not my personal information to give away.

Thanks for reading.

makara
Back of PCN too - and no need to remove the location, as someone will probably ask you for the Google Street View link
cp8759
Please show us the back of the PCN, and if possible a photo of the suspension sign.
DancingDad
And the location, a streetview link is good.

Where was the sign in relation to the vehicle ?
RoadWalrus
Hi folks, thanks for the quick replies.

Link to street view

The suspension includes "END 3 PERMIT HOLDER PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE NUMBERS 53 TO 57" 53 is the left most house, 57 is the right side semi (with a satellite dish on the chimney). In the street view you can see that the silver Ford is parked outside of 53, and the black Nissan is parked outside 57, while 55 has an empty space. The parking suspension was attached to the silver pole which the silver Ford is parked in front of.

My father claims that he was parked across spaces 55-57, so the front of his car would be midway down the Nissan, and the read of the car would be in front of 55. In other words he was without a doubt inside the parking suspension.

Back of the PCN


Photo of the parking bay suspension

cp8759
I cannot find fault with the PCN or the sign (which has DFT authorisation). See what others say, but these are my thoughts:

At this stage I would send informal representations asking the council to exercise discretion to cancel, explaining how much of a burden it is for your dad to care for your mum (Don't exaggerate, but it doesn't sound like you'd need to), and that he didn't see or forgot about the sign due to the pressure he is under in having to look after her. Mention the blue badge and send a copy. You have a fair chance they will cancel, and if they don't, they should confirm when the sign was put up so you'll know whether the sign went up before or after he parked the car (and if the sign was put up only very shortly before the restriction came into force, that might be a ground of appeal). In any even if they reject the representations, they normally re-offer the discount.

Remember your dad should either make the representations himself, or if you're the one who writes to the council, he should include a signed letter authorising you to make representations on his behalf.
DancingDad
IMO 10 minute grace period applies.

Dad was lawfully parked in a designated parking place right up to 8am when the suspension kicked in.
May not have been in the restricted hours but still a designated parking place
PCN was served at 8.08am
Three whole minutes before it lawfully could be.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/56...gulation/2/made
cp8759
Well spotted, I think you're right.
RoadWalrus
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 14:24) *
IMO 10 minute grace period applies.

Dad was lawfully parked in a designated parking place right up to 8am when the suspension kicked in.
May not have been in the restricted hours but still a designated parking place
PCN was served at 8.08am
Three whole minutes before it lawfully could be.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/56...gulation/2/made


Very well spotted. I've done a little digging and not seen any legislation related to parking suspensions which might interfere with that assessment, so this seems like a good way to go. I'll wait a little while before submitting an appeal, in case anybody else has something to say.
cp8759
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 16:26) *
Very well spotted. I've done a little digging and not seen any legislation related to parking suspensions which might interfere with that assessment, so this seems like a good way to go. I'll wait a little while before submitting an appeal, in case anybody else has something to say.

Note you should still ask the council to exercise discretion to cancel, say something like "If I am wrong about the 10 minute rule, the council should still exercise discretion to cancel because..."
RoadWalrus
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 16:55) *
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 16:26) *
Very well spotted. I've done a little digging and not seen any legislation related to parking suspensions which might interfere with that assessment, so this seems like a good way to go. I'll wait a little while before submitting an appeal, in case anybody else has something to say.

Note you should still ask the council to exercise discretion to cancel, say something like "If I am wrong about the 10 minute rule, the council should still exercise discretion to cancel because..."

I feel like I would weaken my resolve by mixing the two. Saying "This ticket was illegally issued" is fantastic, but if I follow it up with a sob story then it looks like I'm not sure of myself, and they may try to be adamant, in the hope that I pay up.
DancingDad
It's called covering the bases.

Dear Sirs
The PCN seems to have been unlawfully issued due to the 10 minute grace period etc etc.
Should you disagree, any transgression was minor and I would ask that you acknowledge that by exercising your discretion.....
Should you still reject, please explain exactly why the parking bay is not a designated parking bay within the terms of the 2015 amendment to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations

RoadWalrus
I might be misunderstanding your replies, could you please clarify:

Are you both suggesting that I should request they exercise their discretion based on
1) my father's extenuating circumstances
2) the duration of the vehicle being parked in the suspended area being short
3) both

Also, thanks for the template @DancingDad
cp8759
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sun, 25 Mar 2018 - 01:14) *
I might be misunderstanding your replies, could you please clarify:

Are you both suggesting that I should request they exercise their discretion based on
1) my father's extenuating circumstances
2) the duration of the vehicle being parked in the suspended area being short
3) both

Also, thanks for the template @DancingDad

I think you are misunderstanding.

You need to tell the council that

a) The PCN is invalid as it was issued within the 10 minute grace period, as it's invalid as a matter of law they must cancel it (if they agree the PCN is invalid they have no discretion not to cancel it, it's out of their hands)
b) If you are wrong about a, would they take please exercise their discretion to cancel due to extenuating circumstances.

The form of words proposed by DancingDad is good, I would use that.
RoadWalrus
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 25 Mar 2018 - 01:22) *
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sun, 25 Mar 2018 - 01:14) *
I might be misunderstanding your replies, could you please clarify:

Are you both suggesting that I should request they exercise their discretion based on
1) my father's extenuating circumstances
2) the duration of the vehicle being parked in the suspended area being short
3) both

Also, thanks for the template @DancingDad

I think you are misunderstanding.

You need to tell the council that

a) The PCN is invalid as it was issued within the 10 minute grace period, as it's invalid as a matter of law they must cancel it (if they agree the PCN is invalid they have no discretion not to cancel it, it's out of their hands)
b) If you are wrong about a, would they take please exercise their discretion to cancel due to extenuating circumstances.

The form of words proposed by DancingDad is good, I would use that.


I understood your point, I just wasn't convinced that DancingDad was suggesting quite the same thing, since his template alluded to discretion based on (2) rather than (1).
PASTMYBEST
This case and review agree that the grace period applies

2170123723

I heard from Mr Pedro, the partner of the appellant at a hearing today.
The appellant makes several points about the validity of the suspension of this bay.
In the first place it is said that Ms MacDougall and Mr Pedro both parked the car together for the last time before the Christmas festivities on Christmas Eve in this bay immediately outside the lowrise flats where they live. It remained there until 6 January when the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. They are adamant that there was no suspension warning sign there on that day nor on any of the days upon which they walked past the bay over the Christmas period. The first that they were aware that there had been a suspension was when they discovered that the car had been removed, and they noticed the yellow suspension sign on the post some 3 or 4 vehicle lengths away. I found Mr Pedro an honest witness and gave weight to his evidence that there was no yellow suspension sign erected up to 14 days before the date of the suspension itself, as claimed by the Authority.
I have considered the officer's record as to the suspension, on which the council relies for the assertion that the suspension sign was indeed erected 14 days prior to 6 January. I note that the wording of the record is not in terms conclusive of the fact that a sign had been erected – it merely seems to confirm that an order for suspension had been made. To that extent therefore and taken together with the persuasive evidence of Mr Pedro I conclude that there is some confusion about when the suspension sign was in fact erected.
I also take into account Mr Pedro's evidence that during this period there were multiple suspensions erected over a period of time in this street and for short periods. It is in those circumstances well within the bounds of likelihood that the keeping track of the suspensions and necessary signage had become difficult.

There is force in the argument that the officer should have allowed a 10 minute period of grace before issuing the Penalty Charge Notice, in line with Section 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. This is the provision which applies where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and been left beyond the permitted parking period. The crucial element is that the initial parking must have been lawful. In this case a course it was, at the time the vehicle was left the suspension was not actually in force, even if there is debate about when the warning sign was erected. The suspension came into force at 8 AM on the morning of 6 January and the PCN was issued at 8:02 AM. In the circumstances I conclude that the issue of this PCN was not compliant with the requirements of the "10 minute grace period" regulations and that the appeal could be allowed on that basis.

A final point is on the wording of the sign itself. The appellant points out that it was imprecise, referring to the suspended spaces in relation to the numbers of properties on the opposite side of the street. This can be contrasted with a sign relating to a later suspension (one of the series) in the same bay, a photograph of which was produced by Mr Pedro and which refers to property numbers on the side of the street on which the bay is situated.

And the review

This is an application for review by the Enforcement Authority on the basis that the original Adjudicator has erred in law.
In effect, Enforcement Authority ground is that the original Adjudicator should not have held that Regulation 4(3) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, as inserted by Regulation 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015, that no penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, does apply.
The Enforcement Authority submit that when a bay is suspended, as was the position in this present case, the prevision cannot apply.
In many cases it will not and certainly will not if the vehicle is parked after the suspension comes into force.
In this case the suspension came into force at 08:00 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 08:02.
The vehicle was in a resident parking bay for which it was assigned a resident parking permit. The owner had paid to park their vehicle in the bay by purchasing the permit. It is irrelevant whether it is a physical or virtual permit. Regulation 4(4)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, as amended therefore applies because a period of parking that had been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place and that period ended at 08:00.
Considering the submission before me carefully I find no ground for review of the original Adjudicator’s decision, which therefor stands.
RoadWalrus
Thank you for your post, PASTMYBEST. Unfortunately I had already sent off the letter to dispute the PCN, otherwise I likely would have referenced your case.

I recently received a letter from the council rejecting my appeal, though given the verdict in PASTMYBEST's post, I feel like their reasoning is flawed. They claim that "grace periods are not required when a vehicle is clearly parked in contravention", which I think is a little strange, since the vehicle was parked legally until the suspension came into effect. Thoughts?
cp8759
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 18:34) *
Thank you for your post, PASTMYBEST. Unfortunately I had already sent off the letter to dispute the PCN, otherwise I likely would have referenced your case.

I recently received a letter from the council rejecting my appeal, though given the verdict in PASTMYBEST's post, I feel like their reasoning is flawed. They claim that "grace periods are not required when a vehicle is clearly parked in contravention", which I think is a little strange, since the vehicle was parked legally until the suspension came into effect. Thoughts?

You now need to wait for the Notice to Owner before you can make formal representations. In the mean time have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1370799. I think you can use much of it verbatim but obviously adapt the details to match your case, and in ground 3 replace the reference to case 2170256432 with case 2170123723 (the one given by PMB in post 16).

When you get the Notice to Owner, upload it on here before replying, just in case it includes any errors we can use as further grounds of appeal.
RoadWalrus
So I discussed it with my father and he doesn't want to risk having to pay the doubled fine. I realise that the threat it a scare tactic to pressure you into paying rather than challenging, but... it's certainly working. It seems that if I wait for the Notice to Owner, then he'll be obliged to pay the full fine if his challenge is rejected. Is there a way of getting to a definitive answer without risking incurring the full fine?
cp8759
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:18) *
So I discussed it with my father and he doesn't want to risk having to pay the doubled fine. I realise that the threat it a scare tactic to pressure you into paying rather than challenging, but... it's certainly working. It seems that if I wait for the Notice to Owner, then he'll be obliged to pay the full fine if his challenge is rejected. Is there a way of getting to a definitive answer without risking incurring the full fine?

The short answer is no, you cannot get a definitive answer without the full amount being in play. Having said that, in my view there is no meaningful risk, as the PCN is invalid, the regulations are what they are and the PCN was issued prematurely. Conservatively speaking, I put the chances of you winning at adjudication at around 99%. The council have rejected the appeal primarily because the person who issued the reply is not legally trained and they don't know the regulations (and they want the money, which is why Parliament established an independent tribunal system).

However the way to look at it is this: it would be a minimum of 3 months before this got to adjudication, then even if your dad lost he'd have another month before he had to pay, so if he fights this he won't have to pay anything till mid August. Save up around £4 a week, and by then he'll have the extra £65. In the likely event that he wins, he can buy himself a nice treat.
hcandersen
IMO, their reply is wrong in law as well as being poorly written.

I would carry on - even if you receive a NTO and they were to reject representations (which we'd craft specifically to address the legal issues), common practice is for authorities to re-offer the discount.

The legal issue which I can see at present:
I parked at around *** in a parking place which has a normal restriction of Permit holders only, 8.30 am - 6.30 pm Mon-Sat. The authority's evidence shows a sign which as far as is relevant states 'Parking suspended 23 March -23 March Enforced 8am - 1159pm'. Given the specific wording of the sign, I understood this to mean that the normal parking restriction on that day had been replaced with one where parking suspension came into effect at 8am, prior to which it was lawful to park at the location - for information, I was displaying a valid permit ( OP, please confirm).

The PCN was issued at 8.08 and therefore a period of 10 minutes had not elapsed after my car ceased to be parked lawfully.

Regulation *** makes it clear that the authority are prevented from serving a PCN until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed and therefore the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

It is unacceptable for the authority to simpy state that the regulations do not apply, they must provide proper reasoning.

Given that this is a simple case of applying the law and should the authority wilfully misapply the regulations then I shall take the matter to adjudication where I will make a claim for costs.

In the alternative to the above, if the authority claim that the suspension was from 0001 - 2359 23 March (which of course was not the regular restricted period) then they must explain the purpose and meaning of '(Enforced 8am to 1159pm)'. A traffic sign is required to include specified information, including the period of suspension, and as the only time period included in the sign is 8am to 1159pm, then this is the only reasonable interpretation of the sign. If the period of suspension was not 8am -1159pm then the sign is unclear and misleading and consequently fails the legal test for a 'traffic sign' under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and applicable regulations.

Something along these lines.

Here are the regs:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/56...gulation/2/made

It is a parking bay;
It is designated ( otherwise it could not be suspended in this manner);
The permitted period of parking on that day ended at 8am.

But it's up to your dad.
RoadWalrus
Hi all,

I convinced my father to wait for the NTO, which arrived on the weekend (I can upload it if anyone wants, but it looks pretty standard).

I can confirm that he had a valid resident parking permit at the time.

I read through the post cp8759 linked to, as well as the piece that hcandersen wrote, I think I'll use hcandersen's suggestion since it's quite succinct, but I think I'll work in grounds 1 & 2 of representation, since that's compatible with their terminology, and I think that will help my cause. I'll wait a day in case anybody has anything to add.
cp8759
Post a draft on here for comment first. It's also worth uploading the NtO, in case it contains any errors that amount to procedural improprieties.
RoadWalrus
Hi,

Here's the NTO, but it's pretty standard so there's not much to see. IMGUR seems to have got confused about my post, and despite my best efforts, it's showing pages 3 and 4 twice. Apologies for that.

I quite liked hcandersen's template, so I'm pretty much just copying that. I'll send it by post, along with page 4 of the NTO signed + dates, and I'll even include a copy of the parking contraventions amendment.

Here's my draft:

QUOTE
Representation for PCN QT01084513

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am making a formal challenge to PCN QT01084513 as I believe it has been unlawfully issued on the ground that there has been an procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

I parked at around 21:00 2018-03-22 in a parking place which has a normal restriction of Permit holders only, 8.30 am - 6.30 pm Mon-Sat. The authority's evidence shows a sign which as far as is relevant states 'Parking suspended 23 March - 23 March Enforced 8am - 1159pm'. Given the specific wording of the sign, I understood this to mean that the normal parking restriction on that day had been replaced with one where parking suspension came into effect at 8am, prior to which it was lawful to park at the location - for information, I was displaying a valid permit, which can be seen clearly in the PCN photographs.

The PCN was issued at 08.08 and therefore a period of 10 minutes had not elapsed after my car ceased to be parked lawfully. Regulation 2.2.b.3 makes it clear that the authority are prevented from serving a PCN until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed[1] and therefore the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

Upon appealing to the parking authority (In this case, RBK Parking Services), they insisted that “grace periods are not required when a vehicle is clearly parked in contravention”. It is unacceptable for the authority to simply state that the regulations do not apply, they must provide proper reasoning.

Given that this is a simple case of applying the law and should the authority wilfully misapply the regulations then I shall take the matter to adjudication where I will make a claim for costs.

In the alternative to the above, if the authority claim that the suspension was from 00:01 - 23:59 23 March (which of course was not the regular restricted period) then they must explain the purpose and meaning of '(Enforced 8am to 1159pm)'. A traffic sign is required to include specified information, including the period of suspension, and as the only time period included in the sign is 8am to 1159pm, then this is the only reasonable interpretation of the sign. If the period of suspension was not 8am -1159pm then the sign is unclear and misleading and consequently fails the legal test for a 'traffic sign' under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and applicable regulations.

[1] Section 2.2.b.3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 states that “No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/56...20150561_en.pdf



Any comments welcome.
cp8759
I think you've covered everything that you need to. If they reject, the appeal to the tribunal will need to be more detailed but we'll draft that for you if need be. Including a copy of the regs is a good call, will help with a claim for costs should it come to that.
RoadWalrus
Long post is long! And getting longer!

Good evening all, I received a formal notice of rejection to my formal representation.

Nothing jaw dropping here, this fellow is adamant that he's right about the grace period not applying to suspended bays. I'll go ahead and follow the instructions under "if you do not agree with our decision" and make the same case which I made for the formal representation. I'll hold off a couple of days to give you folk a chance to chime in, in case you have other ideas.
Mad Mick V
OP-----On reflection it would have been better to quote all of the Camden case that PMP posted.

If a Council loses a case on the 10 minute issue/suspended bay argument then gets knocked back at Review that is a very powerful "precedent" and one which another Council would have difficulty contesting.

I would continue with your appeal on this basis.

Mick
hcandersen
1. It’s not a ‘grace’ period, it’s a statutory period during which an authority may not issue a PCN to a vehicle in contravention;
2. The idiot has even stated that a motorist may not park while ‘the suspension is enforced’. Half-wit. They mean in force, but their stupidity is your gain because the ‘enforced’ time starts at 0800.

I doubt they’ll even contest at the end.

Don’t clutter your appeal, just add their procedural impropriety in the NOR in which they have misinformed you regarding your right of appeal. What they are required to advise you in the NOR is that:
You may appeal and if this is made no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service then this would be accepted. Alternatively, if you appeal outside this period then the adjudicator may register your appeal which must include reasons for lateness.

They’ve told you that you have the right to have your appeal registered up to 28 days after the date of service. This is objectively and legally false. If you were to appeal on the last day of that period, your legal right in this regard would have been lost. They have also failed to tell you that an appeal may be made later and the process which you should follow i.e. to give reasons.

And they’ve misinformed you regarding their rights to serve a CC. But IMO this is secondary.
cp8759
I would use your representations as the basis of your appeal, but add an additional ground at the end of procedural impropriety, due to failure to consider your representations.

Here's how I'd word it:
--------------------------
While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in appeal number 2170256432 is relevant in this instance. In that decision, adjudicator Houghton stated, in so far as is relevant:

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”.

The Notice of Rejection states "I have noted the points in your correspondence however I am satisfied the suspended bay was correctly signed", but my representations did not take issue with the adequacy of the signage, this suggests the council has issued a pro-forma rejection.

The Notice of Rejection goes on to say "There is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be observed for a specific period of time before issuing a PCN for this type of contravention. Suspension bays is an instant issue irrespective of how long the vehicle is parked or when the suspension started". This shows a complete misunderstanding of the law, and it shows the council could not have possibly considered whether The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had any relevance to the representations that had been submitted or the circumstances of the case. My representations to the council included the following: "Section 2.2.b.3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 states that “No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes”"

The council did not state that it had evidence to show that I had parked after 8 am (in which case the 10 minute rule would have no relevance), nor did it explain that for whatever other reason, the 10 minute rule was not applicable or relevant to the circumstances of the case. As stated by adjudicator Houghhton, "Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected". Instead of explaining why the 10 minute rule was not relevant or applicable to the circumstances of the case, the council dealt with the representations as if The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had never existed. Once the council has shown such a basic misunderstanding of the law, it cannot then contend that it has properly discharged its public law duty to considered the representations that have made. This failure to consider is a procedural impropriety which means that, even if my other grounds of appeal lack all merit, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.

RoadWalrus
Thank you for your replies, all.

@chandersen I'm not seeing any information online about submitting an appeal late with a reason (not that I don't believe you), so I'm a little hesitant to include that for that reason. Do you think it's really worth including?

@cp8759 Thank you for the contribution, happy if I just slap it on the end of my formal representation and submit that to the tribunal?

Here's what it would look like:

QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am making a formal challenge to PCN QT01084513 as I believe it has been unlawfully issued on the ground that there has been an procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

I parked at around 21:00 2018-03-22 in a parking place which has a normal restriction of Permit holders only, 8.30 am - 6.30 pm Mon-Sat. The authority's evidence shows a sign which as far as is relevant states 'Parking suspended 23 March - 23 March Enforced 8am - 1159pm'. Given the specific wording of the sign, I understood this to mean that the normal parking restriction on that day had been replaced with one where parking suspension came into effect at 8am, prior to which it was lawful to park at the location - for information, I was displaying a valid permit, which can be seen clearly in the PCN photographs.

The PCN was issued at 08.08 and therefore a period of 10 minutes had not elapsed after my car ceased to be parked lawfully. Regulation 2.2.b.3 makes it clear that the authority are prevented from serving a PCN until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed[1] and therefore the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

Upon appealing to the parking authority (In this case, RBK Parking Services), they insisted that “grace periods are not required when a vehicle is clearly parked in contravention”. It is unacceptable for the authority to simply state that the regulations do not apply, they must provide proper reasoning.

Given that this is a simple case of applying the law and should the authority wilfully misapply the regulations then I shall take the matter to adjudication where I will make a claim for costs.

In the alternative to the above, if the authority claim that the suspension was from 00:01 - 23:59 23 March (which of course was not the regular restricted period) then they must explain the purpose and meaning of '(Enforced 8am to 1159pm)'. A traffic sign is required to include specified information, including the period of suspension, and as the only time period included in the sign is 8am to 11:59pm, then this is the only reasonable interpretation of the sign. If the period of suspension was not 8am -11:59pm then the sign is unclear and misleading and consequently fails the legal test for a 'traffic sign' under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and applicable regulations.

While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in appeal number 2170256432 is relevant in this instance. In that decision, adjudicator Houghton stated, in so far as is relevant:

“The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”.

The Notice of Rejection states "I have noted the points in your correspondence however I am satisfied the suspended bay was correctly signed", but my representations did not take issue with the adequacy of the signage, this suggests the council has issued a pro-forma rejection.

The Notice of Rejection goes on to say "There is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be observed for a specific period of time before issuing a PCN for this type of contravention. Suspension bays is an instant issue irrespective of how long the vehicle is parked or when the suspension started". This shows a complete misunderstanding of the law, and it shows the council could not have possibly considered whether The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had any relevance to the representations that had been submitted or the circumstances of the case. My representations to the council included the following: "Section 2.2.b.3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 states that “No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes”"

The council did not state that it had evidence to show that I had parked after 8 am (in which case the 10 minute rule would have no relevance), nor did it explain that for whatever other reason, the 10 minute rule was not applicable or relevant to the circumstances of the case. As stated by adjudicator Houghhton, "Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected". Instead of explaining why the 10 minute rule was not relevant or applicable to the circumstances of the case, the council dealt with the representations as if The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had never existed. Once the council has shown such a basic misunderstanding of the law, it cannot then contend that it has properly discharged its public law duty to considered the representations that have made. This failure to consider is a procedural impropriety which means that, even if my other grounds of appeal lack all merit, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.

[1] Section 2.2.b.3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 states that “No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/56...20150561_en.pdf
cp8759
I would amend it slightly as follows (keep all bold and italics exactly as I have used them below):

-------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,

My grounds of appeal to the tribunal are as follows.

Ground 1: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority: The PCN was issued prior to the time permitted by the regulations:

I parked at around 9 pm on Thursday 22 March 2018 in a parking place which has a normal restriction of Permit holders only, 8.30 am - 6.30 pm Mon-Sat. The authority's evidence shows a sign which as far as is relevant states 'Parking suspended 23 March - 23 March Enforced 8am - 1159pm'. Given the specific wording of the sign, I understood this to mean that the normal parking restriction on that day had been replaced with one where parking suspension came into effect at 8am, prior to which it was lawful to park at the location - incidentally, I was displaying a valid permit, which can be seen clearly in the PCN photographs.

The PCN was issued at 08.08 and therefore a period of 10 minutes had not elapsed after my car ceased to be parked lawfully. Regulation 4 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, as amended by regulation 2(2)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015, provides that where a vehicle has been lawfully parked in a designated parking space, the authority is proscribed from serving a PCN until a period of 10 minutes has elapsed, therefore the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

The parking authority stated in the Notice of Rejection that “grace periods are not required when a vehicle is clearly parked in contravention”. It is unacceptable for the authority to simply state that the regulations do not apply, they must provide proper reasoning. Furthermore the 10 minute period is not a grace period that enforcement authorities grant out of the goodness of their hearts, rather it is a statutory period enshrined in legislation enacted by Parliament, the enforcement authority is not at liberty to disapply this statutory provision.

Given the above, it would be wholly unreasonable for the authority to now resist this appeal.

Ground 2: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority: The authority has failed properly to consider my representations:

While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in appeal number 2170256432 is relevant in this instance. In that decision, adjudicator Houghton stated, in so far as is relevant:

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”.

The Notice of Rejection states "I have noted the points in your correspondence however I am satisfied the suspended bay was correctly signed", but my representations did not take issue with the adequacy of the signage, this suggests the council has issued a pro-forma rejection letter.

The Notice of Rejection goes on to say "There is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be observed for a specific period of time before issuing a PCN for this type of contravention. Suspension bays is an instant issue irrespective of how long the vehicle is parked or when the suspension started". This shows a complete misunderstanding of the law, and it shows the council could not have possibly considered whether The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had any relevance to the representations that had been submitted or the circumstances of the case. My representations to the council included the following: "Section 2.2.b.3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 states that “No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes”"

The council did not state that it had evidence to show that I had parked after 8 am (in which case the 10 minute rule would have no relevance), nor did it explain that for whatever other reason, the 10 minute rule was not applicable or relevant to the circumstances of the case. As stated by adjudicator Houghton, "Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected". Instead of explaining why the 10 minute rule was not relevant or applicable to the circumstances of the case, the council dealt with the representations as if The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had never existed. Once the council has shown such a basic misunderstanding of the law, it cannot then contend that it has properly discharged its public law duty to considered the representations that have made. This failure to consider is a procedural impropriety which means that, even if my other grounds of appeal lack all merit, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.
hcandersen
OP, in response to your question regarding an appeal to the adjudicator:

A NOR must state the form and manner in which an appeal must be made, see 6(1)©:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/6/made


Also, see 2(3) of the Schedule which deals with adjudication procedures:

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

Also, see the appeals procedure on the London Tribunals website:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appe...ocess-explained

I don’t know where you were looking online!

I would also add that IMO it is not a good idea for OPs to go hunting for info online to validate or otherwise views expressed in posts. Much better to just ask here if in doubt!

RoadWalrus
@hcandersen Thank you for putting the leg work into finding those resources for me.

QUOTE
I don’t know where you were looking online!

Clearly, the wrong places!

QUOTE
I would also add that IMO it is not a good idea for OPs to go hunting for info online to validate or otherwise views expressed in posts

Apologies for my cynicism, but in my experience online I've found plenty of people volunteer answers when they actually haven't got a clue about the subject matter. I will of course follow up whenever I can't validate something independently.

@cp8759 Thank you for the advice in structuring the representation, I'm happy with what you wrote. I'm interested in including hcandersen's observation of the procedural impropriety of the NOR. IMHO it's not entirely pertinent to the appeal itself, but I think it does strengthen my case. I was therefore thinking of adding a paragraph before the end of Ground 2, reading something like:

QUOTE
Furthermore the authority failed to correctly describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, as required of them in in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions act of 2007 No. 3482, part 2, Regulation 6 (1c). The authority stated that should I not pay or appeal within 28 days from the date of service of the letter, I would be faced with a Charge Certificate, entirely failing to mention accommodations made for belated appeals, as stated in part 2, section 2(3) of the schedule procedure in adjudication proceedings.


I'm happy to drop this part if it clutters the appeal, or replace with a substitution since everybody here seems to be better at writing these appeals than me smile.gif

Thoughts?
cp8759
You could add that bit at the end, but I suspect it won't make much of a difference to be honest.
RoadWalrus
Hi all,

The tribunal rejected my appeal

QUOTE
Adjudicator's Reasons
This is an appeal against an alleged contravention of being parked wholly or partly in a suspended
bay or space.The Appellant appeals on the basis that there has been a procedural impropriety by the
Enforcement Authority (EA) as the penalty charge notice (PCN) was issued within the ten minute
grace period provided by Regulation 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)
General Regulations 2007, as amended by the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
(England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 ("the Regulations"). The Appellant also states that
the Enforcement Authority (EA) failed to properly consider his representations, and failed to correctly
describe the form and manner in which an appeal to the adjudicator must be made.
I have considered the evidence submitted by both parties including photographs, correspondence and
the relevant law.
The Appellant does not deny that his vehicle was parked in the suspended bay after 8am when the
suspension was in place, but asserts that a ten-minute grace period should have been observed in
accordance with the Regulations. The suspension on parking in the residents' bay commenced at
8am on 23 March 2018. This means that at 8am the residents' bay was no longer a residents' bay, but
a suspended bay. The Regulations do not apply to a suspended bay and therefore the EA was not
required to give a grace period and was able to issue the PCN at 8.08am.
I have considered the correspondence and in my view the EA adequately engages with the
Appellant's representations. The EA addresses the representations regarding the Regulations and
explains that they do not apply to suspended bays. I also consider that the Notice of Rejection
adequately notifies the Appellant of the next steps in relation to the statutory process and appeal to
the adjudicator.
For the reasons set out above I find that the contravention occurred and I refuse this appeal.


So I guess that closes the matter

Thanks for the guidance everyone.
PASTMYBEST
I would apply for a review the adjudicator erred in law and in fact. They discount that at the time of parking you parked legally and they discount the amendment number 2 re grace period

On the reasoning given, the grace period could never apply.
John U.K.
+1

There is limited time to apply for a review. The application needs to be very carefully worded. So, some questions the answers to which will help the experts here to advise you.
Your probably ground for applying for a review will be that the adjudicator mis-directed himself in law - others will confirm.

Questions:

1) What was the date of the decision?
2) What is the case number?
3) Was you appeal worded as per post #31? If not, please post full text here.
4) In the Council's evidence pack, there should be a 2-3 page summary of the Council's case - please post here.
5) Was it a personal hearing?


Mad Mick V
Never come across that adjudicator before-- Cordelia Fantinic --must be new.

I agree a Review is necessary on this Decision (26 July).

The two key points, other than it being wrong in fact and law, I would emphasise are;-

1) there has been no decision in relation to the EA's failure to consider;

2) A designated parking space cannot warp in and out of existence--it is there because of the TRO. It doesn't become something else just because of a yellow sign.

Mick
hcandersen
Request a review in the interests of justice.

The adjudicator erred in law.

The council’s TRO makes it clear that there is a SINGLE designated parking place between numbers ** and *** *** Road.

By virtue of article ** the council are empowered to suspend all or part of the bay.

On the day in question PART of the parking place was suspended, namely that part between ** and ***. It therefore follows that part of the parking place continued to operate as normal. In this case the great majority.

The parking place is not sub-divided into separate parking spaces.

In their decision, Adj *** stated the following:

‘At 8am the resident’s bay was no longer a resident’s bay’ and this informed their decision that the 10-minute ‘grace’ period did not apply, implicitly because the parking place was no longer designated.

But self-evidently this is not the case. All of the parking place remained operational but with amended restrictions in a specified and minor part.

In this case the adj has sought to construct the regulations - which apply to a designated parking place - in a way which creates a different type of parking place i.e. one in which the replacement of regular parking restrictions with user-specific restrictions effectively de-designates that part of the parking place. Not only is this not a lawful option under the council’s traffic order ( there are no articles which provide for such a state of affairs), there is no provision within the regulations for such a construction. Suspension in this case did not prohibit parking, it merely altered the permisson, in this case to prohibit resident and to allow only those vehicles associated with the reason stated in the notice

The whole parking place remained designated, albeit with different parking restrictions.


Although not part of the regulations, the Explanatory Note to the amendment regs set out the simplicity and meaning of the ‘grace’ period (my emphasis)
These Regulations amend the Civil Enforcement of Parking (England) General Regulations 2007 to introduce a ten minute grace period before a penalty charge is payable and a penalty charge notice can be served in relation to a parking contravention where a vehicle is stationary in an off street or on street permitted parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

The regs do not concern themselves with what prevails after the ‘end of the permitted parking period’, only that the vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place.

With respect it was.


My suggested approach makes the followng points applicable to this case only:
Parkng was still permitted in the defined designated parking place for the majority of its extent;
Parking was still permitted in the suspended part ( it is the REGULAR PARKING PERMISSION which is suspended, not the parkng place);
The TRO makes no mention that suspension de-designates a parking place;
The regs make no such reference.
RoadWalrus
Well I would be willing appeal yet again, but I've not been given instructions as to how- any ideas? Who am I even appealing to at this point?

I'm happy to use hcandersen's template since it's well written, and to be honest I'm getting quite weary of this process to spend much time on forming my own response.

Here's the answers which John U.K. requested.

1) What was the date of the decision?
The letter is dated 26th July 2018, I received it by email on 27 July
2) What is the case number?
2180247711
3) Was you appeal worded as per post #31? If not, please post full text here.
Yes, I added an additional paragraph, here's a link to what I sent
4) In the Council's evidence pack, there should be a 2-3 page summary of the Council's case - please post here.

QUOTE
CASE SUMMARY

The Appellant stated the Civil Enforcement Officer had not observed a 10-minute
grace period prior to the Penalty Charge Notice being issued to the vehicle for
parking in a suspended bay. In addition, the Appellant claimed the Council has failed
to answer all the points he raised in the Formal Representation and provided a
reference of a separate tribunals case where the appeal was allowed.
I have established that on 23/03/2018 at 08:08, a Honda vehicle registration
------- was observed parked on Staunton Road in a suspended parking place in
contravention of the bay parking suspension restrictions, within the Royal Borough of
Kingston upon Thames.
The vehicle was observed to parked in contravention of the restrictions in place by a
Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO). Having reviewed the images taken at the time of
contravention, I can confirm that the signage was clearly visible and complied with
the current regulations. Please note the bay suspension signage were placed at the
location in advance and stated the location of the three parking spaces suspended at
the location. Images of the relevant parking suspension signage have been included
in Form C. It remains the responsibility of the motorist to observe and interpret these
signs and to seek alternative parking arrangements to ensure the vehicle is parked
without contravening the parking restrictions in place.
With regards to the Appellant’s comment about the grace period in relation to this
PCN, I would like to advise there is no legal requirement for the vehicle to be
observed for specific period of time before issuing a PCN for this type of
contravention. Parking in a suspended bay is an instant issued Penalty Charge
Notice irrespective of how long the vehicle was parked during the hours of restriction.
Please also note the 10-minute grace period referred by the Appellant is only
relevant for a different set of contraventions and has no bearing on this case.
With regards to the Appellant’s comments about a decision made in another case
where the Tribunal allowed an appeal in similar situation, please be advised a
decision made by another adjudicator is not a statement of law and does not bind
other adjudicators in future cases.
The PCN was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle and offered the opportunity to
pay the discount charge of £55.00. Informal challenges were received and in
response, we sent challenge rejection letter dated 4th April 2018 respectively
detailing the reasons of rejecting the challenges and the discount charge of £55.00
was re- offered.; however, the offer was not taken up.
Subsequently, a request for the registered keeper of the above vehicle registration
number on the date of the contravention was submitted to the DVLA. Their response
informed us that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. A Notice to
Owner was sent to the Appellant’s address on the 27th April 2018. Formal
representations were received in relation to the PCN and in response, a Notice of
Rejection of Representations was sent on 2nd of June 2018 which explained the
decision and requested the full amount of £110.00.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames would advise that the full amount of the
Penalty Charge i.e. £110 is due for payment.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames have rechecked the original representation
and all its PCN processes and is fully convinced that due diligence has been
performed in the aspects relating to this case and therefore the Appeal should not be
Allowed.
Date: 16/07/2018
Name: Ahmed Zakaria
Position: Customer Service Representative


5) Was it a personal hearing?
No. I was offered one, but I didn't have time to attend so I opted out.
cp8759
You need to write to the tribunal and ask for a review, a different adjudicator will then decide whether there are grounds for a review.
RoadWalrus
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 17:04) *
You need to write to the tribunal and ask for a review, a different adjudicator will then decide whether there are grounds for a review.

Thanks, I found this page which advised me how to request a review.

I've used hcandersen's template and filled in the blanks. I couldn't find the article number for his template, though. I don't seem to be very good at using this legislation browser. Does anybody know the article I'm looking for? See the "[???]" below. Also any further comments/suggestion/rephrasing is welcome.

(The formatting got stripped when I copy/pasted from google docs, you can see it with the formatting here.)

QUOTE
Head of Support Services
London Tribunals
PO Box 10598
Nottingham
NG6 6DR
29/07/2018

Dear Sir/Madam,

Application for Review
Case number: xxxxxxxx
Penalty Charge Notice number: xxxxxxxxx
Date of Adjudicator’s decision: 26th July 2018

Following the decision of Adjudicator Ms Cordelia Fantinic in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision.
I am seeking review on the following ground(s):
The interests of justice require a review.
My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:

I have reason to believe the adjudicator erred in law.

The council’s TRO makes it clear that there is a SINGLE designated parking place between numbers 53 and 57 Staunton Road.

By virtue of article [???] the council are empowered to suspend all or part of the bay.

On the day in question PART of the parking place was suspended, namely that part between 53 and 57. It therefore follows that part of the parking place continued to operate as normal. In this case the great majority.

The parking place is not sub-divided into separate parking spaces.

In their decision, Adjudicator Fantinic stated the following:

‘At 8am the resident’s bay was no longer a resident’s bay’ and this informed their decision that the 10-minute ‘grace’ period did not apply, implicitly because the parking place was no longer designated.

But self-evidently this is not the case. All of the parking place remained operational but with amended restrictions in a specified and minor part.

In this case the adjudicator has sought to construct the regulations - which apply to a designated parking place - in a way which creates a different type of parking place i.e. one in which the replacement of regular parking restrictions with user-specific restrictions effectively de-designates that part of the parking place. Not only is this not a lawful option under the council’s traffic order (there are no articles which provide for such a state of affairs), there is no provision within the regulations for such a construction. Suspension in this case did not prohibit parking, it merely altered the permission, in this case to prohibit resident and to allow only those vehicles associated with the reason stated in the notice

The whole parking place remained designated, albeit with different parking restrictions.

Although not part of the regulations, the Explanatory Note to the amendment regulations set out the simplicity and meaning of the ‘grace’ period (my emphasis)
These Regulations amend the Civil Enforcement of Parking (England) General Regulations 2007 to introduce a ten minute grace period before a penalty charge is payable and a penalty charge notice can be served in relation to a parking contravention where a vehicle is stationary in an off street or on street permitted parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.

The regulations do not concern themselves with what prevails after the ‘end of the permitted parking period’, only that the vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place.

I would like my application to be considered by the adjudicator at a postal hearing
RoadWalrus
Bump?

The nearest thing I could find is section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I'm not sure that's the appropriate reference since it doesn't mention anything about parking suspension. Since this is time sensitive, I may omit the reference, or rephrase it without supplying a reference if nobody can help.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RoadWalrus @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 00:07) *
Bump?

The nearest thing I could find is section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I'm not sure that's the appropriate reference since it doesn't mention anything about parking suspension. Since this is time sensitive, I may omit the reference, or rephrase it without supplying a reference if nobody can help.


we can't say without sight of the TMO. change it to something like "It is not disputed that a council has the power to suspend all or part of a bay
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 © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.