Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: stopping on school zigzags
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Rob232
pcn
http://funkyimg.com/i/2GZNn.jpg
rear of pcn
http://funkyimg.com/view/2GZNp
street view
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4815347,-...3312!8i6656

Haven't been here in a while, hoping to get some help with this one
I was driving down the road along the zigzags outside a school and noticed that the road ahead was blocked with cars wanting to go forward and a sainsburys delivery (luton sized) van wanting to come my way
Where I stopped was on the zigzags but because of parked cars on both sides of the road ahead there was only enough room for one vehicle to travel.
I could not feasibly travel ahead without further blocking the road and causing a further obstruction. I waited for the obstruction ahead to clear.
I also manoeuvered my vehicle to allow the van enough space to get by
Whilst waiting, a workman came over to me and told me I was being caught on a vehicle camera.
The camera operator could clearly see in his wing mirror that the road was obstructed
When the sainsburys van finally made its way past me I drove ahead on my way.

I have seen the video and it shows me arriving, stopping on the zigzag and waiting, then manoeuvering, and that's all, 1 minute 38 seconds.
It does not show the sainsburys van (or the obstruction, since the camera was pointing towards me)
There has been huge building works going on at both ends of this small street recently, and traffic in the Nine Elms area is pretty bad at the best of times.
I am happy to share the link to the video via pm
Thanks
peterguk
You didn't drop off or pick up anyone? Simply pulled up to allow traffic to maneuver?

Post a link to the video so all contributors can view.
Rob232
no picking up or dropping off
the video is on lambeths site and needs pcn no and registration to view.
not particularly happy with posting these
I will pm you them
stamfordman
You need to post the video here - don't worry about your VRM - we see them all the time in the street.
Rob232
I just took a video from my phone of the video onscreen on pc and it is 250 odd Mb
Trying to work out where to host that sized file
might be easier, and less costly to you good people, to just post the pcn number and vrn, it'll all come out in the wash anyway
Rob232
View My Video
here you go, 27Mb
DancingDad
Can't view the video sad.gif

Exemption exists TSRGD, Schedule 7, part 6(4)(2)(b)
QUOTE
(b)a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

If your way forward is blocked and you pull over to allow oncoming traffic past, to me that falls into the exemption.
As always, only for as long as necessary.
Rob232
You might have to click on the "...flash 9..." line, a popup appeared on my pc saying allow once, which let me view it


Edit; sent you a pm with details DD
stamfordman
I've put the video on Flickr. It's a quite a long time stalled there but hard to see what else you could do - maybe should have reversed out of there. In any case you must appeal.



DancingDad
A lot can be inferred from the video, enough that I would challenge and trust in an adjudicator if the council played silly muppets.
Obviously works going on and congested.
Volvo behind (who does drop off a passenger) U turns rather then overtakes
Other cars coming up behind static.
Car in front (parked?) indicates to pull out then doesn't...no way forward?
You seem to be manoeuvring for a U turn eventually.

Don't suppose you have a dash cam to show what was in front of you ?
Rob232
Thanks stamfordman, don't like reversing at the best of times in my van, can't see directly behind. That is why I moved forward first when manoeuvring so as to clear space behind before reversing.
You can see the car in front wants to go forward too at the end, but can't.
I was sat there for a good few minutes after the video ends before the road was clear to procede

no dash cam, must get one

yes the car in front was dropping off kids

stamfordman
Draft an appeal and post it here for comments.

I would include the purpose/destination of journey to show you had nothing to do with the works or school (if true).
Rob232
I was driving home at the time of the alleged incident, I live locally.
As can be seen from the video, building works were occurring on the street and the area was rather congested
As I drove along the zigzags outside the school I noticed that the road ahead was blocked with cars wanting to go forward and a sainsburys delivery (luton sized) van wanting to come my way
Where I stopped was on the zigzags, but because of parked cars on both sides of the road ahead there was only enough room for one vehicle to travel.
I could not feasibly travel ahead without further blocking the road and causing a further obstruction. I waited for the obstruction ahead to clear.
I also manoeuvered my vehicle to allow the van enough space to get by
Whilst waiting, a workman came over to me and told me I was being recorded on a vehicle camera.
The camera operator could clearly see in his wing mirror that the road was obstructed
When the sainsburys van finally made its way past me I drove ahead on my way.
Unfortunately the video does not show the full picture of the incident. It does not show the obstruction in the road behind the camera car, it doesn’t last long enough to show my full manoeuvre to clear enough space for the sainsburys van to proceed, nor does it show the sainsburys van passing, and me moving off.
It does however show the car behind dropping off a passenger and doing a u-turn, instead of overtaking me. It also shows the parked car in front indicating to pull out then waiting. Both of these actions suggest that the road ahead was not clear to proceed.
There is an exemption to stopping in this area in TSRGD, Schedule 7, part 6(4)(2)(b) “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;”
The blockage in traffic ahead was obviously beyond my control and I believe this exemption applies. Therefore could you please cancel this PCN.
Best regards
hcandersen
Don't go defensive with this.

You approached the location and saw **** (whatever was causing the obstruction ahead) and realised that you could not proceed. The only issue was therefore where to stop safely. You decided to position yourself behind the stationary vehicle ahead and sufficiently beyond the stationary vehicle on your right to allow cars approaching from ahead to pull in behind you in order pass. You then realised that you'd not left enough room behind you so moved forward a little.

Then the Volvo appeared and took up this space. You thought ****** a**e. (In diplomatic speak.. my thoughts at this time about the driver of the Volvo are not printable)

The Volvo then realised they couldn't move forward either (after they'd tried pulling out) so decided to reverse - tricky manoeuvre which they would not have attempted had their way forward been clear.

Similarly with other traffic approaching from behind, no-one was going anywhere until the obstruction ahead cleared.

The fact that this was not in the video does not make it any less of an obstruction.

You moved forward when you could.

Clearly no contravention occurred because although you were stationary you were prevented from proceeding because of circumstances beyond your control therefore being stationary was permissible.
cp8759
I would also put in a request under Article 15 of the GDPR asking for the next sequence of the video, they are no longer allowed to charge £10 for it and it will support your case.
DancingDad
I would go with HCA draft but would add in a line pointing out the car ahead was also static though indicating to pull out.
Better then my thoughts that start along the lines of WTF did your CEO think they were playing at …….

The only reason I would not give this 100% to win is that adjudicators sometimes have brain fade (councils often do) so a lot will depend on your will to go all the way if needed and your credibility if it comes to a personal hearing.
stamfordman
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 11:29) *
I would also put in a request under Article 15 of the GDPR asking for the next sequence of the video, they are no longer allowed to charge £10 for it and it will support your case.


That's going a bit OTT at this stage - maybe if it goes to adjudication.
Rob232
I was driving home at the time of the alleged incident, I live locally.
As can be seen from the video, building works were occurring on the street and the area was rather congested
As I drove along the zigzags outside the school I noticed that the road ahead was blocked with cars wanting to go forward and a Sainsburys delivery (luton sized) van wanting to come my way
Where I stopped was on the zigzags, but because of parked cars on both sides of the road ahead there was only enough room for one vehicle to travel. It seemed the only place to stop safely.
I could not feasibly travel ahead without further blocking the road and causing a further obstruction. I waited for the obstruction ahead to clear.
I also manoeuvered my vehicle to allow the van enough space to get by (which can be seen at the end of the video).
When the Sainsburys van finally made its way past me I drove ahead on my way.
The video does not show the full picture of the incident. It does not show the obstruction in the road behind the camera car, it doesn’t last long enough to show my full manoeuvre to clear enough space for the sainsburys van to proceed, nor does it show the sainsburys van passing, and me moving off. I request that the whole video evidence be made available to me if you decide to refuse this representation.
The video does however show the car behind starting to overtake me, realising there was no way forward and undertaking a tricky reversing manoeuvre which they would not have attempted had their way forward been clear.. It also shows the parked car in front indicating to pull out then waiting. Both of these actions suggest that the road ahead was not clear to proceed.
There is an exemption to stopping in this area in TSRGD, Schedule 7, part 6(4)(2)(b) “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;”
The blockage in traffic ahead was obviously beyond my control and I believe this exemption applies. Also, any manoeuvre I may have decided to attempt involving prolonged use of reversing, could have caused injury to persons, since my van has no visibility to the rear and there were children around.
Could you please cancel this PCN.
Best regards

I will take this all the way if necessary
I have been commended by an adjudicator in the past about my credibility
cp8759
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 11:32) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 11:29) *
I would also put in a request under Article 15 of the GDPR asking for the next sequence of the video, they are no longer allowed to charge £10 for it and it will support your case.


That's going a bit OTT at this stage - maybe if it goes to adjudication.

Given the council have a month to reply I wouldn't delay.
DancingDad
That reads okay to me, not too legalese and simple.
I would take out believe...… ie This exemption applies.
And a proactive closure.... Please confirm cancellation of this PCN due to the above exemption or explain fully why the exemption does not apply.

I do agree with CP by the way, to start any request for the remainder of the video now.
Separate to the challenge, you have asked for it within that (which is fine) but as a parallel request under the GDPR rules.... I can't help on that but I suspect CP can smile.gif
cp8759
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 12:48) *
Separate to the challenge, you have asked for it within that (which is fine) but as a parallel request under the GDPR rules.... I can't help on that but I suspect CP can smile.gif

Just fill in this form: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/forms/subject-access-request-form

I would ask for all footage taken on that street on that day where your vehicle is visible, this should ensure you get the footage of the Sainsbury's van going the other way.
Rob232
Thanks CP, sent that request off. The site says I have to pay £10 before the request will be considered. Is that what you meant earlier that they are no longer allowed to charge for this service?
cp8759
QUOTE (Rob232 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 14:06) *
Thanks CP, sent that request off. The site says I have to pay £10 before the request will be considered. Is that what you meant earlier that they are no longer allowed to charge for this service?

Under GDPR the £10 charge has been abolished, see https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-...ight-of-access/

At a glance
Individuals have the right to access their personal data.
This is commonly referred to as subject access.
Individuals can make a subject access request verbally or in writing.
You have one month to respond to a request.
You cannot charge a fee to deal with a request in most circumstances.
Rob232
Representation sent, access request sent and complaint sent to council about the £10 charge
Will update when I get replies

Thank you all for your replies, very much appreciated.

Funnily enough my OH is a data protection officer for a charity, she has been up to her neck lately in GDPR stuff. Such a misunderstood bit of legislation, like so many others. smile.gif
Rob232
Lambeth are a bunch of Muppets.
I submitted the subject access request form, linked to above, on 1st of June
Received an email on 8th June
"Thank you for your subject acccess request that was received on 1 June 2018 concerning Requesting all cctv footages that hold records of his car on 14/05/2018 in location Wyvil Road, car: xxxxxx.

Please can you assist our search for records that we may hold about you by providing the following information

Proof of ID
Proof of name and address is required to ensure that we only give information to the correct person, such as a passport or photo ID driving licence may be required due to the sensitive nature of the information requested or when collecting the information in person.

Please note we will close the case if we do not receive the details requested from you within 30 days of the date of the incident date as data is automatically overwritten and cannot be held
When we have all of the details requested above, we will process your request under the Data Protection Act and you will receive a response within 40 calendar days (from the date that we have all the information requested from you and we have clarified the details of your request). Please note that the 40 day response time permitted by the Data Protection Act will only take effect when we are in receipt of the details requested above.

Once we have retrieved the information you have requested we will contact you, to arrange access arrangements; depending on the nature and / or the amount of documents that we have about you it may be necessary that you visit one of our offices to view the information at a time convenient to you. Alternatively, we will mail the information to you.

If the information you request contains reference to a third party then they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to release the information to you. You will be informed if this is the case."
Sent a reply same day
"Hi Ella-Louise, in order to submit the Subject Access Request on your website, it was necessary to upload both proof of ID and proof of address. I uploaded photos of my birth certificate and a recent bill, as requested. Are you now saying that you do not have these proofs? Or that the proofs are somehow inadequate? I am a bit concerned that these pieces of potentially sensitive information about me seem to be lost on your system. I notice that the proofs you require below, passport or driving license, do not include a birth certificate, however your website clearly states this is acceptable. If it is the case that you require this further proof, I would be happy to oblige.
Best Regards "
Got this on 20th june
"Dear Mr XXXXX
We require one peice of photographic ID and one proof of address, i.e bill, statement, etc. However, we no longer hold any data in regrads to your incident as it would have been automatically overwritten on the 14th June 2018.
Kind Regards
Miss E Lowe"

Still waiting on their response to representations

cp8759
As I understand it, from the moment you made the request, they were under a duty to preserve the information and prevent it from being destroyed. The GDPR gives you a right of redress (and in some circumstances financial compensation) where your rights as a data subject are breached. I've not looked into this area of law that much (not least because the way legislation is laid out in the Official Journal of the European Union is positively antediluvian when compared to legislation.gov.uk) but I would strongly recommend that you make a complaint to the council for failing to handle your GDPR request correctly, with a view to then taking the matter to the Information Commissioner.

However in a certain sense they've helped you: by destroying evidence which might exonerate you, they've breached the principle of equality of arms and potentially prejudiced your case. This is a point worth making at the tribunal.
Rob232
Sent complaint, thanks CP
Rob232
Hi all, got a reply from Lambeth, they have rejected my appeal
front page https://ibb.co/c0Twj8
back page https://ibb.co/ndx0Bo

Seems a stock letter, so not convinced they have carefully considered anything
look forward to any thoughts you might have, but assume the next step is to fill out the form with "submissions to follow" and wait for the pack from the council.
stamfordman
Utter failure to consider - I can't see them letting this go to the tribunal.
DancingDad
How can they consider when the evidence was over written on the 14th June?

Take it to appeal Rob

Include their note (post 25) as evidence that they are either incompetent, liars or withholding evidence that may prove your case.

Just so we can be clear, please post the challenge you sent.
I assume HCA wording?
If so, total and utter failure to consider.
Rob232
Hi DD, the wording was the same as in post#18
Edit; with your 2 points included from post#20, but I can't find screenshot I took, nor the text in a confirmation email. will search more a bit later.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Rob232 @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:09) *
Hi DD, the wording was the same as in post#18
Edit; with your 2 points included from post#20, but I can't find screenshot I took, nor the text in a confirmation email. will search more a bit later.

Fine, no evidence of consideration whatsoever.
So add in failing to consider in the appeal
PASTMYBEST
The charge WILL increase. They cannot say this the regulations only allow that it may. All in all a total bollix rejection

copy of a post by CP on another thread re this point

I would also quote paragraph 41 of London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2357.html

"Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise."

The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991 have been replaced by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and its subordinate regulations, but those provisions are for all relevant purposes identical. The High Court has ruled that prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established for the PCN to be invalidated, therefore the council's submissions in relation to the question of prejudice are misconceived.

In these circumstances the situation is clear: The PCN must convey the meaning required by the regulations, i.e. that a charge certificate "may" be issued (because the schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 says this is one of the things a PCN "must" state). You have 10 adjudications (The TPT one linked by Mad Mick V plus the 10 London cases mentioned in that decision) which show that adjudicators have consistently interpreted the meaning of the words "will" and "may" to be sufficiently different to invalidate a PCN (I would attach the full text of all of them in an appendix to your appeal). I would however also quote the following passage from David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (case 216022028A):

"2. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal. "
Mr Meldrew
Rob, your perfectly adequate representation drew attention to the exception under TSRGD, Schedule 7, Part 6, (4)(2)(b) applicable to the prohibition on stopping on school entrance markings and provided material reasoning as to why the exception should apply in this case. In its formulaic and plainly deficient response, the authority further failed to say why it believes the exception should not apply in the relevant circumstances, or it was negligent in its statutory duty to consider the exception at all.

Further, you had relied upon an early response in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not to appeal or avail yourself of the discount, so it would be too late (not fair) even if you were to receive in the pack from the council a proper consideration and response to all the points raised in your representations.

I suggest that most observers would consider the NoR to be unreasonable and in breach of relevant duties, and I personally would continue to adjudication.
Rob232
Ah, found my reps;
QUOTE
I was driving home at the time of the alleged incident, I live locally.
As can be seen from the video, building works were occurring on the street and the area was rather congested
As I drove along the zigzags outside the school I noticed that the road ahead was blocked with cars wanting to go forward and a Sainsburys delivery (luton sized) van wanting to come my way
Where I stopped was on the zigzags, but because of parked cars on both sides of the road ahead there was only enough room for one vehicle to travel. It seemed the only place to stop safely.
I could not feasibly travel ahead without further blocking the road and causing a further obstruction. I waited for the obstruction ahead to clear.
I also manoeuvered my vehicle to allow the van enough space to get by (which can be seen at the end of the video).
When the Sainsburys van finally made its way past me I drove ahead on my way.
The video does not show the full picture of the incident. It does not show the obstruction in the road behind the camera car, it doesn’t last long enough to show my full manoeuvre to clear enough space for the sainsburys van to proceed, nor does it show the sainsburys van passing, and me moving off. I request that the whole video evidence be made available to me if you decide to refuse this representation.
The video does however show the car behind starting to overtake me, realising there was no way forward and undertaking a tricky reversing manoeuvre which they would not have attempted had their way forward been clear.. It also shows the parked car in front indicating to pull out then waiting. Both of these actions suggest that the road ahead was not clear to proceed.
There is an exemption to stopping in this area in TSRGD, Schedule 7, part 6(4)(2)(b) “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;”
The blockage in traffic ahead was obviously beyond my control and this exemption applies. Also, any manoeuvre I may have decided to attempt involving prolonged use of reversing, could have caused injury to persons, since my van has no visibility to the rear and there were children around.
Please confirm cancellation of this PCN due to the above exemption or explain fully why the exemption does not apply
Best regards


Thought I would be saying "details to follow" and waiting for their pack, but from your replies it seems the way forward would be to get everything together and send off a full appeal to the adjudicator. I will do this later today or tomorrow and post it here.

Thank you all

Edit; will request a personal hearing too of course
Rob232
couple of questions,
The PCN is correctly worded with respect to Will/May, it is the rejection letter that says Will. Does this matter?
Also it is a rejection letter, not a "Notice of rejection". Does this matter?
am working on a draft now.


Edit; sorry, first point covered by PMBs post. Must clean my glasses.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Rob232 @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 15:46) *
couple of questions,
The PCN is correctly worded with respect to Will/May, it is the rejection letter that says Will. Does this matter?
Also it is a rejection letter, not a "Notice of rejection". Does this matter?
am working on a draft now.


Edit; sorry, first point covered by PMBs post. Must clean my glasses.



Whatever they call it, it is a Notice of Rejection, complete with options to pay or appeal to adjudicators.
cp8759
Also throw in this:

While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 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”.

In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the exemption claimed under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 was not made out, was not relevant or was not (for whatever reason) accepted by the council, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and this failure to consider amounts to a further procedural impropriety. It follows that even if the contravention had occurred, the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner should now be cancelled.
Rob232
Thanks DD, nearly there. Cant find MMV's link to will/may cases, are they the ones on Hippocrates' sticky in the first post? And how do I view them? as link to patas is now down. Sorry, being a bit dim.
Rob232
The contravention did not occur
I rely on my representations to the council in that there is an exemption to stopping on school zigzag markings. I requested in those representations that the full video evidence be made available to me. I also made a Subject Access Request for all the video evidence related to my vehicle to the Council on their website (correspondence attached in appendix). The council did not provide this evidence and in fact destroyed it by routinely overwriting it. This in in breach of GDPR and the Data Protection Act, it is also in breach of the Principal of Equality of arms and the Council have acted unlawfully in destroying evidence. I have made a formal complaint to the Council and will be taking it up with the Information Commissioner in due course.
As stated in my representations, the video does not last long enough to show the full picture. However the council employee recording the evidence would have been able to see in his wing mirror that the road was blocked. Indeed I was sitting in the van for a few minutes after the video stopped, and after manoeuvering the van to allow more space for vehicles ahead to pass me. A workman came over to me and told me that I was being recorded and pointed out the camera car. The council employee was looking straight at me and I gestured to the blockage ahead. I don’t know who actually edited the video, but if it was this council employee, I believe he acted vexatiously by stopping the video at the point he did, and by continuing to submit the pcn after seeing the whole incident.

There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the EA

In their rejection letter the EA say that they have “carefully considered” my appeal, but they have provided no proof of this. I asked for evidence and also for reasons why they believed the exemption didn’t apply, they gave neither, just a stock reply. This failure to consider has meant that I have no recourse but to go to adjudication, and incur the full fee if I lose, since I believe I am in the right. Their failure to give a reasoned response is simply not fair, which they have a duty to be.
While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 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”.

In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the exemption claimed under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 was not made out, was not relevant or was not (for whatever reason) accepted by the council, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and this failure to consider amounts to a procedural impropriety. It follows that even if the contravention had occurred, the Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled.
On the reverse of the same letter the council say “If we don’t receive the payment or you don’t lodge an appeal with E&TA the charge will increase by 50% to £195….” I would draw the adjudicators attention to the following from David Greenberg v LB Barnet (case 216022028A )
“2. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal. "
Also I would like the adjudicator to consider paragraph 41 of London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 with respect to whether prejudice is relevent
"Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise."
I have included below other cases which support my contention about the wording being wrong in an appendix for the Adjudicator’s perusal at his/her discretion along with the aforementioned correspondence regarding GDPR Subject Access Request.



Hows that?
cp8759
I would suggest a few changes, keep all italics and bold as it makes the text more readable:

QUOTE (Rob232 @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 17:15) *
The contravention did not occur
I rely on my representations to the council in that there is an exemption to stopping on school zigzag markings. I requested in those representations that the full video evidence be made available to me. I also made a Subject Access Request for all the video evidence related to my vehicle to the Council on their website (correspondence attached in appendix). The council did not provide this evidence and in fact destroyed it by routinely overwriting it. This in in breach of GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Furthermore, by destroying evidence that could support my defence, the council has breached the principle of equality of arms before the law: As a number of recent high profile cases have made clear, disclosure is important and it is not acceptable for a law enforcement agency to destroy evidence that could undermine an allegation or prove the innocence of the accused, as this creates a clear prejudice. While I have made a formal complaint to the Council and will be taking it up with the Information Commissioner in due course, for the purposes of these proceedings it is inescapable that upon receiving my subject access request the council were duty-bound to identify the evidence I had requested and take steps to prevent its destruction. By destroying relevant evidence the council has prejudiced my position in these proceedings.

As stated in my representations, the video does not last long enough to show the full picture. However the council employee recording the evidence would have been able to see in his wing mirror that the road was blocked. Indeed I was sitting in the van for a few minutes after the video stopped, and after manoeuvring the van to allow more space for vehicles ahead to pass me. A workman came over to me and told me that I was being recorded and pointed out the camera car. The council employee was looking straight at me and I gestured to the blockage ahead. I don’t know who actually edited the video, but if it was this council employee, I believe he acted vexatiously by stopping the video at the point he did, and by continuing to submit the pcn after seeing the whole incident.

There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the EA

In their rejection letter the EA say that they have “carefully considered” my appeal, but they have provided no proof of this. I asked for evidence and also for reasons why they believed the exemption didn’t apply, they gave neither, just a stock reply. Their failure to give a reasoned response is simply not fair, which they have a duty to be.

While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 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”.

In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the exemption claimed under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 was not made out, was not relevant or was not (for whatever reason) accepted by the council, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and this failure to consider amounts to a procedural impropriety. It follows that even if the contravention had occurred, the Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled.

There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the EA
On the reverse of the same letter the council say “If we don’t receive the payment or you don’t lodge an appeal with E&TA the charge will increase by 50% to £195….” I would draw the adjudicators attention to the following from David Greenberg v LB Barnet (case 216022028A)

“2. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
"

I have included below other cases which I submit as persuasive authorities which support my contention regarding the wording of the Notice of Rejection, along with the aforementioned correspondence regarding the GDPR Subject Access Request.

Rob232
Thanks CP, I did it in an office app which had bolds and italics, but it all got lost when I copied and pasted it here.
Nice tweaking, thanks again
Mr Meldrew
If I have the facts correct, I would like to propose a slightly reworded second paragraph keeping to your style.

QUOTE
As stated in my representations, the video does not last long enough to show the full picture. However, the exemption I rely on applies because the road was blocked which the council employee in the camera car recording the evidence would have been able to see in his wing mirror. Indeed, after manoeuvring my van to allow the large Sainsbury’s van enough space to get by, at which point the video stops, I gestured about the predicament to the council employee who was looking straight at me. I don’t know who actually edited the video, but if it was this council employee, I feel he acted unreasonably by stopping the video at the point he did, and by continuing to enforce the PCN after seeing the whole incident.

Rob232
Sorry Mr Meldrew I have just lodged my appeal online. I will have to explain the niceties of the situation to the ADJ in person in early September, the first available day I can actually attend.
Oddly on the website, procedural impropriety is NOT listed as a ground of appeal, and can't therefore be selected. But that might be because I selected moving traffic offense, since it seemed to be the only relevant one to me, I wasn't going to select parking offense. smile.gif
Thanks again everyone
hcandersen
What is the point of making such allegations/suggestions? Not my style.

Whatever we or the OP might think of CEOs, IMO it is counter-productive to slag them off. It might make the OP feel better, but this is about the best way to achieve the optimum outcome.

..I feel he acted unreasonably... would come across better if expressed along the lines of..

..had the video not been edited to end where it does it would have shown ..... and it is unfortunate that the authority are denied access to this evidence.
Rob232
Got a letter from council, they are not contesting
"I have noted your comments. Due to an administrative error, we have decided to cancel this PCN"

As an aside got an email apologising for SAR mistake after my complaint
"Thank you for your correspondence regarding your SAR request under reference IRxxxxx. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied and case see that you had in fact provide proof of ID and address in your original request on 1 June 2018. We therefore should not have made a further request for this information and I apologise for any upset and confusion caused.

Ms Lowe's response to you does advise that we no longer hold the footage you requested, rather than the documents you submitted along with your request.

I am sorry for any inconvenience caused and have reminded the service to ensure that steps are taken to ensure that requests for further information are issued correctly, only where we have not been provided with the documents required to process requests"
Which arrived over a month after I complained. I requested info about the proof of ID documents I uploaded and they have ignored this request. They seem blissfully unaware of their duties under GDPR.

Huge thanks again to everyone, really appreciated.


DancingDad
Nice one on the cancellation.
Should not have been issued in the first place!
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.