Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ealing Council - Ticket for parking in suspended CPZ - Sign put up after parking
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ATurner
Hi, I'll try and keep this concise but give all relevant details! Hoping that there is something I can do about this ticket. I'll give bullet points in order as best as I can remember.

- Gas works needed to be done on the whole street
- Letter sent out re dates and the fact that parking suspensions will be inevitable*
- Works started, working their way from one end of the street to the next
- My car was fine outside the house (in the middle of the road) for at least a week
- The roadworks got close to where the car was parked, so next time I drove I parked it at the end of the street further from the roadworks. Unsurprisingly there weren't many free spaces, but I chose the furthest one I could from the current works. I would estimate it was 3-4 spaces down from where works were happening. This was likely Monday, but may have been Tuesday.
- Next time I used the car was a few days later on a Friday( 21st), the car had a ticket on it and was near 'parking suspension' signs**.
- The ticket is from 08:47

*I cannot find a copy of this letter to know EXACTLY what it said, but I may be able to get one from a neighbour.
** the signs were both sides of the car, but not within easy sight of the actual parking space - likely due to no poles or trees in the vicinity to attach them to.

Now for some back story. I don't drive much as I can get around easier by bike, when using the bike or walking I use the back of the property to enter and leave. The car was parked in front of the property, so I would only check it periodically when needing to drive (every 2-3 days usually). I had checked on Wednesday (19th) that it was still ok and there were no signs up, although my car was at that point next to the end of the current roadworks. There were no available spaces elsewhere to move it further away so I left it, meaning to check the next day. I was told by one of the gas workers that the signs were put up Thursday late afternoon, he may be misremembering but even if he's a day out they would have been put up Wednesday late afternoon at the earliest.

Ealing's own guideline leaflet ( https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1700...parking%201.pdf ) states (on page 31):
QUOTE
What happens if I park in a suspended bay? Yellow suspension signs are usually put up three days before the suspension is due to take place and indicate the dates, times and location that the suspension is in force. Any vehicles found to have parked in the suspended bays during the times stated on the signs may be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).


Possibly of interest, in the online pictures of evidence there is no picture of the car in the same shot as a suspension sign. This may be because it wasn't possible to get both in the same shot!

Thanks in advance for any feedback, I can post any pictures if required!

Alex.

peterguk
As is usual here, post up all sides of PCN and council photos.
ATurner
Photos attached! Have also attached pictures of the sign and the area from later in the week, showing the space the car was in still weirdly not dug up, and other cars parked in suspended areas seemingly without issue...
ATurner
Here are the council pics, showing (interestingly?) that it was dark at 08:48 for one of the pictures!
Mad Mick V
These works have been in progress since early July:-
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/download...the_borough.pdf
Therefore due to their "rolling" nature I suspect there must be a temporary traffic order which can only prohibit parking and loading on Craven Avenue rather than suspend parking places (the contravention here). Ergo if this can be determined the OP has the wrong contravention and the Council must post A4 Notices wrapped in plastic on adjacent lamp posts giving details of the TTRO.
Something like this:-
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/download...s_greenford.pdf

Mick
ATurner
Thanks for the reply. The second link doesn't work for me for some reason.

I can't rule out that there may have been notices prior to the work starting, but they weren't/aren't up now.

Initially I was thinking of appealing based on the "usually put up three days before" document, but I'm aware that 'should' isn't necessarily that definitive.

If I have the right information, they put up suspension signs around 5 PM one day, then came round and ticketed before 9 AM the next. Surely that can't be legal, even if there was some general warning beforehand?
Mad Mick V
For the contravention you have been given they must give notice by erecting the yellow sign days beforehand(a minimum of 3-5 days).

They can only erect the sign overnight for emergency works which cannot be the case in this instance.

Mick
hcandersen
Accept that notice was given of a rolling programme of works in the street with the prospective suspension of parking places over a period. This process worked by the council placing (and progressively removing) signs at least ** days before actual suspension took place.

I along with other residents were therefore were entitled be parked where there were not any notices of actual suspension.

This Boxing and Coxing was successful for me until *** when I found a PCN on my car.

I parked at the location at *** on *** at which time no signs warning of or indicating actual suspension were present. I also checked my car on ** and the same situation applied. I do not dispute that the bay was suspended when the PCN was issued but my argument is that whoever was responsible for placing signs cut a few corners this time and did not give the period of notice which had applied (and worked well) previously.

This would be my take.
IMO, the notice period which creates your legitimate expectation is not what might be in a policy but what they had consistently applied while carrying out this programme of works.
ATurner
Ok, have made the following challenge:

QUOTE
As there are works going on in the road, I was aware of the need not to obstruct the areas where work would be taking place. My vehicle was parked outside my house for the start of the roadworks, which started a few days after suspension notices were put up. Later, notices were put up for the area I usually park in, and there was enough notice to move my vehicle.

When I next used the vehicle (Mon 17th) I parked it in the furthest available space from the current works. As I do not regularly use the vehicle, and enter and exit through the rear of the property when not using the vehicle, I was not passing multiple times daily. I made an effort to check every couple of days minimum, as previously notices of suspension had been put up with a few days notice.

I checked the vehicle next on Wednesday (19th) in the afternoon. I noticed the works had moved up the road a bit, but there were no other available spaces and no notices up indicating an imminent parking suspension at this time so I planned to move it when I next saw an available space.

Upon going to use the vehicle on Friday (21st) morning, I found a PCN attached to it, along with signs detailling the suspension that had been erected after I had last checked. This means that the signs were put up less than 2 days prior to the suspension starting. This is a shorter period that I had observed on the previously suspended areas of the road, and did not give me sufficient notice to move the vehicle.

According to the council website on the application for suspending a CPZ ( https://www.ealing.gov.uk/site/xfp/scripts/...amp;language=en ) "Signs notifying residents and members of the public of the suspension will be in place five days before the suspension is due to take place."

According to the 'Code of Practice for Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement', 2015 ( https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/download...of_practice.pdf ) , in section 2.3.1 regarding suspended bays, it states: "Yellow suspension signs are usually put up three days before the suspension is due to take place and indicate the dates, times and locations that the suspension is in force."

I would like to challenge this PCN on the grounds that the notice period between erecting the signs and the start of the suspension was both shorter than the two above guideline documents, and the observed practice that had been used for suspending other parts of the same road at earlier dates.


Fingers crossed! Thanks for the guidance.
ATurner
Hi again,

Here is the reply from the council DECLINING the challenge:

QUOTE
Thank you for writing to us regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice.
We have carefully considered your challenge, however have decided not to cancel your
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

You were issued a PCN for parking in a bay that had been suspended. There were yellow
signs saying 'Warning. Parking suspended. No waiting, loading, unloading'. Bays are generally
suspended to allow for roadworks or large delivery vehicles.

Before we suspend parking bays, we have to put up warning signs and we did this. It is up to
drivers to check on their cars every day to make sure that the parking bay is not being
suspended.

The enclosed photos help to show why your PCN was issued.


The photos are the same as above. I apparently cannot make a further challenge as per the next bit of the letter.

QUOTE
You have these choices:
• You can pay the discount charge of £55.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the
date of this letter. If we do not receive payment before the end of the period of 14 days
beginning with the date that this letter is served on you then the full amount of £110.00 will
become due.
• If the PCN remains unpaid after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on
which this Notice of Decline is served on you, we will send a Notice to Owner (NTO) to the
registered keeper of the vehicle. A person whom a Notice to Owner is served will be entitled to
make formal representations to us against the penalty charge and may appeal to an
adjudicator if these representations are rejected. The formal representation must be made in
the form and manner and within the time specified in the Notice to Owner.
• It is not possible to appeal to an adjudicator without first making formal representations to us.
Please do not make a further challenge as we reserve the right to disregard any further
correspondence related to the notice before the NTO is served.


Any advise on what to do next? Obviously it's unreasonable to expect someone to check a car they don't use daily every morning to see if anyone's put any signs up - but is that a strong enough case to go further? They didn't mention that they have a record of when the signs were put up, so I'm unsure they have this information....not sure that helps though....
cp8759
QUOTE (ATurner @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 15:36) *
It is up to drivers to check on their cars every day to make sure that the parking bay is not being
suspended.

This is utter rubbish, there is no such law, they've literally made it up.
PASTMYBEST
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/713.html


2180194309


ATurner
Thanks for replies. I assume the next step would be to let it go to court? Is this a risky move based on the available data (as it takes away the 'bargain' half price option)?
hcandersen
With respect to PMB, the quoted decision doesn't help the OP as much as is suggested.

The salient parts appear to be that by a majority the Court of Appeal gave a preliminary view that all that was required to establish the contravention was that a vehicle was parked when a bay was suspended. They dismissed the council's appeal on procedural grounds alone.

Adj Houghton took the minority view of the court.

In any event, OP IMO you must write back for clarification of the (deliberately?) ambiguous statement 'Before we suspend parking bays, we have to put up warning signs and we did this'

What does 'we did this' mean? You must get them to state when the signs warning of the suspension of the bay in question were erected in the bay. Be absolutely specific on this point - you will see that it was a material factor in the quoted decision.

You will note that they stated 'we have to put up warning signs'. And with respect to their Lordships and Adj Houghton THIS is where the argument starts. IF the council's policy is to place warning signs then a CEO who is aware of this issues a PCN without that policy having been complied with is acting beyond their delegated powers and the PCN is therefore void. The alternative is that if the CEO was unaware then the authority must subsequently cancel the PCN. Councils are not (should not be) the wild west; officers act within delegated powers, not on a whim.
Mad Mick V
OP----IMO you have been given the wrong contravention as I have previously stated. If a temporary traffic order, like the one below, is in force to manage a rolling programme of works then the contravention can only be a Code 02 "Parked or loading / unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading / unloading restrictions are in force". Works generally relate to the whole street or a specific length of street not just to parking bays--Yes they can probably use that type of yellow sign for a bay but the TTRO relates to something other than a bay suspension so the use of a Code 21 is questionable. IMO the CEO got it wrong. Wrong contravention = Invalid PCN.

Mick

LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING
NOTICE OF MAKING OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC
ORDER FOR PLANNED WORKS AFFECTING:
GREENFORD GARDENS, GREENFORD
Ealing Council has made the following temporary
traffic order under sections 14(1)(a) of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
Title of order
This order can be referred to as: Temporary traffic
order for planned works - TT 1574 Millet Road,
Greenford – 2018.
Reason for order
This order is needed to allow for works taking place
on or near the road. These works involve Triio
(JV Morrison/Skanska) carrying out an essential gas
main replacement on behalf of Cadent Gas.
Effect of order
1. Greenford Gardens will be closed from its junction
with Millet Road to a point outside number 92.
2. The following temporary restrictions on vehicle
movements will take effect from 10th February 2018:
(a) No entry into the fully closed section of
Greenford Gardens;
(b) No waiting, loading or unloading on either
side of the carriageway within the fully closed
section.
3. The above temporary restrictions and prohibitions
will only apply at specified locations where
appropriate traffic signs are provided and
displayed in accordance with Chapter 8 of the
Traffic Signs Manual.
4.While the temporary restrictions are in place,
displaced vehicles should follow the diversions
displayed in place to reach their destinations and
comply with any traffic management measures.
5.This Order does not apply to:
(a)anything done at the direction of a police
officer in uniform or a police community
support officer (PCSO);
(b) any vehicle being used for police, fire brigade
or ambulance purposes.
Date order will come into force
10th February 2018
Maximum duration of order
These works are expected to be completed by
17th February 2018
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 10:48) *
The salient parts appear to be that by a majority the Court of Appeal gave a preliminary view that all that was required to establish the contravention was that a vehicle was parked when a bay was suspended. They dismissed the council's appeal on procedural grounds alone.

I disagree, the salient part is that the Court of Appeal could make no decision because the matter had not been argued fully by competent advocates. The preliminary views were so rough and ready that even I could have persuaded them that at least some of their preliminary views were wrong. They didn't have the benefit of having existing case law laid out and explained, there was nobody to argue that only the most explicit language in the legislation can impose liability on a law abiding citizen who could have never had a chance to avoid that liability (there's good parallels you could draw with the legislation that says you're deemed to have received a recorded delivery NIP from the police even if gets lost in the post), there was nobody to argue out the substance of the matter because (with the best will in the world) Mr Humphreys wasn't equipped to do so.

I suspect that if issue is ever fully argued out, the minority view may well prevail.
ATurner
Thanks again. So to summarise, the next step is to request records of when the signs were erected? I'm a bit concerned about having to stump up the full whack if it goes wrong...

Is this likely to require a court date, or does the council back down in the majority of similar cases?

hcandersen
@cp, but they gave a preliminary view to which adj Houghton had regard and did not disregard - he just disagreed- therefore it cannot or should not be disregarded, but one may disagree with it, as you do.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ATurner @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 11:47) *
Thanks again. So to summarise, the next step is to request records of when the signs were erected? I'm a bit concerned about having to stump up the full whack if it goes wrong...

Is this likely to require a court date, or does the council back down in the majority of similar cases?


It is not court as such, rather an adjudication. Legally binding, but quite informal. The council are likely to take it that far so the full penalty must always be at risk.


My way of looking at it is this. The council are demanding £65 and its not fair. but if I save the cost of a cup of coffee a week from now til I would have to pay if I lost an appeal. I would have the difference saved so would not miss it.


yours is a strong case. The usual view of adjudicators is that taken by Coe in her decision. Indeed it would be wrong if they started to follow an unargued view, albeit by a higher body of judiciary rather than the considered (and binding) decision of a duly appointed judge

Dwain
Does the fact that tyhe pictures of the contrevetion were taken during the day, and the photo of the sign prohibiting parking was obviously taken at another time not have any bearing?
ATurner
QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 13:29) *
Does the fact that tyhe pictures of the contrevetion were taken during the day, and the photo of the sign prohibiting parking was obviously taken at another time not have any bearing?

I thought similar, if provable that means they're tampering with the picture timestamps....could be arguable as an artifact of the flash though? A bit shaky as the foundation of a case IMO.

RE similar cases and being parked before suspension notices are put up - is there any mitigating factor (on their side) from the general notice that work was ongoing on the street?

Also, how would I ask them for more information as the only way to contact them on the site where the ticket is shown is to 'make a challenge' which I have been told I am unable to do again. Should I just ignore them until the next step goes ahead - and if so, would anyone want to take a more educated guess than me on % chance of a win?

Thanks!
hcandersen
Does the fact that tyhe pictures of the contrevetion were taken during the day, and the photo of the sign prohibiting parking was obviously taken at another time not have any bearing?

IMO, it depends.

Are you saying the sign in the photo was not in situ at the time of the contravention and by implication was erected and photographed after the time of the contravention?

Or is this a photo of the sign which was in place?
ATurner
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 17:40) *
Does the fact that tyhe pictures of the contrevetion were taken during the day, and the photo of the sign prohibiting parking was obviously taken at another time not have any bearing?

IMO, it depends.

Are you saying the sign in the photo was not in situ at the time of the contravention and by implication was erected and photographed after the time of the contravention?

Or is this a photo of the sign which was in place?

The sign almost certainly was in place, but that photo looks suspicious to me. I don't think it's the strongest part of a case to appeal though.

I've got a few more days before the 'discount' ends, anyone want to advise on chances here?

QUOTE (ATurner @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 16:04) *
Should I just ignore them until the next step goes ahead - and if so, would anyone want to take a more educated guess than me on % chance of a win?

Thanks!


ATurner
Well, my hope that they might just not bother with it if it went unpaid as the case wasn't strong enough was overly optimistic - the attached turned up in the post a few days ago.

Any suggestions as to next steps? As far as I can see my only option is to make a challenge, is this the same as I've done at the previous step and been politely (?) told not to do again?

It doesn't seem as though there is any way to request details from them of things like when the notices were put up, if my car was parked there when they put the notices up etc etc.

There also doesn't seem to be any mention of any adjudication as mentioned earlier in the thread, just threats that the cost will go up again. I really can't afford to pay the current amount, and definitely don't want to pay the equivalent of 3 parking tickets for this, so am hoping there is some light at the end of the tunnel and I haven't made a mistake in not submitting to the original extortion attempt!

Other shots of the latest letter after deleting some previous photos to make space....
cp8759
QUOTE (ATurner @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 12:09) *
There also doesn't seem to be any mention of any adjudication as mentioned earlier in the thread, just threats that the cost will go up again.

The last page clearly says that if they reject your representations, "you must either pay pay the penalty charge or appeal in writing against the decision to an independent adjudicator..."

You'd be better off uploading images to imgur.com and posting a link or using the BB codes, rather than deleting older pictures. The space on here is very limited so using an external site is advisable.
ATurner
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:36) *
QUOTE (ATurner @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 12:09) *
There also doesn't seem to be any mention of any adjudication as mentioned earlier in the thread, just threats that the cost will go up again.

The last page clearly says that if they reject your representations, "you must either pay pay the penalty charge or appeal in writing against the decision to an independent adjudicator..."

Ok, am still not sure if this is a new level of challenge to the initial ticket or the same kind of thing I've already done? If the latter, do I just wait or send the same thing again? unsure.gif

QUOTE
You'd be better off uploading images to imgur.com and posting a link or using the BB codes, rather than deleting older pictures. The space on here is very limited so using an external site is advisable.

Will do in future, I just deleted some early ones that weren't crucial to the thread this time.

Thanks!
cp8759
I took the liberty of checking the council photos and this shot might be a bit of a problem:

I think at this point the only thing you can do is challenge on the basis that the sign was not there at the time when you parked, and ask them to confirm at what time the signs were erected.

QUOTE (ATurner @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:36) *
QUOTE (ATurner @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 12:09) *
There also doesn't seem to be any mention of any adjudication as mentioned earlier in the thread, just threats that the cost will go up again.

The last page clearly says that if they reject your representations, "you must either pay pay the penalty charge or appeal in writing against the decision to an independent adjudicator..."

Ok, am still not sure if this is a new level of challenge to the initial ticket or the same kind of thing I've already done? If the latter, do I just wait or send the same thing again? unsure.gif

Well you cannot ignore the NtO or you'll end up with bailiffs at the door, you must either pay or challenge. As the discount isn't available, you might as well challenge, they will often re-offer the discount at that point. Providing you don't miss any deadlines, the penalty cannot increase above its current level.
ATurner
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:56) *
I took the liberty of checking the council photos and this shot might be a bit of a problem:

Not sure how that one is worse than any other - I'm not disputing that there were signs up when the ticket was issued, but they weren't there when I parked. The council putting them up (according to the best recollection of a neighbour) Thursday evening and giving me a ticket Friday morning is the thing I'm not best pleased about.

QUOTE
Well you cannot ignore the NtO or you'll end up with bailiffs at the door, you must either pay or challenge. As the discount isn't available, you might as well challenge, they will often re-offer the discount at that point. Providing you don't miss any deadlines, the penalty cannot increase above its current level.

Reading again it seems the challenge procedure is by email this time, shall I send the exact same challenge? They rejected it last time on the basis that I should have checked the vehicle on a daily basis, which is ridiculous and against their own guideline of three days notice as a minimum. The issue as far as I can see is that there is nothing I can find that says that the 3 days notice is legally required.

Of course, if there's any obvious loopholes (incorrect code on the offense was mentioned earlier?) I'm willing to consider appealing on that basis, as it is less subjective....

Thanks again!
cp8759
I'm inclined to say challenge on the same basis. They say you need to check the vehicle once a day, which is rubbish, but even if it were true, once a day means once every 24 hours. Even if you had been checking on the car once a day at 10 am, you would have still got the PCN. If they put the signs up Thursday night, they're effectively saying you need to check the car every 12 hours at most to ensure you don't commit a contravention, which no adjudicator is going to accept, not even in London.
ATurner
Ok great, will do. I should clarify that I personally checked the car Wednesday afternoon and there were no signs, the Thursday evening info is from a neighbour who may be mis-remembering, but even is he's a day out it would be less than 48 hours notice.
cp8759
QUOTE (ATurner @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:59) *
Ok great, will do. I should clarify that I personally checked the car Wednesday afternoon and there were no signs, the Thursday evening info is from a neighbour who may be mis-remembering, but even is he's a day out it would be less than 48 hours notice.

Get a witness statement from the neighbour if you can.
hcandersen
Cp posted that their photo might be a problem.

I agree, but not for you.

Having now looked at GSV, the layout and the authority's problem are clear: the parking places are continuous. Therefore somehow they have to mark sequential areas as they progress down the street.

They are NOT limited to static traffic signs, their duty is to mark clearly, not merely ensure that traffic signs comply with TSRGD.

In this case the sign behind you doesn't help the authority unless they can show the one in front of you. If you are in a suspended area then the limits of that area must be signed, not just one end!

IMO, they should use a combination of cones/pavement markings.
ATurner
Ok, so I haven't put in an appeal yet - is there anything better than the original content that I could send this time?
Mad Mick V
OP-- you've had difficulty with this part of the Council's letter----"we reserve the right to disregard any further correspondence related to the notice before the NTO is served".

Wait for others, but I regard this as a procedural impropriety. The Council have no reserved rights in this matter and cannot disregard anything that is put forward prior to the NTO.

The Regulations are very precise:-

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

3(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b)that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i)those representations will be considered
;

(ii)but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

The Council can set aside any further correspondence but they cannot state that it will be disregarded or that they have any power to disregard.

Mick

hcandersen
Which does not mean that you can return to the metaphorical well with the same arguments day after day and expect a response. IMO, consideration means exactly that, and once asked and answered, that's it.

However, their statement is too broad, you may submit new points.

On the substantive issue, where is any photographic evidence that you were within a suspended area whose limits were clearly marked by at least a suspension notice on the next traffic sign ahead of your vehicle? IMO, you cannot have ANY part of a suspended area which is not bracketed in this way because you are entitled to look ahead of your car and rely on what you see.
ATurner
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 12:56) *
On the substantive issue, where is any photographic evidence that you were within a suspended area whose limits were clearly marked by at least a suspension notice on the next traffic sign ahead of your vehicle? IMO, you cannot have ANY part of a suspended area which is not bracketed in this way because you are entitled to look ahead of your car and rely on what you see.

The only other image from the rear end of the car is more diagonal, so doesn't show the pavement on the same side of the road. There weren't any signs for a large area anyway though, as there are no lamp posts or trees they could attach them to.

However, the signs themselves specify which house numbers the suspension refers to.

This is all academic from my point of view when parking there though, as there were no signs at all at that point! biggrin.gif
ATurner
Am hoping to challenge again via email at this next stage. Here is a rough draft of what I was planning to send - is this enough/reasonable? Should I attach the original full explanation re when I parked/checked the car etc again in this email?

QUOTE
I would like to challenge PCN number EA93486667.

As previously detailed, when I parked the vehicle the area was not suspended and a ticket was issued before I was able to move the car to another suitable parking space.

I would like to request details of the time and date the suspension notices were put up, and if you have records of the vehicles parked in the area at this time.


Thanks in advance!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.