Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newham, Parking Contravention Code 30, Zone PN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3
zcacogp
Hi,

I received a parking ticket 5 days ago in Newham in London. I displayed a visitors permit in the car which I thought was valid for 6 hours and parked in an area with signage which I now guess means I should only have stayed for 20 minutes. I was there for about an hour and a half. Relevant pictures are as follows;

Front of visitors permit (redacted)




Rear of visitors permit



Front of ticket (redacted)



Rear of ticket



Sign



My question is whether this ticket is valid or whether I have any chance of overturning it. The reason I parked where I did was because I believed that the permit was valid for 6 hours as it says on the front of it and I thought the '20 minutes' on the sign referred to parking without a permit (i.e. offering 20 minutes for free to load or unload). On re-examining the ticket I can see it says 'Up to 6 hours', hence my undoing. A VERY helpful local chap spoke to me when I returned to the car (I think he's seen a lot of people caught out by this over the years) and said that I could get the ticket overturned and explained how and why. I didn't entirely follow his explanation but I believe it was to do with the fact that the CPZ name (i.e. 'PN' in this case) isn't correctly signed when you enter the CPZ - there are meant to be signed on both sides of the road but apparently there aren't. However I've looked at the Newham CPZ map and I'm not entirely sure which CPZ I was in. The map is here:

https://mapping.newham.gov.uk/LocalView/Sites/CPZ/

I was parked here:

https://goo.gl/maps/KYFkXotK3zv

Looking at the Newham CPZ map it looks like I was in the 'Plaistow North' CPZ, which corresponds with the CPZ name being 'PN', but according to their website 'Plaistow North' looks like this:



... and I don't think I was parked anywhere within this.

In short, is there scope for challenging this ticket or should I make the most of the 14-days reduced fee of £40 and pay up quick?

All help welcomed, thanks.


EDITED TO ADD: A hunt on pepipoo throws up this topic, where someone else was caught in a very similar situation in the same borough (Newham). However it doesn't have a conclusion.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...;p=1277340&

Thanks again for any help.
cp8759
Upload a higher resolution version of the back of the PCN. However at first glance the sign is clear and it appears you misunderstood it.
stamfordman
See also this thread- same sign , same confusion.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124776
zcacogp
CP8759 and Stamfordman,

Thanks for your replies. It looks like I am not the only one who has fallen foul of that sign. Speaking to the people whom I was visiting they know of a few people who have been caught as well. However if it's a legitimate sign and I have simply misunderstood it then the failing is mine.

CP8759, here are the higher-res images of the front and back of the ticket. I'll put links for them in as well should they not show up in enough detail on this thread.



Link: https://mega.nz/#!hUJ2WYbK!KIKeZL1A...g1TlMOcPfD3pmTA



Link: https://mega.nz/#!NdZAGCzA!IhpnOFl3...15DM36RKlwLM_TA

Thanks again for your help. If it is simply a matter of an error on my behalf then I'll pay within the 14 day reduced-price period.
Neil B
As in the other thread, it's worth challenging because, while the meaning of the sign is clear,
the wording of the relevant Traffic Order may say something different.

They've got the wording right for extensions East and West to the zone but I haven't found anything
relevant for Park Rd yet.
zcacogp
Neil,

Thanks. Do I need to dig out the relevant Traffic Order and compare the two or do I just challenge it? If the latter then what basis do I challenge it on: do I say "I believe that the sign contravenes the relevant Traffic Order", or something else?

(And here I'm going to betray myself as a complete numpty but what is a 'Traffic Order'? Presumably the underlying rules that allow them to put up signs like this. Where would I find a copy of it?)


Thanks very much for your help.
Neil B
I'm thinking on how to phrase it.

Orders should be freely available; sometimes library or they might e-mail you the relevant one.
Ask via main switchboard.
zcacogp
If I was to call the main switchboard then what do I ask for? The Traffic Order for the PN Controlled Parking Zone? Or is it the Traffic Order for all Parking Zones?

As and when I get hold of it then will it be comprehensible for a layperson or should I be seeking professional advice? Or could I post it on here?

(I don't think I've ever seen a Traffic Order and so am unsure whether it will be easy to understand or whether it will be beyond me!)
Neil B
The Order governing parking places on Park Rd, particularly that outside number -whatever it is.

And yes, if you get it, post it here as you'll potentially help others as well.
PASTMYBEST
What's the date of service. And how do you know?
cp8759
PASTMYBEST I think in the new higher-res copy of the PCN the date of service is readable.

zcacogp, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1429835

It's a good argument to add to your representations because, if nothing else, Newham are likely to fail to consider it properly.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:34) *
PASTMYBEST I think in the new higher-res copy of the PCN the date of service is readable.

zcacogp, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1429835

It's a good argument to add to your representations because, if nothing else, Newham are likely to fail to consider it properly.


I was looking at the enhanced copy, and date of service can be diserned by us and probably by the OP but what if there was no date of contravention. its not that clear. And you should not have to enhance the PCn in order to glean information that is required by statute
zcacogp
Update: I've called Newham to ask for a copy of the Traffic Order. I eventually managed to speak to someone on the main switchboard, who admitted that he had no idea what I was talking about when I asked for a copy of the 'Traffic Order governing parking in Park Road, E15'. He told me that it was a Data Protection matter and offered to put me through to the Data Protection team. He then told me that it would be dealt with by Highways, but Highways won't speak to anyone nor do they send out documents, and he then said that he would pass my details on to the Parking Design Team who would be able to help. He took my eMail address and told me to expect an eMail.

Am I right in thinking that a Traffic Order is a publicly available department which they should make available for people to see if they wish? If they can't (or won't) allow me to see a copy then does this make their parking permissions and permits system invalid?

PastMyBest, I see what you mean about the date of service running into the pre-printed ticket header but it's readable if you look closely. Nice idea though, thanks.

CP8759, thanks for the link. I presume that the point I should consider is the use by Newham of a non-free fax number which causes an artificial increase in the cost of the fine. I'll wait for an answer from Newham with a copy of the Traffic Order and compose an objection to the ticket, and use this point as well.

I note also that there is (or was) a well-known error on the reverse side of Newham parking tickets. I have read the standard text on the reverse of mine and can't see any complete clangers there, but don't really know what I am looking for. Is it now correct?

Thanks again for your help.
Neil B
Re the Order.

The Councillor with Transport portfolio is currently unavailable.
If local, identify and contact your local Councillor and ask them to get it for you.

By coincidence, it's a a Councillor for Plaistow North that's covering transport matters.

Zulfiqar Ali

https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=1952
zcacogp
Neil,

Thanks again for your digging on this one.

I'm not local. Should I eMail Mr Ali and ask for a copy of the Traffic Order? (Putting it another way, is there any reason why I shouldn't eMail him and ask for a copy of the order?)
cp8759
By law the TRO is a publicly available document, but only if you actually go to the council offices and ask for see it (which isn't an option if you're not local). Can't see any downside in contacting Mr Ali, though he may not respond if you don't live in his ward.

FOI requests should not generally be used for TROs as they take far too long, but in this case I would send off a FOI request anyway because even if all else fails, they can't ignore a FOI request and if nothing you're almost certain to get it within the 20 working day time limit. Just ask for the Traffic Management Order governing parking in Park Road, E15.
Neil B
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:11) *
By law the TRO is a publicly available document, but only if you actually go to the council offices and ask for see it (which isn't an option if you're not local). Can't see any downside in contacting Mr Ali, though he may not respond if you don't live in his ward.

FOI requests should not generally be used for TROs as they take far too long, but in this case I would send off a FOI request anyway because even if all else fails, they can't ignore a FOI request and if nothing you're almost certain to get it within the 20 working day time limit. Just ask for the Traffic Management Order governing parking in Park Road, E15.

+1 but in parallel; ask Mr Ali for it directly as well.
zcacogp
FoI Access Request sent and also an eMail to Mr Ali. I notice that I have yet to hear back from the council themselves.

If I was to go to Newham and ask to see the Traffic Order then what would I do? Go to the front desk of their council offices and simply ask nicely? And if they look at me in a very bemused way and tell me that they can't help me then what happens next?

I notice that I am also a week into the 2-week discount period so think I will write to them to challenge the ticket along the lines of "This offence didn't happen". Clearly it will be rejected but it will buy more time. Is this a bad idea?

Thanks again fro your help.
cp8759
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
If I was to go to Newham and ask to see the Traffic Order then what would I do? Go to the front desk of their council offices and simply ask nicely? And if they look at me in a very bemused way and tell me that they can't help me then what happens next?

Then the council would be in breach of regulation 7(3) of, and schedule 2 to, The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...gulation/7/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/schedule/2/made

If you were to go down this route, you might want to consider a covert go-pro camera to record the encounter. If you were to make a firm but polite request to view the documents under the regulations, and even after speaking to a manager they were to repeatedly and flatly refuse, that may amount to a ground of appeal in its own right (If a breach of LATOR 18 is a ground of appeal, I don't see why breaching LATOR 7 wouldn't be).
Neil B
zcacogp

Quick question.
Have you tried to view the Council evidence pics for this online, via the 'pay PCN' portal ?

If not, I suggest you do so and report back what happens.
zcacogp
Neil,

Good idea, thanks.

I've now done this and there are photos that show the following;

- The car parked where it was
- The visitors permit I put in the windscreen
- The wheels of the car by the kerb
- The parking sign which I parked underneath
- A permit for another London Borough in the windscreen (the borough in which I live)

The photos are date and time stamped, the date is correct and the time stamp is one minute after the "Time of Contravention" listed on the ticket.

It looks to be in order to me although - again - I don't know what I am looking at or for. There are no details of the (alleged) offence nor a copy of the Traffic Order for the street. (I know that last point was wishful thinking but - hey! - it's Christmas!)

There is no sign of a copy of the Traffic Order from the person at the council whom I spoke with. I have had a reply from Mr Ali (councillor) saying he will look into it but nothing more than that.

I will start an FoI access request pronto for the Traffic Order.

Thanks again for your help.
Neil B
FOI delays things and is only advisable for general research.
Has Clr Ali responded at all?
And note cp8759's comments about obtaining the Order in person.

I asked about the website because the other 20 min bay case, linked by Stamfordman,
displayed no pics but an odd message. Since discovered to have been cancelled on day of issue.
cp8759
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:31) *
I will start an FoI access request pronto for the Traffic Order.

In post 18 you said you'd already made a FOI request? If that is indeed the case, the deadline is 18 January. The FOI request should only be a backstop, you should try and get it by other means if at all possible.
zcacogp
Neil,

Thanks. I've re-read the link provided by Stamfordman and can't see any mention of a 'dodgy message'. I didn't see anything that looked like a dodgy message when I logged in to the Newham site - it just showed the photos, although with no explanation of the alleged offence.

How did you discover that it had been cancelled on the day of issue? Or is it that the dodgy messages occurred because it had previously been cancelled?

No reply from Ali yet. I will chase him up by eMail. Going to the council offices to ask to see the Traffic Order in person is yet an option. How big will the document be? Is it a side of A4 or several hundred pages? Will I have a chance of understanding it? Will I be able to take a copy of it?

CP8759,

Yes I had indeed placed an FoI request - I remembered when I wrote my last post. They have since replied with a standard message saying that they will give a full response by the 17th Jan.

Thanks again for your help.
Neil B
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:49) *
How did you discover that it had been cancelled on the day of issue? Or is it that the dodgy messages occurred because it had previously been cancelled?

I know the appellant personally. They phone Newham in response to an odd on-screen message and ------ yes.
Neil B
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:49) *
Going to the council offices to ask to see the Traffic Order in person is yet an option. How big will the document be? Is it a side of A4 or several hundred pages? Will I have a chance of understanding it? Will I be able to take a copy of it?

You were in the original part of PN zone which is long established.
I can't even find the Notice of an Order creating it. That would be a large document yes.
But these 20 min bays are newish; 3 years max, so there must be an amendment/variation Order changing
the use of the bays. That would likely only refer to a few streets, so a much smaller document.

The problem with calling in is that I have no faith in Newham staff being competent enough to even know
where to look.
Ideally everything should be index filed, i.e. name a street and they should instantly know it is mentioned
in w Order, x Order, y and z Orders. But can they?

So your best hope is probably the Councillor.

But time is not on your side, so -
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I notice that I am also a week into the 2-week discount period so think I will write to them to challenge the ticket along the lines of "This offence didn't happen". Clearly it will be rejected but it will buy more time. Is this a bad idea?

No it's the only idea we have left.

'The contravention did not occur'.
State that and explain you have tried to obtain the relevant Order to check if you have done anything wrong;
you have been obstructed by them in your efforts to obtain it, e.g the switchboard customer team being unable
to even tell you where to view it.

And state that you require a copy of the relevant Order in any response.


That's my take on it at the moment. Others might see it differently.
hcandersen
You should not say the offence did not happen: the sign is there and clear and you have no evidence that there is no TMO.

What you do have is logic and reasoning.

I parked my car at the location and anticipated that the restriction would be the same as in every other local parking place both in Park Road and Portway, namely permit holders Mon-Sat. I read the sign as indicating shared use i.e. permit holders or free but with a limit of 20 minutes. Given the geography of the area, this would be a sensible restriction at this junction. In effect, I anticipated that the word 'or' was in the restriction but the authority's photos show that it is not.

It therefore appears that either the council have created a restriction with no clear beneficial traffic management purpose or that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

And then you can talk about the order. But don't dive straight in to challenging the order!
Neil B
I broadly agree with the gist of what HCA is saying -
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
no clear beneficial traffic management purpose

Is indeed local attitude to these bays but I don't see how it's a basis for challenge?

And this -
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

We don't know that?


cp8759
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:51) *
And this -
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:39) *
that the sign is incorrect, the wording should be 'or' and that this is clear in the underlying order.

We don't know that?

I agree, if the order requires the word "or" to be there then the contravention did not occur and it's fairly cut and dried, but we've not seen the order yet.
hcandersen
My draft is a preamble to set the scene for the OP's challenge.

It is a reasonable assumption, albeit that it might be wrong, that the sign is incorrect because in traffic management terms such a restriction makes no sense - any Newham permit holder for 20 minutes, why? There's nothing local to suggest this or to give a reason to differentiate between permit holders and others, given that the permission is of such limited value.
cp8759
I wouldn't submit anything on that basis until we've had sight of the order.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 13:22) *
It is a reasonable assumption, albeit that it might be wrong, that the sign is incorrect because in traffic management terms such a restriction makes no sense - any Newham permit holder for 20 minutes, why? There's nothing local to suggest this or to give a reason to differentiate between permit holders and others, given that the permission is of such limited value.

Makes perfect sense, despite being, I think I recall, a complete reversal of your view in a previous thread involving that sign?

It is indeed a ludicrous restriction/facility: There's nothing near most of these bays that warrants a 20 minute visit and I've already
mentioned the view of locals.

But on your reasonable assumption; this an extract from Notice of an extension to the same zone, to the Southwest.

"Any zone permit holders parking places, for use during the operational hours by vehicles displaying resident or business permits issued for use in any Newham CPZ, for a maximum period of 20 minutes, with return to that parking place within a period of 1 hour prohibited"

(NOT including THIS bay)

And I think you're missing why I want to see the relevant Order: I have every indication Newham cocked up drafting of an Order for another
zone, on these bays. There's an outside chance here too maybe.

----
There's another aspect I offered in that previous thread, which was poo-pooed at the time.

That is:
3/4 mile away, in FG zone, the Notice for the latest bays says exactly the same as the Notice I've quoted above.
But 1/4 mile further on, in FGN zone, the only Notice I can find states the opposite, taking your interpretation of the sign, i.e. sign wrong, missing 'or'.
Note the PCN in the other recent case, FGN zone, was mysteriously cancelled, on the day of issue.
Your interpretation of the sign was further confirmed correct by a local councillor, via social media, 20 months ago,
presumably having submitted a member enquiry and the Order having been checked.
But ONLY for that other zone.

How can it be ok or lawful for identical signs in the same Borough to mean two different things! ? Some in very close proximity.
hcandersen
The risk-free period for reps is 14 days and this does not change because the OP claims to not have been able to obtain a copy of the order.

They should therefore make the best reps they can within the 14-day period.
cp8759
If it gets to the end of the 14 day period and the order has not been obtained, I would challenge them to show that the order doesn't include the word "or", but I wouldn't make an unqualified assertion as to what it contains. If the challenge says "the order says such and such" and it later emerges that that isn't the case, it really doesn't help the OP or his credibility before the tribunal. The burden of proof is on the council, there's no reason to bluff with stuff we aren't sure of. We're not playing poker.
zcacogp
Thanks very much for the continued input. I'll confess that I can only just understand much of the discussion but I get the gist.

I did indeed post a reply to the council saying that 'The offence didn't take place' and hope that it will act as a hold to allow me to get something else together.

No reply from Mr Ali. I eMailed him again this morning and he said that he will chase it up.

I also went to the council offices today to see if I could see a copy of the Traffic Order. I went to the main offices as listed on their website (328 Barking Road) and asked at the main desk to see a copy of the Traffic Order for Park Road E15. The lady was polite and genuinely seemed to want to help but said she wasn't able to show the documents to me and that they were not available for inspection in that building (her words). I asked whether they were elsewhere as I wanted to see them and she told me to write to the address on the website, and even opened the website to show me the relevant page. She also gave me the 'phone number that was on the website. I explained that I had already called that number and they hadn't been able to give me a copy of the Traffic Order but she said that that was all she could do. I asked to speak to someone in their 'Roads' or 'Parking' department and she said that no manager would be available to speak to me.

I recorded the conversation on my 'phone but fear I may not have saved it correctly. However I have the date and time of the visit and name of the the lady I spoke with. For what it's worth, I also have photos of the building before I went in and after I came out.

So, for completeness, here is the list of times and methods I have tried to obtain a copy of the Traffic Order;

- 17/12/18, 3.35pm. Called 020 8430 2000, spoke with <name> to ask to see a copy of the Traffic Order. Was told that the 'Street Design Team' were responsible for this and that <name2> would eMail me back within 24 hours.

- 18/12/18, 8.10am. eMailed councillor Zulfiquar Ali to ask for a copy of the Traffic Order. Was told that he would "take this up with officers to establish further details" and get back to me.

- 18/12/18. 8.12am. Submitted FoI Access Request on Newham's website asking for a copy of the Traffic Order.

(- 18/12/18, 4.39pm, posted letter to council saying that the offence didn't happen.)

- 20/12/18. 8.09am. eMailed councillor Zulfiquar Ali again to chase up the copy of the Traffic Order. Was again told that Ali would look into it.

- 20/12/18 1.30pm Visited Newham council offices and asked to see a copy of the Traffic Order, was told to call the number on the website - which I had already done on the 17th.

If the Traffic Order is the document that governs what the parking rules are for the street then I think I can say that I have tried hard to get hold of a copy and that the council are not allowing ready access to it. This feels like a reasonable basis for a challenge, and I am further encouraged by CP8759's comments of the 18th.

I note also that there is the possibility of a challenge as listed on the other post - namely that in expecting alleged offenders to text to a premium rate fax line they are artificially inflating the cost to the person in question.

So ... what next? Do I wait for them to reply to my letter of the 18th and then write again or do I follow up now with the challenges that they have not made the Traffic Order available and their premium rate fax number is too expensive?

All help welcomed. Thanks very much for the assistance thus far.
cp8759
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:19) *
If the Traffic Order is the document that governs what the parking rules are for the street then I think I can say that I have tried hard to get hold of a copy and that the council are not allowing ready access to it. This feels like a reasonable basis for a challenge, and I am further encouraged by CP8759's comments of the 18th.

Well this is going to be fun. By law the council must make all proposed TROs available for inspection at its offices, and all TROs must remain available for inspection once they have been made. If the council is not following these basic steps, it appears they are acting unlawfully and to be honest this could affect almost all PCNs issued by Newham.

At this point make a formal compliant, this should be done in parallel to the PCN but don't mention the PCN as it's a separate issue

https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/Category/Complaints.aspx

-----------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

Under regulation 7(3) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, when the council proposes to make a Traffic Order, "The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents available for public inspection."

Once a Traffic Order has been made, regulation 17(1) provides that "As soon as practicable after an order has been made, the order making authority shall include among the deposited documents a copy of the order as actually made."

Schedule 2 to the regulations provides that a copy of the order, the relevant notice of making, and a map which clearly shows the location and effect of the order "shall, so far as they are relevant, be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours and at such other places (if any) within its area as it may think fit during such hours as it may determine for each such place."

On 20 December 2018 I visited the council's principal offices at 328 Barking Road and asked to see the Traffic Order for Park Road, E15. The lady was polite and genuinely seemed to want to help but said she wasn't able to show the documents to me and that they were not available for inspection in that building. I asked whether they were elsewhere as I wanted to see them and she told me to write to the address on the website, and even opened the website to show me the relevant page. She also gave me the phone number that was on the website. I explained that I had already called that number and they hadn't been able to give me a copy of the Traffic Order but she said that that was all she could do. I asked to speak to someone in their 'Roads' or 'Parking' department and she said that no manager would be available to speak to me.

Regardless of whether the documents are available online, by email or by any other means, the council has a duty under the law to keep Traffic Orders available for public inspection at its principal offices, this is a legal duty of the council and is not discretionary. While clearly no fault can be attributed to the lady on reception, who was as helpful as she could be in the circumstances, it is self evident that the council's processes have broken down.

I now ask that the council now comply with its legal duties by making all current Traffic Orders available for inspection at its principal offices during office hours, as required by The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
zcacogp
CP8759,

Thanks. That's quite heady stuff. I'll tweak your suggested message to add things like the name of the lady on reception but, that aside, shall I just cut-and-paste the whole lot into the link?

Also, and I ask this with great caution, who are you? With the very greatest of respect, and while your posts here show significant knowledge, you are simply someone on t'internet and my natural instinct is to caution. Your signature says that you are not a lawyer although you are giving (at least quasi-)legal advice. In short, how do I know you should be trusted? I am sure you understand my question and please feel free to answer it by PM if you wish.

And another one - if I make this complaint (which I most certainly will be doing), how do I tie this in with the problem of the parking ticket? It won't be hard for Newham Council to link the two as the names on them will be the same.

Thanks again, very much, for your help. It's appreciated.
cp8759
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
CP8759,

Thanks. That's quite heady stuff. I'll tweak your suggested message to add things like the name of the lady on reception but, that aside, shall I just cut-and-paste the whole lot into the link?

Yes I wasn't sure if you had got the lady's name but adding details like that, plus the time of your visit, is absolutely the right approach

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
Also, and I ask this with great caution, who are you? With the very greatest of respect, and while your posts here show significant knowledge, you are simply someone on t'internet and my natural instinct is to caution. Your signature says that you are not a lawyer although you are giving (at least quasi-)legal advice. In short, how do I know you should be trusted? I am sure you understand my question and please feel free to answer it by PM if you wish.

The general principle of pepipoo is that if someone posts rubbish advice, others will generally jump in and correct them. I am far from infallible and if something I say is clearly wrong, you can expect others to point it out.

However you make a very good point, and my simple answer is that you don't need to trust anything I say. On the contrary, I would encourage you to verify everything I am saying with your own research (to be honest most people who post on here can't be bothered and just want something they can copy / paste), you can read The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made and if you are able to read and understand the regulations, you will be able to speak with a lot more authority at any future tribunal hearing.

The fact that a breach of LATOR can lead to a PCN being overturned has been established in countless tribunal decision, for example see Mr Axxx Jxxxxx - v - Warwickshire County Council (case reference ZQ00003-1801) here: https://www.scribd.com/document/395141982/M...ce-ZQ00003-1801

Of course, you can't know that I haven't doctored the decision, but if you email the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and ask for a copy they will email you one, so feel free to get one from the tribunal. There are countless similar cases you could find on https://londontribunals.org.uk though you would need to find one yourself as I don't have any case references to hand.

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 23:29) *
And another one - if I make this complaint (which I most certainly will be doing), how do I tie this in with the problem of the parking ticket? It won't be hard for Newham Council to link the two as the names on them will be the same.

It doesn't matter if they link the names, the important reason to keep the complaint separate from the PCN is because, if the compliant were (rightly or wrongly) classed as related to a PCN, Newham might tell you there is no right to compain about a PCN and you must follow the statutory appeals process (which is correct), so basically you want to avoid the risk of the complaint being mis-classified.

But the reason for the complaint is simple: Regardless of the outcome, when your case gets to the London Tribunals, you want to be able to evidence that the council has indeed breached its duties under LATOR, and raising a formal complaint to the council is solid ammunition you can use to support this contention.

There's also the fact that if the council were to admit it were in breach of its LATOR obligations, we can use that against them for almost every PCN (There are some that don't depend on a Traffic Order but they're in the minority), so it could be hugely beneficial to others, at least until Newham get their act together.
zcacogp
CP8759,

Thanks for your reply and also for your direct message.

Those links are interesting and I have read the paragraphs of the Local Authorities' Traffic Order Regulations (which is presumably 'LATOR') which you cited and quickly viewed the rest. Thank you for providing them. Out of curiosity, how do councils normally make this information available? I presume they sit you down in an office and someone brings you the documentation you request.

I have also discovered that making a wordy complaint to Newham is not as simple as it may appear as the complaints form on the website can't handle more than a paragraph or two of text. I therefore called them and asked for the complaints eMail address, to be told that there is no such thing and that I would have to write in on paper. I asked for the name of the Head of Complaints and was eventually given a name but was told that the person in question didn't have an eMail address. Thankfully eMail addresses are easy to guess and I have eMailed the person in question with the text you kindly provided (with added details) but I will also put the complaint in writing for completeness.

I have to say that I find the whole thing almost Kafkaesque; no availability of underlying orders to allow them to act as they do and no access to a complaints system that accepts complaints of more than a couple of hundred characters. However this is by-the-by.

I guess I now sit back and wait for a reply to the complaint and then use the reply to defend the parking ticket. As and when I hear anything then I will post it on here. In the meantime, thanks again for your help and for providing some reading over the Christmas period!
cp8759
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:54) *
Out of curiosity, how do councils normally make this information available? I presume they sit you down in an office and someone brings you the documentation you request.

I have no idea, the LATOR provisions are there as a last resort, or a backstop to use a term popular nowadays. Normally councils will either publish all their traffic orders online, or at worst they'll provide them on request by email. As it's normally not this hard to get the order I'm not aware of a previous case where someone has actually had to rely on the statutory right of inspection. I know my local council (I'm out in the counties) claims traffic orders are available for inspection at their main offices, maybe I should test it out.

QUOTE (zcacogp @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:54) *
I have also discovered that making a wordy complaint to Newham is not as simple as it may appear as the complaints form on the website can't handle more than a paragraph or two of text. I therefore called them and asked for the complaints eMail address, to be told that there is no such thing and that I would have to write in on paper. I asked for the name of the Head of Complaints and was eventually given a name but was told that the person in question didn't have an eMail address. Thankfully eMail addresses are easy to guess and I have eMailed the person in question with the text you kindly provided (with added details) but I will also put the complaint in writing for completeness.

You've done everything exactly as I would have, it'll be interesting to see their response.
hcandersen
OP, not being able to obtain a copy of the order is not a defence to the contravention.

You can register all the complaints you like, but this fact remains.

You parked and remained where prima facie you could not. That's the objective starting point.

That you failed to read the sign diligently is your fault. The only redeeming factor being that its restriction seems arbitrary and without any traffic management merit. But again your or my opinion on this is not a defence.

Your reps are based on you making a reasonable and honest mistake, but you would still require the authority to accept that the restriction is anomolous and to look at the order, base their response on its provisions and supply a copy.

IMO, what you are writing does not have your 'reasonable and honest mistake' at its heart but a different agenda completely.

cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 14:21) *
OP, not being able to obtain a copy of the order is not a defence to the contravention.

It is if the order is invalid. If the council did not follow the procedure laid out in LATOR, the order is invalid.
zcacogp
As a layman I agree with you hcandersen. I did indeed make a reasonable and honest mistake and can see no justification for the unusual restrictions denoted by the sign for those three car lengths or so. However if the council is required to do many things in order to put in a parking restriction and the validity of the restriction relies upon all those things being done then I can understand CP8759's approach.

Is there any reason why the ticket cannot be disputed on both points (i.e. 'reasonable and honest mistake' and 'failure to comply with LACOR') simultaneously?
cp8759
There's three points to be pursued:

1) Issue 1, let's call it the "signage / confusion" issue and this only really amounts to mitigation
2) The apparent breach of LATOR, this could be accepted as a statutory ground for cancellation
3) The premium rate number for fax representations, as per http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1429835 which could also be accepted as a statutory ground for canellation

Ultimately you only need to succeed on one ground of appeal to win the case, they need to beat both to have the PCN upheld (and also show that if they reject your mitigation, they have duly considered it before doing so).
hcandersen
I referred to obtaining, not its provisions.

Anyway, if it's invalid this isn't a defence either:

Ground (g) of the Appeals etc. Regs states:

g)that the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part VI of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act(1) applies, is invalid;


And the order will be, therefore invalidity is no defence.


35If any person desires to question the validity of, or of any provision contained in, an order to which this Part of this Schedule applies, on the grounds—

(a)that it is not within the relevant powers, or

(b)that any of the relevant requirements has not been complied with in relation to the order,

he may, within 6 weeks from the date on which the order is made, make an application for the purpose to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session.


The law draws a line under validity, it cannot continue to be revisited by disgruntled motorists.


What is a defence, however, is if the provision as signed is not the provision as in the order.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 16:37) *
I referred to obtaining, not its provisions.

Anyway, if it's invalid this isn't a defence either:

You seem to think that if the council doesn't allow inspection of the TRO, contrary to the requirements of LATOR 17, that isn't a valid ground of appeal. Personally I think either the council has to comply with its LATOR duties to enfore the PCN, or it doesn't. It doesn't make sense that they can ignore LATOR 17 but not LATOR 18. We obviously have different views on this so we'll have to leave it at that, at least until we get a tribunal ruling.
zcacogp
HI, Happy New Year to all.

Minor update on this one:

- No reply yet from the council on any of the following;
1. The letter claiming that the alleged contravention didn't take place
2. The posted complaint about the TRO not being available in their offices
3. The eMailed complaint about the TRO not being available in their offices

However they have responded to the FoI access request with copies of TROs. I'll admit that I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet but a quick glance suggests that I don't know what I am looking at or for. I am sure I will be able to understand them but it may take some time.

Here are links to the four documents sent, although I think that the third one is the relevant one. (There was a fifth document but that was simply a covering letter.)

https://mega.nz/#!cFpxUQzb!ON6MyRSd...kdU0XLJvPziSSqg

https://mega.nz/#!oNx3nQwC!sVxai30b...ANrFVFfCppN9nG4

https://mega.nz/#!cdo1AYJY!DLBfYNKZ...2NeibKZM_yyVVN8

https://mega.nz/#!oAwziKxB!ubxc9x1v...FB_0fFk-cpiHKgE


All comments welcome. Additionally, how much time does the council have to take action after an alleged offence before they lose the ability to do so?

Thanks.
cp8759
The third document you posted (the Amendment n. 9 Order 2017) supports the restriction for the location where you parked. They have six months from the date of service of the PCN to issue a Notice to Owner. To be honest all things considered, I would pay the discount if they re-offer it. The contravention is banged-to-rights and using LATOR 17 is untested and may well not be accepted.
zcacogp
Guys,

An update on this one. We're now over 6 months down the road, and during that time there have been various letters sent back and forth between me and the council. The last one was a formal notice to me as owner of the vehicle in which I stated the reasons why I thought the penalty was invalid (TRO's not held at council buildings, requesting communication by a premium-rate fax line, confusing signage) and I heard nothing for a couple of months.

I was away this week but when I arrived home I found the following letter on the doormat. It's self-explanatory.





It looks like they are going back to allowing me a 14-day period to pay the reduced fine of £40, or they will take me to 'London Tribunals' for the full £80.

My understanding is that anything placed before a tribunal has to be done so within 6 months of the alleged offence. Given that the alleged offence date was 11/12/18, the letter above was dated 10/6/19 and the date now is 16/6/19 then we are outside of this 6 month window. Does this affect things?

(The letter from them doesn't address all of the points I raised in my letter to them, just the 'unclear signage' point. Is this relevant as well?

Thanks again for your help.

Neil B
QUOTE (zcacogp @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 13:49) *
My understanding is that anything placed before a tribunal has to be done so within 6 months of the alleged offence.

No.

On balance, can't see you can win on this.

Offering you the discount at this stage is unusual.
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.