Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Enfield Council Pcn
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
viper
Received a parking ticket from London Borough of Enfield. I enclose the scan of PCN. No one else seems to have put up an Enfield one are these legal in terms of the wording. Any help much apprcaited.

Thanks in advance


[img=http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2661/img0001lc9.th.jpg]
southpaw82
Need to see the back.
viper
pending........

ok back of PCN should be below


[img=http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5408/img0002rc5.th.jpg]

upgraded scans now so should be very clear

Cheers
southpaw82
Looks ok to me.
Ticket ripper
Just a thought from an enthusiastic amateur (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing so dont rely on this)

Is the wording "It is an offence for an unauthorised person to remove or interfere with this notice" compliant in that the PCN purports to be issued under TMA 2004 a decriminalised parking regime?

I cannot find it but I seem to remember reading about a case which resulted in the changing of similar wording on the protective plastic envelope when a PCN was affixed to windscreens as it could mean that if you were an unauthorised person you could not open the envelope to find out who could authorise you! I believe this resulted in the wording being changed to "anyone other than the driver or owner"

Perhaps the legal eagles might know.

Apologies found it in Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 section 11 it is an offence!
viper
Cheers mate for trying.

Totally fuming about this ticket told by chap across road in his car that some w@$*** came in car (C02 pollution?) illegally parked behind me blocking driveway then did me. It was a Saturday evening after 5Pm near Arnos Grove tube station, I had just popped into Harvester guess this is a good spot for Enfield Council to nail person foolish enough to support any local business that still exists. I will try and post up some pics of location tomorrow
viper
Right chaps

Been back to the location of this alleged contravention. Basically the lines have no t bar at the end on each side although the signage seems okay.

I am putting up some pictures of the lines and the missing t-bars on both ends. Would this be enough to get the ticket voided? if so what legislation should I quote.

Thanks in advance


URL=http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0215lh1.jpg][/URL]
[img=http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/304/dscf0215lh1.th.jpg]

[img=http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3900/dscf0216qj5.th.jpg]

[img=http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9923/dscf0210uc9.th.jpg]

[img=http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5779/dscf0211zc1.th.jpg]

THIS IS THE PARKING RESTRICTION SIGN

southpaw82
Strictly speaking no t-bar should be enough to void the line. However, adjudicators are very reluctant to allow appeals on that point alone.
viper
Thing is all he other lines in this area do have the T- bars. I am thinking maybe an informal appeal to Enfield about the lack of the T-bars. I noted on another site that it says it’s not required if it is joining pedestrian crossing or parking bay (something along these lines). Bit confused with that but I note all the other bays around the area do have the T-bar in that circumstance.

I am quite happy to go to adjudicator even if it’s 50/50 as I would fight the thieves on principle
southpaw82
Personally, I wouldn't rate your chances as even 50/50 on the t-bar issue. I can't remember a single case where an appeal has been upheld on that point alone, though I'm sure there are some.
viper
i see this ruling which is not too good http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...d%20version.pdf
southpaw82
No, it doesn't. My own answer would be that the law should concern itself with trifles where those trifles are specifically required by Parliament. If t-bars were so minor as to be mere trifles Parliament would have made them optional rather than obligatory. I doubt an adjudicator would agree though.
viper
Just to update I have now had NTO for this parking ticket. I also have picture of my ‘contravention’. Note the vehicle behind is the warden who issued me with the ticket. He parked up in this Zafira got out did me then drove off. You will also note he is also committing contravention himself. Is this acceptable behaviour?

Also the lines at this location. There is no T bars. Is this correct I have seen in some cases they say not required as it joins parking bay. What is the rules here.

I will try to scan NTO tomorrow but it looks quite good can’t spot any obvious error

Pictures below of picture taken by warden (top picture) and the pictures on the lines and lack of T bars. Any case with the T bar issue willing to try even if its a weak argument













Neil B
Fairly clear that you are unlikely to be successful but I admire the spirit.

If you want to check the rules I'll give you TSRGD to trawl through.
-
Neil B
Here ya go. The whole caboodle! http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm

Scroll down to Schedule 6, 1000 series diagrams - 1017 I think.

Then read the table that refers you to the relevant Regs and Directions. Then scroll around to find those.
-
viper
Are you saying because T-bar linked to the parking bays it’s a non-starter? Bit unclear to me the regulations. T
I checked all the other b bays in the area and they all have the T-bar even when connecting to a marked parking bay just not this one where I was done. I will put it to adjudicator anyway to waste their time

Will post up the NTO tomorrow but it look quite watertight but you pros may be able to pick up on something as it will be going to adjudicator these scum wont be getting a dime from me without a fight
southpaw82
The relevant diagram is 1017. The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, Para 20.3 says: "A transverse mark must be placed at each end of a line, where one type of line changes to another, where it abuts a bay marking..."

Adjudicators still ignore this though.
viper
I was going to send them this for a laugh:

Dear NCP Parking Services T/a Enfield Council

The yellow line marking the section of Bowes Road on which I was parked does not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 in that it does not have t-bars at either end.

The regulations clearly show the requirement for a t-bar and there are no permitted variations.

The application of de minimis in the context of road traffic signs has been thoroughly examined in the courts in the case of Cotterill v Chapman (1984) RTR 73 which distinguished the decision of Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145.

In Davies the court decided that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation and that if a sign, the contravention of which is an offence, is not as so prescribed then no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind. In Cotterill the principle of the application of de minimis variation was upheld but it is clear form this decision that the level of variation must be extremely small. In Cotterill a very short section of a long double white centre line was found to have a centre gap of just 3 millimetres less than the prescribed minimum of 90 millimetres. In Davies an additional broken line between double solid white centre lines was not a permitted variation and Cotterill upheld that a variation of this sort was not permitted and invalidated the purported contravention of an invalid sign. The principle of de minimis could perhaps support the claim that t-bars of slightly the wrong size were still in conformity but it cannot possibly be used to support their total absence when the regulations lay out so clearly the mandatory requirement for them.

Since the road markings are not in conformity with the regulations then there can have been no contravention.
southpaw82
Your point is legally sound. It also, by the way, distinguishes the council's darling case, Canadine v DPP. Whether an adjudicator agrees is another matter though.
viper
I will send it tommorrow so. Will post reply in due course
Neil B
QUOTE (viper @ Fri, 5 Sep 2008 - 23:26) *
I will send it tommorrow so. Will post reply in due course


Still very much worth showing us that NtO. Why go with one bullet when you may have more?
-
viper
ok cheers Neil I will post it up tomorrow as no rush.
viper
Notice to Owner from Enfield Council. Any errors chaps?






Neil B
About 1 1/2 points same as some of those I posted in the mortimer thread.

Firstly, 'do not pass to the person in control of --'and 'you are legally liable to comply with ----'

First phrase obstructs your ability to find out the circumstances and formulate an accurate appeal.
Second is factually incorrect; As the owner you are only legally liable for payment of any penalty. Anyone may be otherwise involved to assist you.

On the 'without consent' issue also obstructive by asking for cime ref etc but not the worst version I've seen.

-



Howard0181
Ayone had any recent NTO's from Enfield? I would like to see if they have changed their forms in past 3 months.
viper
I will have personal appeal against PCN on Thursday of this week.

I will scan up and post Enfield’s response later.

This is the appeal I sent to the adjudicator anyway. If anyone would like to battle it out on Thursday or is down at haymarket drop me a Pm.

Cheers

Appeal against PCN NO: EF

I appeal on the basis the notice to owner is invalid because the terms 'do not pass to the person in control of --'and 'you are legally liable to comply with ----'

First phrase obstructs your ability to find out the circumstances and formulate an accurate appeal.
Second is factually incorrect; As the owner you are only legally liable for payment of any penalty. Anyone may be otherwise involved to assist you.

I have also appealed to Enfield because the location where I parked has no T-bars present. I therefore believe no contravention occurred and case law supports my argument.

The yellow line marking the section of the street on which I was parked does not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 in that it does not have t-bars at either end.

The regulations clearly show the requirement for a t-bar and there are no permitted variations. The requirement for such t-bars has been recognised by the PATAS Adjudicator in Minier v Camden as reported on 18/12/03. The PATAS Adjudicator in Minier incorrectly decided that the t-bars were ‘immaterial’ on the basis of de minimis non curat lex. This decision is simply wrong. The application of de minimis in the context of road traffic signs has been thoroughly examined in the courts in the case of Cotterill v Chapman (1984) RTR 73 which distinguished the decision of Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145.

In Davies the court decided that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation and that if a sign, the contravention of which is an offence, is not as so prescribed then no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind. In Cotterill the principle of the application of de minimis variation was upheld but it is clear form this decision that the level of variation must be extremely small. In Cotterill a very short section of a long double white centre line was found to have a centre gap of just 3 millimeters less than the prescribed minimum of 90 millimeters. In Davies an additional broken line between double solid white centre lines was not a permitted variation and Cotterill upheld that a variation of this sort was not permitted and invalidated the purported contravention of an invalid sign. The principle of de minimis could perhaps support the claim that t-bars of slightly the wrong size were still in conformity but it cannot possibly be used to support their total absence when the regulations lay out so clearly the mandatory requirement for them.

The PATAS decision in Minier is a decision which rides roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty which has laid out in the clearest possible terms the requirement for such t-bars. The PATAS Adjudicator has no such power or authority. I expect that in my case the Adjudicator will not follow the incorrect decision in Minier and to apply the legislation of Parliament according to the authoritative court decisions of Davies, which permits no variations, and Cotterill which only allows the slightest variations under the principle of de minimis.

Since the road markings are not in conformity with the regulations then there can have been no contravention. This is clear from the court decisions of MacLeod v Hamilton (1965) S.L.T 305 and the PATAS Adjudicator decision in Cooper v Richmond (as reported on 18/07/00). The law should concern itself with trifles where those trifles are specifically required by Parliament. If t-bars were so minor as to be mere trifles Parliament would have made them optional rather than obligatory.

Signed
viper
Also does the sign in this case mean "no waiting" as this is what Enfield Council are saying in documentation. They say that sign means no waiting between stated times? I thought it was just no parking
Howard0181
How did the Appeal Hearing go?
Dive 1082
******************* URGENT ********************************

Hi, what was the outcome of your appeal? I am going through an appeal at the moment (4 hearings so far fifth on Tuesday 30th Nov). I have cited no T-bars as one of my defences but the adjudicator at PATs has clearly indicated that this is not a point he is willing to consider.

I am still plugging away at it and I am fortunate that my MP is also the MP that is on the transport comitee so I will be making him work for his salary.

It would be useful if anyone out there has any cases I can cite in my case....



QUOTE (viper @ Mon, 12 Jan 2009 - 14:08) *
I will have personal appeal against PCN on Thursday of this week.

I will scan up and post Enfield’s response later.

This is the appeal I sent to the adjudicator anyway. If anyone would like to battle it out on Thursday or is down at haymarket drop me a Pm.

Cheers

Appeal against PCN NO: EF

I appeal on the basis the notice to owner is invalid because the terms 'do not pass to the person in control of --'and 'you are legally liable to comply with ----'

First phrase obstructs your ability to find out the circumstances and formulate an accurate appeal.
Second is factually incorrect; As the owner you are only legally liable for payment of any penalty. Anyone may be otherwise involved to assist you.

I have also appealed to Enfield because the location where I parked has no T-bars present. I therefore believe no contravention occurred and case law supports my argument.

The yellow line marking the section of the street on which I was parked does not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 in that it does not have t-bars at either end.

The regulations clearly show the requirement for a t-bar and there are no permitted variations. The requirement for such t-bars has been recognised by the PATAS Adjudicator in Minier v Camden as reported on 18/12/03. The PATAS Adjudicator in Minier incorrectly decided that the t-bars were ‘immaterial’ on the basis of de minimis non curat lex. This decision is simply wrong. The application of de minimis in the context of road traffic signs has been thoroughly examined in the courts in the case of Cotterill v Chapman (1984) RTR 73 which distinguished the decision of Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145.

In Davies the court decided that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation and that if a sign, the contravention of which is an offence, is not as so prescribed then no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind. In Cotterill the principle of the application of de minimis variation was upheld but it is clear form this decision that the level of variation must be extremely small. In Cotterill a very short section of a long double white centre line was found to have a centre gap of just 3 millimeters less than the prescribed minimum of 90 millimeters. In Davies an additional broken line between double solid white centre lines was not a permitted variation and Cotterill upheld that a variation of this sort was not permitted and invalidated the purported contravention of an invalid sign. The principle of de minimis could perhaps support the claim that t-bars of slightly the wrong size were still in conformity but it cannot possibly be used to support their total absence when the regulations lay out so clearly the mandatory requirement for them.

The PATAS decision in Minier is a decision which rides roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty which has laid out in the clearest possible terms the requirement for such t-bars. The PATAS Adjudicator has no such power or authority. I expect that in my case the Adjudicator will not follow the incorrect decision in Minier and to apply the legislation of Parliament according to the authoritative court decisions of Davies, which permits no variations, and Cotterill which only allows the slightest variations under the principle of de minimis.

Since the road markings are not in conformity with the regulations then there can have been no contravention. This is clear from the court decisions of MacLeod v Hamilton (1965) S.L.T 305 and the PATAS Adjudicator decision in Cooper v Richmond (as reported on 18/07/00). The law should concern itself with trifles where those trifles are specifically required by Parliament. If t-bars were so minor as to be mere trifles Parliament would have made them optional rather than obligatory.

Signed

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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.