Had to use one of the many over subscribed pay and display car parks in the Lake District over the summer, which are operated by the council. I was staying on a Saturday night, so obviously didn't want to get up too early on the Sunday morning!

The signs at the pay and display machine stated that parking was free between the hours of 18:00 and 09:00. The longest period that a parking ticket could be bought for was 9 hours. I saw little point in buying a ticket when I parked there at 18:00 as it would've expired in the middle of the night.

I decided to try to get back to the car as early as possible on the Sunday morning to buy a ticket. I managed to get there at around 9:40, but had a PCN ticket waiting for me at 9:15. I bought a ticket then at 9:40 to allow me to go back to bed! The car park was also empty.

I tried appealing the ticket in the first instance by reaching out to the council's reasonable nature (!!), in that it is impossible to buy a ticket for 12-24 hours to cover the car for the morning, and that I bought a ticket in the morning to show I had every intention of paying my way. The appeal got rejected, but interestingly enough they revealed in the letter that had I bought a ticket for an hour of parking at 18:00 on the Saturday then this would've been carried over from 09:00 on the Sunday. THIS TICKETING POLICY IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE ON THE SIGNS!

I am about to present my case to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and wondered if anyone out there knows of any legal requirements regarding the signage and the pricing. I looked at consumer acts whereby vendors are required to not withhold contractual information etc. My argument being that the council should display all pricing information, and if they had I would never have got the ticket.

Cheers in advance.

Hmm. It seems like the council have not been as clear as they should have been (no surprise there of course!). I do think you may have a reasonable chance here though. If they are telling you in their rejection letter how the PCN could have been avoided in the first place then I believe they should have made that fact clear on the P&D machines. Usually when councils say this sort of thing they are just re-iterating what they have published elsewhere (a bit like "well we did warn you"). But that does not appear to be the case here.

I assume you have been through the NTO (Notice to Owner) stage and had both the informal and formal appeals to the council turned down as you are now at the TPT stage?

The only thing that could go against you is the fact you arrived to buy a P&D ticket 40 minutes after the start of the charging period. The adjudicator will no doubt want to know why you had not arrived at or before 9am. They dont appreciate that most of us like to have a Saturday night out occasionally and a bit of a lie in on Sunday mornings! TPT can be a odd lot.

The fact that you did purchase a ticket should be a plus point for you. A lot of people would not have bothered as they may have viewed the PCN as costing them enough money! In any case a second PCN would not have been issued that day, even if you had decided to leave the car there all day.

Others may have some further advice but in any case, good luck with TPT and do come back to let us know how you got on!

i think you will be lucky to win

the fact you could have bought a tkt whcih continued the next day
isnt relevant as you did not attempt to

see this case

faber v westmintser whcih is not the same but relevant concerning a mix of pay and free periods

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...Westminster.doc

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, I have been through the NtO stage.

The Faber V Westminster case was a good find. The one thing that strikes me as being different here though is that no stage that I can tell did Westminster Council suggest that paying for a ticket during the uncontrolled period will only commence expiry during the controlled period.

In contrast South Lakeland in their response state 'Had you purchased another ticket on Saturday, you would have been credited with the extra time on Sunday'.

I have found within the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999' http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm that in Section 2:

© making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;


both suggest to me that the council withholding this key piece of charging policy ought to invalidate the signage?

The Regulations don't apply as this is not a contract for parking but rather a statutory scheme under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've checked out the Road Traffic Regulations Act. Section 35 below talks about the conditions applied to council controlled parking areas.



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...8#pt4-pb1-l1g44


Scrolling down to section 3B it states:


(3B)In this section and in section 35A below “parking device” means either a card, disc, token, meter, permit, stamp or other similar device, whether used in a vehicle or not, F5. . ., which, being used either by itself, or in conjunction with any such apparatus as is referred to in subsection (3A)(d) above—

(a)indicates, or causes to be indicated, the payment of a charge, and—

(i)the period in respect of which it has been paid and the time of the beginning or end of the period, or

(ii)whether or not the period for which it has been paid or any further period has elapsed, or

(iii)the period for which the vehicle in relation to which the parking device is used is permitted to park in the parking place, and the time of the beginning or end of the period, or

(iv)whether or not the period for which the vehicle in relation to which the parking device is used is permitted to park in the parking place or any further period has elapsed; or........

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which in the case of the Lake District car park, it does not state that tickets bought in the non controlled time after 18:00 do not begin to expire until 09:00 the next day. I am not sure though from all the waffly legal way of structuring sentences how compulsory it is for the council to display this information.

I am clutching at straws here guys????

Well, you have got nothing to lose really. You have gone past the stage of paying the discounted rate for the PCN anyway. And the more prepared you are, the better. So even if the TPT decision goes against you, all you will have to pay is the full rate of the ticket. But hopefully the adjudicator will take your side!

Yup, in for a penny, in for £75!

A few acts quoted in my favour has got to sound better rather than claiming their tariff signs are unfair!

£75? where did they get that from? According to TMA 2004 the full penalties are either £50 or £70.

Mind you, looking at SLDCs website they refer to the "Road Management Traffic Act 2004" I am sure they mean the Traffic Management Act, 2004!

They also say "You should write in within 14 days of receiving the PCN . If a challenge is not received within 14 days the full charge rate of up to £70.00 will apply"

Link to their PCN page here: http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=635

And yes, quoting a few acts will definitely show them you have done some research. Cant do any harm.

Hmm... if they're this slack then you'd be well advised to get hold of the Parking Places Order for this car park. Chances are it's rubbish, in which case you have a solid technical appeal.

Indeed! On the PCN page of their website they say in one paragraph "The Registered Owner is legally responsible" and in another they say "We will send the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, an NTO". And then they go on to mention NPAS, closely followed by TPT! So which one is it then! Clowns

Sounds like Great Uncle Bulgaria wrote that page for them

seconded. there are some outrageously bad orders out there. only way to know is to check.

I agree.....get the order!

Emm why not scan up the ticket incase theres other problems with that?

The fact its £75 sounds wierd.. is the council operating some kinda scam?

I'll get the documents scanned up tomorrow. Yep I've just double checked and the fine is due to increase up to £75. Also on the original ticket elements were missing such as car colour (clearly silver) and tax disc (although I believe these to be non mandatory).

I will try and get hold of a copy of the PPO but I live 100 miles away so can't get there in person.

Do you think procedural errors are enough for the adjudicator to cancel the fine?

Having looked at their website it is entirely possible they have messed up what amount the PCN should have been! Very dis-jointed at best. Is it definitely issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004? Should say at the top of the PCN.

Car colour and tax disc are not relevant as you thought. They are like optional extras!

As said previously TPT can be an odd lot so there is no way of telling what they will decide. If it was me personally I would have a crack at appealing to them, hoping to pull up the council on poor procedures.

Yes, issued under 'Traffic Managment Act 2004 Act' (yes it randomly says Act twice!)

I've gone this far now I'm definitely going throug with it. I'll post up my appeal and would appreciate comments. Cheers

Hi all,

just finalising the ammunition for my appeal. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

I've found the fine charging structure:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040018_en_14

Table 2 suggests I fall into the higher level penalty charge. It is not clear which price band structure the council have applied.

I also found this in the Traffic Management Act, 2004:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040018_en_14


In the above link, paragraph 5 states the following:

<H4 class=LegSP1GroupTitleC1Amend id=Legislation-IDADAXRC><H4 class=LegSP1GroupTitleC1Amend id=Legislation-IDAT4WRC>The amount of the penalty and the period for payment</H4>4 (1) The penalty for a fixed penalty offence is (subject to paragraph 5) such amount, not exceeding 30 per cent. of the maximum fine for that offence, as may be prescribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, if the fine they are imposing is £50, even if you take into account the maximum fine that could be applied after service of charge certificate of £105, then this is nearer to 50%, thus exceeding the prescribed 30%.

Do you think this is an admin error that ought to invalidate the fine at the tribunal level?

Cheers (can't switch the bold text off!)

</H4>

Your offence is not a "fixed penalty offence" though, is it?

doh, spotted that just after I submitted the post. Back to the drawing board. The government acts can be hard work to decipher at times!

I have decided to either appeal to the tribunal under the grounds that "The alleged contravention did not occur" and claim that the pricing information on the signage was inadequate, under section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


This argument seems a little subjective though, so I scoured the original PCN that was attached to my windscreen for irregularities. It states:

Contravention code 83 "Parked in a pay and display, permit or parking clock, car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket, permit or parking clock."

I've checked table 3 for off street contraventions and there is no mention of a code 83. Could I get off the hook by citing a procedural improprietry?

On Friday I received a letter from the tribunal to tell me that my appeal was successful!!!

My final appeal centred around the fact that the PCN was issued for an 83 (failing to display a valid ticket), when in actual fact a code 82 had occurred as I had a ticket displayed but it had expired. The adjucator agreed that the 'valid' meaning of a code 83 refers to the car park and type of vehicle being in the correct parking space, rather than the time on the ticket.

Thought I'd let you all know, as I imagine councils use code 83 quite a lot of the time when a ticket has expired.

Cheers for all your help in helping me put my appeal together

good one !

If you feel like it, it might be useful to give us the case name and a scan of the adjudicator's reasons, so they can be cited in future. If you don't feel like doing so in public then I'm more than happy to get them from the adjudicator if you let me have the case ref.

Certainly, I'm hoping it will be able to help people out. Case number is SC 05110C.

Can you let me know where you can find them from? I'd like to see any comments that have been made with it. I remember once finding a website with a presentation on guidelines to councils based on tribunal results.

Anyone can obtain a copy by asking the relevant tribunal for a copy from the register. I don't know where you'd get the "council digest" from.

Ah I think it was one of the downloads from here:

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/s...categoryID=4126

I will try and take a legible photograph of the tribunal letter and upload it. They also took a dim view on the council citing the 82 code in their original letter of rejection when the PCN was for an 83, saying it amounted to a procedural impropriety.

Ace. I've emailed the TPT asking for an official copy.

Appeal 1


Appeal 2