Having earlier posted about a PCN 02 in Haringey here, Ive now picked up a SECOND PCN in Enfield (gotta stop driving anywhere!!)

Recall pulling into kerbside as I was LOST in Enfield Town Center one-way system (hadn't been there for years).

Received PCN below in post today:











and (online at their web site) obtained these 3 pictures.









From the high point of the camera I can read "Loading Bay" but as i entered the kerbside in my car I was unaware of what it was and mainly focused on getting out of the way fast moving traffic.

I did not leave the car, checked my hand drawn notes and moved on within 2-3min.

The time stamp of the pictures above show 11.10, 11.12 and 11.13 after which I rejoined traffic - contravention time is 11.10 and dates are the same between PCN and picture time stamps.

HELP please!

Stop blanking essential detail!!! Location!!

We know stuff about that area. Recently found a loading bay was in the wrong place compared to the Traffic Order.

sorry Neil, I'll get there

okay try this new page 1 PCN above

Hmm. One before was around the corner from there so not directly relevant.

If they make such mistakes though it must be worth getting the TMO.

There are various arguments against CCTV use - but most refer only to DfT Guidance - not law. It can be used but it's complex to explain.

Neil
any specific/suggested wording i can use to get the TMO?
thnx

The TMO is anyone's by right. It should be instantly viewable at one of their offices. They might charge for a copy tho.
people normally just ask by post/e-mail and get one sent for free.

You don't need to mention PCN, just TMO applying to loading bays in London Rd (and add a couple of adjoining roads if you like - to confuse them).

Hello

I recieved a very similar PCN recently from Hounslow Council citing the same reasons. I was actually loading, and sent in proof of this, but was rejected. I posted my issue up on the consumer action group forums [url="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?308706-PCN-for-parking-in-a-loading-bay-Hounslow&p=3444709#post3444709"]

Basically the advice i have been given is to appeal on the grounds that the PCN has not been correctly issued because although your contavention is for being Parked in a parking place or bay not designated for that class of vehicle, the PCN should clearly state exactly why this is so i.e. by stating which class of vehicle the bay is designated for or show a picture of any signage relating to this e.g. Goods vehicles only.

In the CAB thread above there is a PATAS appeal that was succesful for this very reason and its what I am going to base my appeal to them on. (case ref 2110087803).

I hope this provides some hope, it has for me

Oooooo look what I found!

that loading bay has been shortened.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&pq...ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA

Maybe a similar mistake to the one we had in Church St/the town ??

On streetview the only prohibitive sign is right at the start of the bay (against flow). It isn't there now in your Council pics?? Is there one at all??

Jaigee, thanks for that help
At what point did you raise this issue with the Local auth or have you held this back so far awaiting appeal? Any guidance would help me

Neil, great find!
To make sure I understand:
I have checked the locations google image against the PCN pics.
The bay today is clearly shorter (they seem to have cut into it to produce a crossing) and
the signage and pole (which was once at the beginning of the bay) is now missing also.

Short bay
Does the fact that it has been shorterned invalidate the TMO? or something else?

Re signs:
I had taken a right onto this one way system only a few yards before the shortened bay (so even if there was/is a sign further back up the one way system (to the left of the point I joined from) I would NOT have seen it

Should I still go back and photo this area for signs any way?

yes.

Thanks Bama
will get photos and TMO then!

Whenever things get changed, even if it includes the TMO, it just increases the chance they've cocked something up along the way. They did just that around the corner. Amended position of a loading bay, including amending the TMO - then drew it too big on the road, LOL.

Was involved with a couple of flats in enfield few years back. Enfield C didn't like flat 90a being above 90 and flat 88a being over 88 (as technically the main doorway to all flats was closer to 88 (ground floor))

They enforced renaming of all flats:
90a became 88a
88a became 88b
88b became 88c
88c became 88d
Gas, electric, water, their own rates bills, deliveries, hp agreements, mortgages, you name it, it became and still is a disaster - you could not have written it and would they listen to reason

I'm praying the "street numbering & naming team " are in charge of TMO's and line painting

Ok so i have been along to the bay today and taken some pictures.
To recap i turned right into the one way system where the bay is (this is an apparently un-named slip road off Genotin road which joins London Road where the bay I parked in is)
Picture from lights before my right show NO SIGNS re camera operation or LOADING
Having taken the right into London Rd there are NO SIGNS re camera operation





Upon entry into the bay off the busy London rd one way system there is a sign on a pole set back on the pavement (from Neils earlier google this sign was on a pole at the edge of the pavement/bay - the original pole/sign has gone being replaced by the set back pole/sign).



close up of the loading bay sign (the wording is the same for front and back signs)


At the new front of the bay (after alteration) there is a pole/loading sign on the pavement/bay junction however this is not visible to anyone parked at the rear of the bay due to distance/obstructed view from other bay users

The altered bay is now four shop lengths (about 30 yards) and considerably shorter than those on the google (and hopefully the TMO)

Is it not the case that a bay that has been shortened still needs the relevant Traffic Order for that shortening?
If so then surely this would invalidate the enforcement of a bay not properly signed.
First stop is to call the council and ask them to email the traffic order for that street, although it'll probably come as a complete package along with all the other streets.

Hmmm, maybe but I'd much prefer if it was marked too long i.e. not shortened enough in line with the presumed amended Order.

The one in Church St we found too long.

Lynnzer/Neil

To recap my further research then

TMO
I need to establish if they have broken the TMO by altering the bay markings incorrectly (or failed to mark the new bay in compliance with an amended TMO)?

Would the TMO normally determine the specific location of poles/signs? these have clearly been moved to a less obvious place

Camera operated area

1. I was totally unaware this was in operation as there are no signs (entering from a side road as i did) inform motorist from my direction of Camera monitoring (I doubt that’s right phrase). Is this a defense?

2. Establish what considerations were given to the SoS guidance - though Im not clear how this could help case even if they failed to follow guideline perhaps you can help me on that pls?

PCN
As pointed out previously The PCN is invalid as it "fails to make reference to the class of vehicle when stating the grounds for the service" (and their "class of vehicle sign" is not visible in their own photo of the incident which was the second string the adjudicator mentioned ) – this looks like a strong case but would appreciate your thoughts too

enfield will try everything including wardens hiding outside tyre shop so as to catch and PCN people for parkuing adjacent to dropped kerb here http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=...179.17,,0,23.03
rampant use of cctv in the town/london road/church street. fav one in layby next to market place. and camera cars.

So i got my reply from Enfield and they at least (unlike Haringey) attempted to answer my 4 points.
Docs below, help appreciated:

From the photos you have supplied, the BAy might be wrongly marked IMO. The TMO refers to bay 39 as starting at the party wall between 34 and 36 London Road. Shopuld this be at the right-hand edge of the doorway in the photo because to me it looks like the bay starts at the left-hand side of the doorway.

Maybe the instructions to the people hwo did the painting were to "start at the door in between 34 and 36 and paint until ...."

I might be wrong about this because the photos might be misleading me - and in any case might an adjudicator say that this is de-minimis?

I have looked at the Schedule attached to the TMO above and compared it to my photos of the street at top

It does appear that the bay markings start at the party wall "of Nos. 34/36" and stop about 2metre south of the north wall of 44 (I assume this wall is the wall that would have been the party wall to 42 were they joined - they are not as there appears to be an alley between them). So my reading is that the loading bay matches the description in the schedule (at least from what I can tell from my photo's)

The signs at the site (photos above) also appear to match the TMO Schedule "Mon-Sat 8am to 630pm, 20 min max period":(

The Council appear to have side stepped my request for an explanation of the Council's consideration (instead they have stated that I "suggested failures to comply with the SoS guidance" and pointed out it does not have the force of statue - this completly misses my point! What do i do?

Jiagee's point above suggests I may have appeal grounds on the following:

Basically the advice i have been given is to appeal on the grounds that the PCN has not been correctly issued because although your contavention is for being Parked in a parking place or bay not designated for that class of vehicle, the PCN should clearly state exactly why this is so i.e. by stating which class of vehicle the bay is designated for or show a picture of any signage relating to this e.g. Goods vehicles only.

Any comments on this defense also?

Weasel, I've checked this and it does seem to be that the bay starting to the left of door is in line with the party wall (I think the door belongs to 44, so the party wall would be to its left in picture) - wish it wasn't. I will drive back and check

Thanks for pointing out mind

ANY HELP FROM the senior chaps here? I know its holiday time mind:)

Jag earlier posted that I have a defense in that the PCN issued was not clear in pointing out what contravention occured (what vehicle type was allowed/not allowed to park where I did). Thus "procedural impropriety"

My PCN states "23J Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle"

Jag quoted a successful Appeal case and suggested i might use it as a defense on appealing this PCN. i have obtained the ruling below from PATAS and would appreciate any comments as to whether others here think this would be relevent in my case (it certainly looks so to me)
From PATAS Appeals case history:


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable


Case Reference:2110087803 Appellant:Mr Alfred Opoku-Agyemang Authority:Southwark VRM:Y894MDW PCN:SO33646285 Contravention Date:01 Oct 2010 Contravention Time:17:00 Contravention Location:Elm Grove Penalty Amount:£120.00 Contravention:In bay for special vehicle class e.g. motor cycles Decision Date:16 Mar 2011 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons:The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a parking place not designated for his class of vehicle when in Elm Grove on 1 October 2010 at 17.00.

The Appellant denies the contravention.

The legal requirement as to the content of a Penalty Charge Notice is contained in the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 in which it is stated in the schedule:

A regulation 10 penalty charge notice, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(4) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, must state-
(a) the date of the notice, which must be the date on which it is posted;
(b) the matters specified in paragraphs 1(b), ©, (d), (f) and (i);
© the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable;
(d) that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(e) that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the applicable date, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount;
(f) that if after the last day of the period referred to in subparagraph (d)-
(i) no representations have been made in accordance with regulation 4 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the amount of any applicable surcharge and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;
(g) the amount of the increased penalty charge; and
(h) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post for whichever of the following reasons applies-
(i) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device;
(ii) that it is being so served, because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person; or
(iii) that it is being so served because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in accordance with regulation 9.

The relevant provision is © above. The description must be sufficient in that the essential facts are stated so that the Appellant knows what case needs to be answered, the grounds being the facts that constitute the relevant contravention.

In this case the grounds were that the Appellant's vehicle was not a goods vehicle, not being the class or type of vehicle that could park in this parking space that was a loading bay. However, the description used did not mention the class or type i.e. goods vehicle and the still photographs in the Notice did not show the sign relating to goods vehicle (diagram 660.4).

Thus, on receiving that Penalty Charge Notice through the post after the event, the owner would not know whether the vehicle was in fact the permitted type or class as it is not described. The owner would not have the essential facts so that they would know what case needed to be answered; it should be noted that the owner might well not have been the driver. In my judgment it should refer to the Goods vehicle restriction.

To this extent the Penalty Charge Notice is non compliant with the relevant legislation and cannot be enforced - there is a procedural impropriety.

The Appellant should be aware that had I not found the Penalty Charge Notice to be defective, they did not have a defence to this contravention.

The Appellant's vehicle is NOT a goods vehicle as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

If the Appellant parked at this or any similar location again and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued, he would not have a defence.

The appeal is allowed.

Well my reading of thatcase is that is is pretty much the samwe circumstaces as the one that successed, so I would appealk on the basis of precoedural impropriety in tha the enforcing authority have failed to adequately describe the contravention as per the section



I would quote the PATAS case number etc

Your letter of appeal can be based on a copy/paste of the decision above, substituting "The Appellant" for "I" - plus a few other grammatical changes

Weasel, Others!!

Not sure what order or when to raise the Appeal case evidence example.

If I am planning to ultimately use the Appeal case quoted as a defense, do I raise this with the LA as part of my initial representations (as yet i haven't informed them of my representations) or do I save this, make some other representations, probably get rejected (and then having received my PATAS appeal docs from the LA) request a hearing and use the Appeal case as grounds with the adjudicator?


Any help or advice on the process most welcome!

On the councils reply they have chosen to ignore my request for an explanation of the consideration of SoS's guidance.

Their letter says i now have a further 14 days to pay or make representations.

I want to try (again) to get their comments on the "consideration of SoS guidance" so should i include that in my Representations or should i write again (separately) on that point perhaps using the words below?



Dear Sir/Madam



Following your letter 9/7/11 I am writing to request once again that you provide evidence of the Council’s consideration of the Secretary of State’s guidance on the matters of CCTV enforcement and dual enforcement.



In your letter above you have referred to my “comments about suggested failures” (I made none I merely made observations) and have stated that “The Operational Guidance is just that, guidance and does not have the force of statute”.



This response is missing the point of my request.



I want to know what consideration the Council undertook in relation to the secretary of State’s guidance on this matter?



Many thanks for your assistance.



Regards

I would appreciate any help from anyone here as i am confused as to what comes next.

1. I repeat the question to them
2. I make representations and include the repeated question to them with the representations
3. As my intention is (on appeal to raise the appeal case above - they failed to tell me what vehicles were allowed to use the loading bay). Do I raise the point and Appeal case with the LA now (in my represenation's letter) or do I hold off that until my appeal and raise that then?

As i have a holiday starting next week i want to get this underway so as not to fll foul of the holiday dates and end up missing some deadline and losing the fight. Sorry for raising this repeatedly but I'm worried I'll do things in the wrong order

I have received my NOR (14 July) even before my re-request for details of SoS consideration (sent to then 14 july) could have been looked at.

My re-request also asked for evidence that restrictions are signed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. This too has been ignored -
1. can i use this at Appeal?

2. In the NOR they fail (for the 2nd second time) to provide details of the Council's consideration given to the SoS guidance, instead choosing to ramble on about what they can do. My initial enquiry asked for information on CCTV warning signs (which I believe should have been present upon entry from my direction) in this monitored area.

They state "There is nothing to prevent the Council undertaking camera enforcement where they consider it appropriate and no signs are required" - is this correct? Can Councils really place CCTV wherever they chose and then not have to place signs to warn people? I guess its more of a police state than i thought if this is their right!

3. (Small point) the NOR contains a photo showing a "loading restriction sign" - but I noticed this is not the sign at the actual location where I waited (it contains more information at the top "no loading at any time" etc) - can I use this? can they just send any old photo of a sign? surely, if they send any photo of a sign it should be the sign in place?

4. Once i had received the answers to my information requests I intended to make representations - I have not been allowed to do this ahead of their issuing the NOR - I feel somewhat cheated.

I wanted as part of my representation to point out that the loading sign (at the location where my driver waited) is partially obscured by the large awning outside no.44 which also casts a shadow over the sign during the daytime (this can be seen from my photos above). When comparing the sign location today with the sign location held on Google Streetview - it is clear that the sign has been moved. It has been pushed back from the pavement edge (easy to see) some 3 meters right up against a dark fence by no.42 now partially obscured (on approach) by no 44's awning and the shadow it casts. Are these points worth raising with the Council or just bringing to the Appeal?

5. My strongest defense (it appears to me) is the Procedural Impropriety supported by the successful Appeal case (shown above). Enfield's PCN fails to mention which class of vehicle the loading bay is for. The owner of the car was not the driver and therefore would not have knowledge (from the PCN) to know if it was valid of not. Because a CCTV PCN was issued (not by a CEO at the time) the owner received this some 15 days after the alleged date of contravention. (What is interesting to see is that in all correspondence to the owner since, the Council has stressed the "Goods Vehicle class" point. Unfortunately they failed to get this into their PCN. Maybe they are even monitoring this board and trying to improve communication:)

All help welcome as i intend to appeal this (but risk the PCN charge increasing to £110.00 if I lose)

Sorry to be a pest here but my last postings haven't raised any replies panic is setting in that maybe I haven't everything right for lodging an appeal could someone please advise on my points posted recently?

If I go to appeal and want to bring up the Council lack of response on the issue of consideration of the SoS guidance I would need help to understand how to raise this issue coherently. Can anyone help?

Would more experienced here agree I should use the following or drop any of the below:

1. PCN - Procedural Impropriety
2. No warning signs about CCTV (I am still not sure if this is even a valid point - it certainly appears to me that the public should have a right to know/be warned that CCTV is in operation for parking enforcement)
3. The Councils general failure to answer my questions on: (i) consideration of SoS; (ii) placing of the sign to a location more difficult to read/see on approach (off the curb); (iii) failure to provide evidence that restrictions are signed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and (iv) issuing the NOR before I have made any representations (or issuing it on the same day I made my last repeat request - if they consider that to be my representation?

Thanks in advance for any help:)

I would suggest that the sign in the above picture does not conform and is not of a precribed variant. Haven't quite got the time right now to look but dig out Traffic Signs manual Chapter 3 and do some reading there.

At the weekend you will find this site a bit quieter, so be patient and I am sure someone will be along later :-)

Oh, BTW... if you have ALL of the Traffic Order, in the list of definitions how does it define "Good Vehicle"? This is potentially very helpful to your cause!

Matt

Does the sign fail to comply because it combines arrows in both directions? I have the TSM chapter 3 but i am struggling to understand what applies to my sign?!

Can I ask you how long can i wait to drop off/pick up? .In "Prohibition of Waiting and Loading" Chapter 6, para 6.3 states "prohibition of loading still permits drivers to pick up and set down".

The Council's video of my car shows the driver never left the vehicle (as he was there to pick up a passenger who had called to say she was leaving a nearby bank - took maybe 3-4minutes to get to the car. Is the fact that the car was waiting with engine running throughout and not "parked" sufficient to argue I was waiting as I am allowed?

Council did not send the "definitions" with the TMO. Any ideas how I can get these? (I've tried random Google searches but with no luck)

I appreciate I have to be a little more patient and also that its holiday season.

Thanks again for your input so far and for any help you can provide (when you have time) on where this signage falls foul.

I have been trying to establish if Enfield Council are correct in stating (as they did to me 9/7/2011)




"...There is nothing to prevent the Council undertaking camera enforcement where they consider it appropriate and no signs are required"




When according to the following report


"There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera[/font] enforcement is taking place". Who is right? Can anyone offer an explanation as I would like to use this defense on my appeal (which I will apply for next week)







(Below is a cut and paste from the report)




Joint Report Parking (Eng and Wales) adjudicators 2009/10





While most cases turn on their particular facts, some general points emerge

from the allowed appeals. Where camera enforcement is relied upon, the ideal evidence bundle will include certain key items and, if one of more of them is missing or defective, the council is likely to have diff iculty establishing its case.



For example:

[font=Times]

Film footage needs to be clear enough and of sufficient duration to prove the

alleged contravention.



There should be a statement from the named civil enforcement officer or

supervisor who reviewed the film and decided to issue a PCN.

There should be evidence (if necessary in addition to the film footage) that the

carriageway markings and roadside signs are present and in order.



Where the camera or vehicle is in question, the council should be in a position

to prove that the camera is an approved device (although this is not

necessary if type approval is not in dispute)



There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera

enforcement is taking place.



The council should have and publish on their website a code of practice for

camera enforcement.



The council should be able to explain why it was appropriate to enforce by

camera rather than by civil enforcement officer.

Hi All

I have returned from hols to find my PATAS hearing set for 26 October (should i post?)

Trying to get me submission into PATAS now and would appreciate help in tying up a few outstanding points and wordsmithing the letter to PATAS.

Matthelad above mentioned that the pictures of the loading restriction markings (showing arrows in both directions) did not conform or were not prescribed variants - Ive checked the documentation but cant find the point to highlight - can Matt or anyone help please?

My first draft letter to PATAs is as follows, (again any help welcome):-
Enfield PCN Appeal – CASE no. XXX



1. Procedural impropriety – PCN fails to mention which class of vehicle the loading bay is actually for depriving the owner of essential facts as supported by the successful Appeal hearing Case 2110087803



In this case the grounds were that the vehicle was not a goods vehicle, not being the class or type of vehicle that could park in this parking space that was a loading bay. However, the description used by the Council did not mention the class or type i.e. goods vehicle and the still photographs in the Notice did not show the sign relating to goods vehicle.

Thus, on receiving that Penalty Charge Notice through the post after the event, I would not know whether the vehicle was in fact the permitted type or class as it is not described. I would not have the essential facts so that I would know what case needed to be answered; it should be noted that I was not the driver.



In my judgment it should refer to the Goods vehicle restriction.



2. No warning signs (about the use of CCTV) were present from my approach. The Council state (9/7/2011)



“There is nothing to prevent the Council undertaking camera enforcement where they consider it appropriate and no signs are required”



However the Joint Report Parking Adjudication (Eng and Wales) 2009/10 states:



“There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera enforcement is taking place” [size=2][/size]



3. The car was not parked but waiting as can be seen in the Council’s video. The driver was picking up a nervous passenger from a nearby bank (Royal Bank Scotland 30/32 London Road, Enfield).



“Prohibition of loading still permits drivers to pick up and set down".



[This actual location being later being the epicenter of the recent London riots – sure I can’t use that but…]



4. Repeated failure by the Council to provide evidence required by me for my representation including:



i). The Councils due consideration of the Secretary of States guidance on the matters of CCTV enforcement and dual enforcement.



ii). The sign showed by the Council does not conform and is not a prescribed variant

Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 6) (HELP MATT?)



5. The Council failure to provide evidence that restrictions are signed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002



6. The sign next to the location where the car picked up is not easily visible and partially obscured (on my approach) by the shadow cast by the awning of No. 44 London road.



It is clear that this sign has replaced a previous sign (when observed on google earth maps. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&pq...ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA) and that the new sign has been set back a considerable distance from the edge of the curb, obscured by the awning which was extended, from No. 44 London Road


All comments welcome, I understand I need post this off asap

I would expect case referral to be sufficient. There really ought not to be different findings for the same offence as this would make the system a complete joke.
All seems OK as far as I can tell but as you mention, Matt's input on the sign would be welcome. Try a PM. Not everyone has update notification set on their posts so he maybe hasn't picked up on it yet.

thanks Lynnzer

Lancaster, got your PM!

Please can you confirm who supplied the colour photos in post 29# as the signs do not match those provided in post 15? It is important that we know which signs were in place at the location at the time of the alleged contravention and I suspect having looked at the earlier ones in post 15 are those we are interested in... if so the sign fails to comply on the grounds that the words " Goods VehicleS Loading Only" is not a permitted variant as it should read "Goods Vehicle Loading Only" and the symbol of the man and sack truck should be facing to the right to correspond with the arrow (see 7.28 of Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual - http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsman...tsmchapter3.pdf )

Are you local to this location as it might be worthwhile returning there to measure the bay as the Order provided is quite clear that a loading bay must be 2.7m wide through out - no more, no less!

Can you also get onto the council and get them to provide you with a copy of the 2000 order as this would appear to define the term "Goods Vehicle"... this could provide another angle on which we can focus.

Matt

As you thought I took pictures in post 15 at the location. First is "Sign A" is outside no.42 and says "vehicleS', second is "Sign B" is outside no.34/36 and says "vehicleS" and ALSO shows a man with a trolley walking in the opposite direction to the arrow.

The Council sent me a hardcopy photo 29 with the NOR, which is of a sign that no longer exists. (From Neils google street map post earlier, i can see that the Councils photo 29 was of the original sign on kerb edge outside no 44 (as opposed to "Sign B" now moved outside no.42 and set back again the actual building, partially obscured by awning of no.44.

I assume I should point out the misleading photo from the Council in my appeal submission, any wording anyone?

I will return and measure the 2.7m width. Previously i confirmed that the bay compiled with outside dimensions on the TMO.

The TMO refers to "the Order of 2000" so I understand there is another document to obtain Order 2000, which contains the description of goods vehicle allowed?

Thanks so much!

You should ask them to supply you with the order that was made to move the signs, dated of course. It isn't sufficient to rely on "library" pictures, especially when the basis of an appeal is based on the actual signs themselves. I think you have them on this one. Good work Matt.

Put them top prove the signs were those that were in place at the time of the alleged offence, also to show approval for use of a non approved traffic sign


Sir I refer to the correspondence between ourselves regarding PCN no....
It has come to my attention that the signs, pictures of which accompanied the PCN from yourselves, is actually not the sign alongside the location where I was stopped. In fact the sign is positioned on a wall of a building and not free-standing as you wish me to believe.
Furthermore, the sign that is in place, and the one that should be referred to, is not an approved sign as per 7.28 of Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual. The sign is not correctly worded and the picture of the man with the barrow is facing the wrong way.
I wish to receive from yourselves a copy of the works order which shows the date of the work to be carried out, that must have been made to remove the free-standing sign and have another one situated on the wall instead, together with a letter of confirmation of the acceptance of the use of an incorrect sign.
Since I have been misled in respect of the actual pictures sent to me I give you a further chance to desist from your prosecution of this case and save yourselves from the embarrassment of having to explain to the Adjudicator why you sent out wrong pictures and pictures of a sign that has not been approved for use in any case.
Respectfully yours


Naturally your appeal details to PATAS should now include wording such as that you will send to the council. ie, the fact that they have misled you, procedural impropriety with a picture of the sign that5 was not the one in situ at the specified location, along with the pictures you took of the sign. Further, mention the non prescribes details.

Lynnzer,

I have all the things your suggested underway

As I have PATAS date (26 Oct), I take it that I should both write to the Council (on the misleading issue) AND include a copy of this correspondence along with my appeal (just want to be sure its okay to BOTH communicate with the Council directly and PATAS appeal!).

Thanks again and I much appreciate your help with the wording

Letter to Council is ready to go and then appeal too, once you able to kindly confirm I have it right. Ta

Can i also ask anyone for help (guidance) in wording a claim for costs. It's clear that the Council has failed to supply certain critical information (which i am entiteld to); provided misleading information (pictures of wrong signs); and despite being made aware of these and other failings (incorrect signs, lack of warning signs etc) has pursed this incorrectly issued PCN. I have incurred time costs, travel expenses, photography charges in compiling my defense, so what can I try to claim and how should I word that at the end of my appeal? (If i haven't much chance of getting costs it doesn't matter - I'm determined to go for them). Please help

Even though they have passed this to Tribunal they can still withdraw it.
If they do it saves you a lot of time buggering about on forums such as this and in researching.
So, a letter to the council won't go amiss. It adds to your armoury at Tribunal if they don't withdraw, as they will be put to prove (or disprove) the points you have raised.

makes sense, starting to enjoy them squirming now but understand that not what this is about.
thanks so much, will write to them and send in appeal (including these points), again thanks

Enfields rejection of my request they drop their case in view of sending me pictures of a sign not at the location and my pointing out that both signs' there do not comply with TMSR 2008 anyway.
They have only selectively answered my sign points, have now included some real pictures from the location and finally they have sent the Order 2000 (which it was suggested here I obtain). Any comments welcome





tmo



tmo 2



tmo 3



tmo 4



TMO 5



TM) 6



TMO 7



TMO 8

order conveys no powers under the TMA.
they rely on the 1991 Act wholesale and large pieces of this have been repealed in E&W notably the civil enforcement parts
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/12

not that strong on its own in the eyes of adjudicators and/or/because the TRO has not fallen into the trap of talking to the enforcement provisions

Thanks Bama

So nothing more for me to do but go to the appeal and stick primarily to;
1. Proc improp - they failed to mention vehicle type on PCN (Successful Appeal case in past to be used)
2. No warnings on the use of CCTV - they say "don't have to" Joint Report Parking Adjudication 2009/10 - says there should be evidence
3. Car was not parked/loading but stopping to pick up (TSM chpt 3, para 6.3) says pick up/set down allowed
4. Only supplied first photos with NOR - deprived me information; the photos ; the photo's supplied were library photos - misleading (and failed to show the (loading bay symbol/arrow mistake and wording Veichle(S) mistake).
6. After moving sign back on the pavement it is now obscured (by awning/shadow of awning).
7. Failed to provide evidence of "consideration" SoS guidance despite numerous requests; failed to provide TOrder 2000 until just now.

Have i missed anything or included anything i should not?
Many thanks

sorry just catching up.

A member here once educated me to the relevance of a 'code of practice'. All London Councils are apparently signatories to such a code and hence might be held to what they've effectively promised. that element, I'm sure, would be in such a code but I don't think I have a link at mo. Anyone?

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylob...eofpractice.htm

Ta!

The fact that they have now sent a new set of pictures only confirms their impropriety in sending you misleading pictures in the first place.
Furthermore, they have provided you with the evidence of their impropriety, "we apologise if this misled you" . That's extremely nice of them......