Way back when I had a fight with Hackney when they towed my wifes car late at night, I found some problems in that some of the legislation and statutes weren't readily available. In fact I used the unavailability of the statutes the authority operated under as a point of appeal. I doubt it made much difference to the outcome itself, we got all the £260 back anyway.

Anyhow, I have just discovered that the Legislation.gov.uk website is gradually working its way back to older legislation by the looks of it. It didn't used to go back as far as 1986, but it has partial coverage for that year now, and it now includes the elusive "The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986" SI 1986 No.183. It is a PDF, and unfortunately is a scanned document, so not searchable, but it isn't a huge document by any means.

There is a 'sister' document available which might be of interest : "The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Loading Areas) Regulations 1986" SI 1986 No.184

AND... there is "The Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges etc.) Regulations 1989" SI 1989 No.744

The documents above are the original versions, which have of course been through the legislative mangle several times. Going to legislation.gov.uk > Browse Legislation and searching on "removal disposal vehicles" will give you 40 hits, amongst which you'll be able to peruse the subsequent revisions to those douments.

brill.
Bogsy will love this I think

Bogsy may well be delighted, but I've no idea what this has to do with private parking tickets, and it doesn't involve helping someone with a specific case, so it's been moved - charitably, not to the Flame Pit.

I certainly do like it. It shows the removal regs in their original draft.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/18...19860183_en.pdf

Take a look at regulation 5 and see how an authority initially was only permitted to remove vehicles that had the "appearance " of being abandoned. Regulation 16 then confirms that should a vehicle that appeared abandoned be claimed by the owner then they can remove their vehicle in compliance with s.101(4) RTRA 1984. In other words pay the relevant charges.

Section 101(4) has now been repealed but the provisions still exist as s.101A RTRA 1984.

This supports what I have been arguing. That s.101A only concerns those vehicles that had the appearance of being abandoned and therefore is not applicable to your run of the mill removal for parking in contravention.

Its clear to see what's happened. As the 1991 RTA commenced and the RTRA 1984 was amended to allow councils to remove vehicles parked in contravention the councils continued to apply the same s.101 charges and appeal procedures that they had become familiar with to all removed vehicles regardless of whether they appeared abandoned or not. Councils failed to fully understand what was required under DPE and that the removal charges that concerned vehicles that never appeared abandoned were those under s.102 RTRA 1984. Under civil parking enforcement the PCN is king, it is the foundation stone but in removal cases the councils have failed to realise this.

Its absolutely absurd for a council to issue a PCN whereby you are specifically informed of your statutory rights and obligations only for them to say half an hour later or less that none of what the PCN says is valid except for the charge. Common sense should be enough to make councils realise thats something somewhere is wrong and at odds with the due process that statute says must follow the service of a regulation 9 PCN.

As this cock up has been happening since July 1993 councils have gone beyond the point of no return. It is better for them to bluff it out and to hope PATAS is a willing bed fellow. I'm waiting to see if they are.

Sorry for putting in the wrong place, I was clicking on autopilot and hadn't noticed there were two parking forums now!

Anyway, looking back on my original topic all those years ago (Oh Joy! Off to Hackney!, The wife has had her car towed!), the appeals paperwork has this strange reference to "paragraph (2) of regulation 5C of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986(6)". At the time, I couldn't find a copy of SI:1986/183. It would now appear that the reference they make is actually in "The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007 SI:2007/3484, which amends SI:1986/183 in addition to amending instruments SI:1993/1475 and 1708, 1998/2019, 2002/1353.

I wonder what Hackney's paperwork looks like now?

It is worth looking at s.101 RTRA 1984 as it was prior to DPE/CPE.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/2...1?timeline=true

So reg 5 of the 1986 removal regs only allowed a council to remove a vehicle that "appeared" abandoned. s.101 RTRA 1984 then permits a council to dispose of such a vehicle in accordance with its provisions. Note how s.101(4) enables an owner to come forward and repossess a vehicle that was considered to be abandoned if the owner pays the removal and storage charges.

When decriminalised parking enforcement came into effect in July 1993 s.101 RTRA was amended to include a new paragraph....4A

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/2...5?timeline=true

Now when an owner comes forward to repossess a vehicle that appeared to be abandoned they must pay not only the removal and storage charges but also any penalty charge payable.

When the TMA 2004 came into effect s.101(4A) RTRA 1984 was repealed and replaced with s.101A

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/101A

Where an owner of a vehicle that appeared abandoned comes forward to take possession then s.101A still requires the owner to pay any penalty charge payable in addition to the removal and storage charges but now reference to a civil enforcement area is made.

Although s.101 has been amended over the years to take into account DPE and CPE what has remained constant is that s.101 only concerns those vehicles that appear to be abandoned. s.101 is basically saying that councils can ultimately dispose of such vehicles but should an owner come forward then that owner can repossess the vehicle if they pay any outstanding PCN and the removal and storage charges. s.101B provides for an appeal process so that an owner can appeal against these charges. This appeal process is given under regulation 11 here.

When DPE came into effect in July 1993 councils were only familiar with the process for removing vehicles that appeared to be abandoned and for some unknown reason they continued to apply this process to those vehicles that did not appear abandoned but were parked in contravention. Hence why councils insist the PCN be paid and why appeal forms are handed out at the pound.

The removal of vehicles that do not appear abandoned is subject to s.102 RTRA 1984 and not s.101A.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102

s.102(2A) confirms that a council is only entitled to seek payment of the removal and storage charges. But there is no requirement that these be paid when a person comes to collect their vehicle. If a person does not willingly pay then in accordance with s.102(3) the council must recover the money through the courts (the same as they do for any unpaid PCN) as s.102 does not allow a council operating CPE to retain a vehicle until the charges are paid.

The clear evidence that it is the charges under s.102 that are applicable to removed vehicles that were parked in contravention and not the charges under s101A is found in paragraph 1(1)(b) here and paragraph 1(b) here.

So what is the correct procedure?

My belief is that the removal and storage charges can be willingly paid but if not then a council will need to go through the courts to recover the money but the process leading up to court is not the same as that for the PCN as there are no formal notices to be served or statutory threat of increased charges.

The PCN follows the same route as any other PCN. A person is entitled to the 28 day payment period and all the appeal stages. If an appeal is won then the council must not only cancel the PCN but also the removal and storage charges. If the removal and storage charges have been paid then these must be refunded. If an appeal is lost then as usual the PCN must be paid as well as the removal and storage charges if not already paid.

Its not difficult to understand why councils do not want this cock up to be outed. How many tows have there been since July 1993 and how much money have councils obtained by unlawful means and how many wrong appeal forms have been handed out? How much will it cost councils to implement new PCN/removal processing software and administrative procedures? And what about PATAS and TPT? Professional lawyers entrusted with ensuring the law is followed completely failing for years to notice a grotesque injustice. Can we really trust them to be impartial about this?

I don't - due to reading far too many decision which caused me outrage.
e.g. the Redbridge Scandal
and far too many that completely avoid major issues of scope greater than a single PCN and, erm, 'hone in' on something that restricts the scope of the decision to a single PCN.
Even cases where a solid case of big issues has been erm 'adjusted' by the adjudicator going through the paperwork with a fine tooth comb and finding on something not even raised by the appellant or the council. Not very typical of them to wade through the paperwork looking for 'extra' points is it ?

"By their actions you shall know them"

I think we know them.

Ooooh! I'm so glad I've found that document.

"Can of worms!" springs to mind, and it has got to be a major headache for some councils.