Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Removal fee refunded as pound closed on bank holiday
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
EDW
2120332969
Teresa Brennan

Once a Penalty Charge Notice has been issued for this contravention the vehicle may be removed at any time. The car was removed on Sunday 6 th May at 14:37. Mr White was unaware of this until Monday 7 th May. He was intending to drive back to Somerset with his family on Monday. He was unable to do so because the pound was closed and he could not retrieve his car until Tuesday 8 th May.

The Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement issued by London Councils states at paragraph 72 that it is essential that members of the public can pay and arrange for the release of a vehicle without undue delay or difficulty at all times. As the car pound in Camden was closed on Monday 7 th May I find that the London Borough of Camden did not follow the Guidance. It is well established that the purpose of a removal is for traffic management purposes and not to punish a motorist and that therefore a motorist should be able to recover their vehicle at any reasonable time. An early addition of Guidance issued in connection with traffic management and parking for London suggested that a local authority's facilities for recovering vehicles should cover at a minimum a core period from 8am to midnight Monday to Saturday and 9am until 5pm on Sundays. I have not been told whether the car pound was open on 6 th May 2012 and if so what its hours of operation were.

I find that the London Borough of Camden failed to provide appropriate facilities to enable motorists to retrieve their vehicles on 7 th May. As the local authority was not able to provide a facility to enable Mr White to retrieve her car within a reasonable time I find that the car was unlawfully removed.

I refuse the appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice but allow the appeal against the removal of the car.
SchoolRunMum
Interesting one to store away in the old grey matter for the future! Are pounds normally open to retrieve vehicles until midnight on weekdays and 9 - 5 on Sundays anyway? If not then that decision could be useful in many ways.
EDW
Contact Regis Road car pound
Parking Services Vehicle Pound (Regis Road) (Camden Council)
Address:
Camden Vehicle Pound
Regis Road
London
NW5 3EW
Email:
Send an enquiry
Website:
www.camden.gov.uk/parking
Phone:
020 7974 4646 (option 3)

Open:
9am-10pm, seven days a week.
Fax:
020 7424 9478
Bogsy
QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 4 Oct 2012 - 17:34) *
I refuse the appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice but allow the appeal against the removal of the car.


Yes it is a helpful decision and it's a good spot. The words above concern me though as the appeal is pursuant to Part 4 of the 2007 Appeal Regulations and part 4 is titled "REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS IN RELATION TO REMOVED VEHICLES". Since when (as the adjudicator infers) can you appeal against the PCN and also the removal separately? Part 4 concerns a single appeal against removal and if the adjudicator accepts the appeal then the PCN also needs to be refunded. See 13(3) in the link below and follow it's direction and remember that ground (g) applies (procedural impropriety).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made

Goes to show some adjudicators don't even know the law as the PCN should also have been refunded. Who was the adjudicator?
EDW
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 4 Oct 2012 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 4 Oct 2012 - 17:34) *
I refuse the appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice but allow the appeal against the removal of the car.


Yes it is a helpful decision and it's a good spot. The words above concern me though as the appeal is pursuant to Part 4 of the 2007 Appeal Regulations and part 4 is titled "REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS IN RELATION TO REMOVED VEHICLES". Since when (as the adjudicator infers) can you appeal against the PCN and also the removal separately? Part 4 concerns a single appeal against removal and if the adjudicator accepts the appeal then the PCN also needs to be refunded. See 13(3) in the link below and follow it's direction and remember that ground (g) applies (procedural impropriety).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/4/made

Goes to show some adjudicators don't even know the law as the PCN should also have been refunded. Who was the adjudicator?



TB











The Appellant parked his vehicle briefly in a restricted street indicated, as I accept from the Council's evidence, by a single yellow line and Controlled Zone signs located at the entrance points to the Zone. In this situation roadside time plates are not required. As a result of what was no doubt an oversight the vehicle was in contravention ; and indeed this is no longer in dispute.

A PCN was issued and the vehicle was immediately removed. The Appellant's case is that although he is prepared to accept the PCN he considers the removal of the vehicle was excessive. However what I have to consider is whether or not it was lawful.

A Local Authority is given the power to remove a contravening vehicle by regulations made under s99(1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 as amended). Regulation 5A(1) provides (so far as is material):-

"Where in the area of a particular local authority a vehicle....© has been permitted to remain at rest...on a road...in contravention of a statutory contravention or restriction...in which an offence would have been committed with respect to the vehicle but for" ( the relevant legislation decriminalising parking contraventions) "a parking attendant acting on behalf of the local authority may...remove or arrange for the removal of the vehicle..." Under the terms of this legislation the Council is not required to prove obstruction as a pre-condition.

In exercising this power, however, the Council is required to have regard to the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of state ( s 87 Traffic Management Act 2002). In the light of the Council's published guidelines submitted in evidence over the adjournment and which set out the circumstances in which removal is considered appropriate I am satisfied that it has "had regard" to them. However a Council which publishes such guidelines is required to act in accordance with them. The Council relies on Article s 5 and 7 of its criteria ( causing an obstruction or safety hazard, and parked across a dropped kerb). The Appellant strongly contests any suggestion that this was the case. On looking at the totality of the photographs I cannot see that either is made out. At best it may be the case that the rear of the vehicle impinges on a small part of a dropped footway ( and one which does not at all clearly appear to be either a pedestrian crossing point or a means of access for vehicles). It seems to me impossible to say that the vehicle was parked "across" a dropped kerb. Nor am I at all satisfied that this vehicle, parked as it was in a side road well down from the junction, was causing an obstruction or safety hazard for any practical purposes. Every parked vehicle causes obstruction of that part of the highway on which it rests but that is clearly not the sense the criteria have in mind. Certainly there is no evidence for example, of vehicles having difficulty in turning the corner as a result of its presence.

The removal officers encountered this vehicle on a yellow line and took an instant decision to remove it. I am not satisfied on the facts of this case they did so in accordance with the Council's removal policy and for this reason the Council's actions in removing the vehicle were unlawful. The Appeal is allowed to the extent that the removal fees must be refunded.
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.