QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 19 Feb 2013 - 16:44)
QUOTE
My car was parked outside my house in a residents bay and it doesnt have a parking permit.
But surely you are a resident, so why no permit ? I would have thought the tow is disproportionate, so you could appeal on this. Is this the first time you have been whalloped in this bay ?
There is a private parking bay for my block of flats but its a hike with the shopping! So I generally park outside the flat at the weekend and then move the car on Monday morning. I have never had any tickets in the bay before
How do I find out when the car was towed??
I have looked at my PCN online but its just photos of my car in a residents bay - should this info be online too
Also just noticed they have knocked off one of my hubcaps - didnt check my car when I collected it from the pound yesterday - and no one told me to - frankly I was a bit upset at having to hand over so much cash and just wanted to get of there. I rang the pound today to see if they could find the hubcap and they said its my fault for not checking and they won't reimburse.
Here goes with version 1
Dear Sir/Madam
I would like to submit an appeal against the penalty I paid on my vehicle being towed away on the xx February 2013 based on the following statement.
I had parked in a residents bay outside my house for the weekend as no parking restrictions apply. Normally I would move my car out of the bay first thing on a Monday morning but on Monday xx February I was taken ill with a severe stomach bug. When I was well enough to move I immediately went to move my car, expecting at worst a PCN – however my car had been towed away.
In addition my car lost a hubcap in the towing which I only noticed when I returned home from the pound. When I contacted the pound on Wednesday xx February to ask them to look for it they told me it was my responsibility to check the car for damage – something they did not notify me of or mention when I collected my car. You can see in the photos that there is only 1 hubcap missing on the left side of the car and yet now there are 2 missing on the left side.
My car was parked in a residents bay without a permit and I apologise for that. However surely a PCN would have sufficed to convey the alleged contravention! My car was not causing any obstruction to traffic or the footpath, not parked on double yellow lines, nor are there any signs about the potential of towing. The towing of my vehicle was a disproportionate response to the contravention stated on the PCN applied , therefore procedural impropriety has occurred.
Before my vehicle was removed a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) served a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by fixing it to my vehicle. The regulations pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) and also the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities specify that service by a CEO initiates the statutory right to a period of 28 days in which to pay the penalty charge or to make an informal challenge that a council must consider. Furthermore, there is a statutory right to receive and respond to a Notice to Owner. These rights are enshrined in statute and clearly conveyed within the statutory content of the PCN served by the CEO.
I understand that procedural impropriety occurs where an enforcement authority fails to observe any requirement imposed by the TMA 2004 and its associated regulations. I was denied by coercion my right to the 28 day statutory period in which to pay the penalty charge, I was also denied my right to have an informal challenge considered and I was obstructed from my right to receive and respond to a Notice to Owner. Furthermore, I have been subjected to an appeal process pursuant to s.101B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 despite that where a penalty charge is served then any appeal against it should be pursuant to s.80 TMA 2004. It is absurd that my vehicle has been removed from within a civil enforcement area by a civil enforcement authority for a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement and yet the only feature of civil enforcement pursuant to the TMA 2004 that the council has approved is the penalty charge. Civil enforcement is regulated pursuant to Part 6 of the TMA 2004 and is a statutory process that begins with the service of a PCN it does not end with it.
Finally, I would like to bring to the council’s attention to Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard's comments: “Removal action would be appropriate in cases where parked vehicles are causing an obstruction or a hazard to other road users, where they are obstructing a restricted stopping or waiting place such as a bus stop, cab rank or loading bay, or where the Local Authority has suspended the operation of a designated parking bay. Removal action from designated parking places would also be appropriate in some cases – for example, where a vehicle is parked across more than one meter bay or if parked in a loading, doctor’s or residents’ bay without authorisation. Vehicle removal would also be appropriate where a vehicle has been clamped for some time (for example, 24 or 48 hours) without any action being taken by its owner to pay for its release”.
“Removals should not be carried out in an ad hoc fashion. Local Authorities should consider, in consultation with the Police, devising a list showing the priority to be accorded different types of parking contravention when deciding the order in which vehicles should be removed. As with wheel clamping, it is important to ensure that vehicle removals are only undertaken where the seriousness of the contravention warrants this level of enforcement. Inappropriate use of removals may bring an Authority’s enforcement activities into disrepute”.
It is my contention that my vehicle was not parked in such a manner that removal in this instance was either proportionate or necessary. It is my belief that the enforcement authority cannot justify removal in this instance. Removal without justification is a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. In the event that the enforcement authority sees fit to reject these representations I will expect them to provide a full explanation of why the removal of my vehicle was proportionate and necessary and to fully justify the need for removal with evidence in their notice of rejection.
Considering these facts above, I strongly believe procedural impropriety has occurred and this appeal should be accepted. I would therefore ask for a full refund of unreasonable costs I have incurred.