Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN + Towed for Code 62 - parked on footway
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
rdzeldenrust
Two weeks after having my car classified as an abandoned vehicle - see here - it got towed again by the overzealous Haringey council. No luck.
It got towed for contravention code 62 - parking on a footway. In my view, and I hope you agree, it was at best a very ambiguous situation.

My appeal is that the alleged PCN did not occur and that it was not reasonable to immediately tow the car.

Why did the PCN not occur?
Footway parking was allowed under Direction 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf), indicated by the use of diagram 668.1 (see page 72). Now that I look closely, it might be possible that it marks the start of the bay for oncoming traffic, and is not a sign for people looking from my vantage point. I will make my way down and see which way the sign faces.
Click to view attachment]

In addition, the place where I am parked is clearly separated from the footway, by a) the use of a different kind of stone and b) a white stone marking the edge of the bay. While the marking is not as clear as it is near the spot behind me, I simply assumed they had repainted some of the lines but not all.

Just a little down the road, there is another marked bay with exactly the same vague marking stones but this one seems to be entirely legal.
Click to view attachment

Direction 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual also calls for sign 668.2 to be used to mark the end of the bay. A little down the road, this is indeed used, evidence that the council was aware of this regulation but has not applied it consistently.
Click to view attachment


A brief at Google Streetview shows that the spot where I parked my car used to be an unambiguous marked bay:
Click to view attachment

A car was normally parked there. I think they for some reason wanted to eliminate that parking spot, possibly because it was too close to the corner of the street, and added a sign and a dotted line just before this bay. But they did not change the paving to match the rest of the footway, they did not mark the end of the marked bay arrangement, and they did not clearly mark the change in circumstances.

I feel it is very unreasonable to 1) give the PCN and 2) to tow the car away immediately.
I will also ask for evidence of having followed the rules of the 1986 removal act for vehicles with a registration mark outside Great Britain.

Well, at least they’re giving me some good practice on the parking regulations. rolleyes.gif
Your thoughts? Any more avenues?

The documents:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Incandescent
The essential message to you is that it is a total no-brainer to appeal all the way on a tow. There are no additional charges, and you could get all or most of your money back. So APPEAL it !!

You have raised a number of points, but you need to ignore those where you would appeal on mitigation (useless with London councils), and concentrate on those where they appear to have exceeded their powers, or abused them, or not followed the CPE process correctly.

My first point would be that the tow was disproportionate as you were actually off the carriageway on a space that was once an official parking bay, so the car was not obstructing traffic at all, or pedestrians either Note that if you win on this, you might not get the PCN money back, just the tow money.

Other point is that the signage mislead you because there were signs that allowed footway parking on the side of the street where you parked.

Then there is the aspect of the legality of charging you the amount they did. There is a legal point about the TMA 2004 and what it authorises councils to do. 'Bogsy' on this forum has some text to use in appealing this point, but I have to say that so far, PATAS have totally ignored it, probably because it would open a huge can of worms, and the adjudicators are always careful not to rock the boat too much.

First you have to appeal to the council, then when they inevitably reject this, you appeal to PATAS. They could shoot themselves in the foot with their reply, so your appeal to PATAS will be informed by their rejection letter.

PS it is not "the PCN did not occur", but "the contravention did not occur".
EDW
what was the date of the tow and date of release?
rdzeldenrust
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 21:45) *
The essential message to you is that it is a total no-brainer to appeal all the way on a tow. There are no additional charges, and you could get all or most of your money back. So APPEAL it !!

You have raised a number of points, but you need to ignore those where you would appeal on mitigation (useless with London councils), and concentrate on those where they appear to have exceeded their powers, or abused them, or not followed the CPE process correctly.

My first point would be that the tow was disproportionate as you were actually off the carriageway on a space that was once an official parking bay, so the car was not obstructing traffic at all, or pedestrians either Note that if you win on this, you might not get the PCN money back, just the tow money.

Other point is that the signage mislead you because there were signs that allowed footway parking on the side of the street where you parked.

Then there is the aspect of the legality of charging you the amount they did. There is a legal point about the TMA 2004 and what it authorises councils to do. 'Bogsy' on this forum has some text to use in appealing this point, but I have to say that so far, PATAS have totally ignored it, probably because it would open a huge can of worms, and the adjudicators are always careful not to rock the boat too much.

First you have to appeal to the council, then when they inevitably reject this, you appeal to PATAS. They could shoot themselves in the foot with their reply, so your appeal to PATAS will be informed by their rejection letter.

PS it is not "the PCN did not occur", but "the contravention did not occur".


Thanks so far. I do plan to appeal all the way - it's a lot of money and I have nothing to lose.

I do agree that it was disproportionate, but they do have the power to remove a vehicle under the 2007 Amendment to the 1984 Removal and Disposal of Vehicles act: [url="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3484/pdfs/uksi_20073484_en.pdf[/url], unless section 3 applies:
QUOTE
(3) The power conferred by paragraph (2) is not exercisable where the vehicle concerned
is in a parking place and a penalty charge notice has been served as mentioned in paragraph
(1)(b) in respect of a contravention consisting of, or arising out of, a failure—
(a) to pay a parking charge with respect to the vehicle;
(b) properly to display a ticket or parking device; or
© to remove the vehicle from the parking place by the end of the period for which the
appropriate charge was paid,
until the appropriate period has elapsed since the giving of that penalty charge notice in
respect of the contravention.


This amendment makes all the difference. Under the 1984, it would have had to be obstructing or dangerous, but under the 2007 amendment it is (technically) legal for them to tow me if they can prove that the contravention occurred.

QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 21:53) *
what was the date of the tow and date of release?


Date of tow 10th of September, date of release 14th (four days later) - I only found out when I tried to retrieve my car.
Incandescent
Well, having explored Priory Road N8 on Google SV, and looked at your photo, it is clear you are not parked within the bay markings which mark out where the off-carriageway parking is permitted. GSV is out of date, because that does show a bay with very worn markings. It is clear, as you say, that they have reduced the bay length for some reason or other, probably because of complaints of lack of sightlines for motorists pulling out from the side street.

So you look bang-to-rights on the contravention itself, but other points still apply. As said, you have already paid all there is to pay, so appeal to see what they come up with, before you go to PATAS adjudication.

You might find motoring in Holland a lot easier !!
EDW
3 days storage = £120?

other thread you said 'so I had to pay 560 pounds to get it back'.

you been towed twice?
rdzeldenrust
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 22:09) *
Well, having explored Priory Road N8 on Google SV, and looked at your photo, it is clear you are not parked within the bay markings which mark out where the off-carriageway parking is permitted. GSV is out of date, because that does show a bay with very worn markings. It is clear, as you say, that they have reduced the bay length for some reason or other, probably because of complaints of lack of sightlines for motorists pulling out from the side street.

So you look bang-to-rights on the contravention itself, but other points still apply. As said, you have already paid all there is to pay, so appeal to see what they come up with, before you go to PATAS adjudication.

You might find motoring in Holland a lot easier !!

Google Street View is indeed out of date, but without definition of marked bay I could argue that where I parked is still marked off from the footway with (albeit worn) markings and different pavement. In any case, I will still try.

And yes, it's easier when you know the rules of the place. Ah well - England's been welcoming to me otherwise.

QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 22:10) *
3 days storage = £120?

other thread you said 'so I had to pay 560 pounds to get it back'.

you been towed twice?

Yup, 3 days = £120. And yes, I've been towed twice. Total damage: £935 wacko.gif
EDW
Painful.
Incandescent
QUOTE (rdzeldenrust @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 22:19) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 22:09) *
Well, having explored Priory Road N8 on Google SV, and looked at your photo, it is clear you are not parked within the bay markings which mark out where the off-carriageway parking is permitted. GSV is out of date, because that does show a bay with very worn markings. It is clear, as you say, that they have reduced the bay length for some reason or other, probably because of complaints of lack of sightlines for motorists pulling out from the side street.

So you look bang-to-rights on the contravention itself, but other points still apply. As said, you have already paid all there is to pay, so appeal to see what they come up with, before you go to PATAS adjudication.

You might find motoring in Holland a lot easier !!

Google Street View is indeed out of date, but without definition of marked bay I could argue that where I parked is still marked off from the footway with (albeit worn) markings and different pavement. In any case, I will still try.

And yes, it's easier when you know the rules of the place. Ah well - England's been welcoming to me otherwise.

QUOTE (EDW @ Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 22:10) *
3 days storage = £120?

other thread you said 'so I had to pay 560 pounds to get it back'.

you been towed twice?

Yup, 3 days = £120. And yes, I've been towed twice. Total damage: £935 wacko.gif

I think you need to get up-to-speed on British parking law quickly, or move out of London. Basically, motorists in London are a resource to be exploited, like North Sea oil. I'm glad I don't live there. Anyway, with £935 paid out, definitely this is one appeal that needs to succeed !!
EDW
Patas can do both appeals at the same time if you want a personal hearing.
EDW
post the back of the pcn.

Email the council and ask if they treated the vehicle as being abandoned and if so why.


You need to make some reps. soon.

I suggest you use standard Bogsy letter regarding using s.101 of the RTRA instead of s.102.



rdzeldenrust
What's the standard 'Bogsy letter regarding using s.101 of the RTRA instead of s.102.'?

In any case, the deadline is coming up, so wrote a quick draft post - see below.

Any comments welcome smile.gif.

Click to view attachment
SchoolRunMum
Please don't rely just on one standard reply. You will find dozens of tow thread successes if you simply search the forum for the single keyword 'no-brainer' which will find most recent cases - almost all end with a full refund. I hope you appealed in time on both your tow cases?!
EDW
QUOTE (rdzeldenrust @ Tue, 8 Oct 2013 - 19:00) *
What's the standard 'Bogsy letter regarding using s.101 of the RTRA instead of s.102.'?

In any case, the deadline is coming up, so wrote a quick draft post - see below.

Any comments welcome smile.gif.

Click to view attachment



send Bogsy a PM
hcandersen
OP - you're wasting time and you've only got today left, after which the council may disregard your reps. You're not at PATAS, you are making reps against the PCN and tow to the council.

Stop faffing about and send reps in today by email. Who cares about the quality, they'll say no anyway. All you're doing is getting them to serve you with a Notice of Rejection which is your key to accessing PATAS.

If you were given the reps info on 14th Sept, then 10 October is the last day.

Forget the quality of your reps, just get the damn things in today.
EDW
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 Oct 2013 - 07:59) *
OP - you're wasting time and you've only got today left, after which the council may disregard your reps. You're not at PATAS, you are making reps against the PCN and tow to the council.

Stop faffing about and send reps in today by email. Who cares about the quality, they'll say no anyway. All you're doing is getting them to serve you with a Notice of Rejection which is your key to accessing PATAS.

If you were given the reps info on 14th Sept, then 10 October is the last day.

Forget the quality of your reps, just get the damn things in today.



true.

If you want to add the RTRA argument then:

'The council, without good reason, treated my car as appearing to be abandoned and invoked s101 RTRA 1984 thus denying me rights under the TMA 2004.
I rely upon Service Motor Policies At Lloyds v City Recovery Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2073.
rdzeldenrust
I have just sent them my representations. You are all right, they are going to say no, and I need to get the appeal in before the deadline so I can later go to PATAS. I just wasn't sure if I need to make all the right arguments now or whether I can add new arguments later at PATAS.

Thanks!
DastardlyDick
I wonder if the OP was towed because the vehicle has a foreign number plate and the Council wanted to make sure they got their money?
Incandescent
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 10 Oct 2013 - 16:30) *
I wonder if the OP was towed because the vehicle has a foreign number plate and the Council wanted to make sure they got their money?

NO prizes for guessing the answer !!

To the OP - of course you can add additional arguments at PATAS. For instance if the council act improperly when responding to your appeal, it is a procedural impropriety; an example would be failure to consider the point(s) you make in your appeal to them.
Oms360
I actually live across the road from this location & it is a real money earner for the council...no fewer than 2 cars a week are lifted from there - parking has been a nightmare at the best of times & to shorten the bay...it wasn't our idea nor was it put up for discussion.

Heck I just saw a Focus being lifted in the last hour.

If the OP needs any more pics let me know, I can put them here, no problems!
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.