Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN and car towed in Newham London - Please help
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
TLSC
I often use the un-restricted parking near West Ham Park when visiting friends in London. However on this occasion I arrived VERY late (3am) to find my usual spots gone. I eventually found one and took a walk down the road to double check a temporary sign I noticed to make sure I wasn't breaking a law. The sign as it turned out was to do with planning permission.

The next day I returned to find my car gone, I assumed stolen. However I then noticed a parking suspension notice nearby. Whether it was there the night before I am unsure, but I think not. I called the number on the sign only to discover the number was not recognised. I tried numerous times from numerous phones and still no luck. I even called Thames Water and they had no record of such a number.

Eventually I tracked the car down, paid the fine and collected it. However I never saw a PCN notice on the car itself.

One other point to make is that the temporary signs were poorly positioned. The road is a one-way road meaning it is possible to park within the temporarily restricted area whilst still being short of actually driving alongside any signs. You can also see one of the signs is face down in the road.

I have attached scans of all the paper work and also the photos I took in a hurry at the scene. Any help with getting any money back would be greatly appreciated as I feel I have been ripped off.

PCN -


Vehicle Release Receipt -


Representations -


Important Information 1 -


Important Information 2 -


Image one - I was parked just by the tree. This is a one way street with traffic flowing from right to left in this picture:


Image two






Incandescent
It is a total no-brainer to appeal a tow as you have already paid all there is to pay and you could get all your money back, so appeal !!

Grounds will be inadequate/missing signs.
TLSC
I full intend to appeal, I'm just wondering if anyone has any advice on specific precedents or legal grounds I could appeal on.
Bogsy
Focus your appeal on the inadequate signage and to conclude you can include the text below to add more meat to the bone.

Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the TMA 2004 confirms that the contravention alleged on the PCN is a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement. The council must be fully aware that it is Part 6 of the TMA 2004 that regulates civil enforcement. Therefore, any representations against a penalty charge are required to follow the regulations made pursuant to section 80 TMA 2004.

80 Representations and appeals
(1)The Lord Chancellor may make provision by regulations entitling a person—
(a)who is or may be liable to pay a penalty charge, or
(b)who secures the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device on payment of an amount in accordance with regulations under section 79,
to make representations to the enforcement authority and to appeal to an adjudicator if his representations are not accepted.

Despite the direction of section 80, I was misdirected by the council into making representations in accordance with regulations provided under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.The regulations provided under Part 4 are made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984. The Introductory Text to the regulations confirms this.

The Lord Chancellor makes these Regulations, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 101B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(1) and by sections 80 and 89 of the Traffic Management Act 2004

There is no quarrel that I was considered liable to pay a penalty charge. Consequently, there can be no quarrel that I was subject to section 80 TMA 2004. However, I was denied my entitlement to make representations in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to s.80 TMA 2004.These regulations are provided under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and include the right to make informal representations that the authority must consider. Considering this fact, there can be no doubt that a procedural impropriety has occurred.

(5) In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular

I trust the council will also consider the absurdity that apart from the penalty charge the statutory content of the PCN has been treated as otiose; also no Notice to Owner has been served. Where does the TMA 2004 instruct that a parking contravention subject to civil enforcement under the TMA 2004 need not be subjected to civil enforcement under the TMA 2004 if the contravening vehicle is removed? I eagerly await your answer.
TLSC
Thank you! This looks great. I have to admit it is a little over my head as I find legal wording hard to decipher. Before I copy and paste it into a claim for a refund I was wondering if you could tell me what it means in layman's terms?
Bogsy
QUOTE (TLSC @ Wed, 19 Feb 2014 - 18:53) *
Thank you! This looks great. I have to admit it is a little over my head as I find legal wording hard to decipher. Before I copy and paste it into a claim for a refund I was wondering if you could tell me what it means in layman's terms?


Don't use it as your primary appeal point. Make it secondary. In summary, the PCN was served pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004 and all civil enforcement comes under Part 6 of this Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/contents

You however have not been subjected to what this Act provides. You have been subjected to a process that is provided under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. My offering challenges the legality of this.
Bogsy
I also suggest you ask the council to provide a copy of the temporary traffic order the PCN alleges exists. I find it hard to believe they would go to the trouble of making a temporary order to cover 3 days. No order then no contravention = money back.
TLSC
Thank you for your help everyone. I have sent my representations and await a response!
Bogsy
They insist that recovery is made pursuant to s.101A RTRA 1984 which if you look limits recovery to the owner and yet their vehicle release receipt seems to accept payment and recovery from anyone other than the owner!!! The whole vehicle removal/recovery process is a shambles.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.