Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Code 21 Haringey
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Jonnie
Hello all just wanted to get some opinion on this one.
I received a ticket yesterday, Monday 3rd Nov. Went outside to find the CEO having just ticketed. One of these ones on a push bike!
The bay outside my house was suspended as of Monday.
I have done some research on the legality/authorisation of the sign and it seems to not conform to the regs in that it mentions a year which as the relevant section says should be omitted and it only has the CPZ time it doesn't refer to this time as the time of suspension. Also it uses the acronym O/S which is not a recognised acronym that I am aware of. See photos
Also the photo's that are up are not clear to put my car in the suspended bay.

Link to photos ticket etc https://www.flickr.com/photos/56721626@N04/...57646810338274/

I have written a first draft. I have also come across a very detailed argument by the bogsdollocks in this link below. I was going to save this detail for the next letter after they send the obligatory refusal letter not upholding my appeal. Or is it advisable to unload both barrels straight away?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2411363

I have also seen this TMO from 2011. Which I presume covers Haringey for at least having the signs, albeit ones that don't conform to the order.

If signs need to be Dft or SoS approved does this mean the particular sign for the event in question? If so should it be published on the Dft website? I have had a look and see no TRO/TMO for my road, all I have found is the general borough wide authorisation for the specification and wording of the temporary bay suspension sign. I did think that some sort of TRO or TMO would need to be raised in order that the council can suspend bays or can they just do this as they please?

I did have a brief chat with the CEO who suggested I say I had just come back from holiday. I had in fact been in Cornwall, without my car and had not been present when the signs had been erected.

Here is my draft.

To Whom It May Concern

I am appealing against a PCN received on my vehicle on 3rd November 2014.

The grounds for my appeal are that the signage for the parking suspension upon which the PCN was given does not comply with authorisation provided by the Department for Transport on 14th November 2011.
(http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2964.pdf).

The DfT authorisation for the LB of Haringey states that the temporary suspension of parking spaces should be notified with an authorised sign that states the following:

a) information regarding the time of day, date or dates, (with the year omitted) and location of the suspended parking place or places shall be known on the front of the authorised sign;

It is clear that the parking bay suspension sign does not conform to this regulation. The year is not omitted. Nor is the time, which the suspension is from and to, on the dates mentioned, clearly outlined. The sign only states the hours of the CPZ which is also not in full as the CPZ in this case changes for match and event days.

It is also not clear which bays the suspension is referring to.
The use of the symbol O/S is not a recognised acronym and therefore is not clear information.
If the O/S stands for Opposite or outside and the number refers to the property number then the PCN is also issued incorrectly as my car is parked in front of number 64 Upper Tollington Park and therefore not contained within the suspension.

Having returned from Cornwall the previous evening in a friends vehicle I did not see the sign displayed both as it was dark, I was tired from the journey and I did not pass the sign to get to my flat. I also have no idea when these signs were erected, I know only that they were not in position when I left previously. I feel as a resident of Upper Tollington Park with a paid residents permit I have not been given the opportunity to adhere to this temporary parking suspension. Had you given appropriate warning of this suspension or notified us residents (you have my email for online permits) then I would have been able to move my car across the road as I have indeed now done.

I have demonstrated that the temporary suspension sign is incorrect.
The car is not within the suspended bay.
therefore I require that this penalty charge be cancelled forthwith.
Especially given the circumstances with which I have come to this point.


Kind regards





PS Please forward :-
The suspension request form.
The traffic Order in full.
The ticket history and print out from the CEO hand-held computer terminal
Copy CEO notebook entry.
All CEO photos in full size colour format that have my car in them and/or make up your evidence of this contravention.
All other evidence you believe proves the contravention.
DfT/SoS authorisation for the sign
Proof of the time sign(s) was erected including photos
qafqa
The link to the photos produced this message:
This is not the page you're looking for.
It looks like you're trying to see something in
xxxxxxxxxxxx's photostream
Here are their most recent uploads...

Maybe you can link directly to the individual pictures
so they show in your thread.
Jonnie
Thanks for that qafqa the link should work now. Let me know if there is still problem.
Jonnie
Ticket front

PCN21 front001 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

Ticket back

PCN21 back002 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

CEO Photo 1

PCN 21 Photo4 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

CEO Photo 2

PCN 21 Photo3 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

CEO Photo 3

PCN 21 Photo2 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

CEO photo 4

PCN 21 Photo1 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

Jonnie
Can anyone offer any advice on this? I've finally managed to post the pictures.
boxers64
QUOTE (Jonnie @ Tue, 4 Nov 2014 - 22:59) *
Hello all just wanted to get some opinion on this one.
I received a ticket yesterday, Monday 3rd Nov. Went outside to find the CEO having just ticketed. One of these ones on a push bike!
The bay outside my house was suspended as of Monday.
I have done some research on the legality/authorisation of the sign and it seems to not conform to the regs in that it mentions a year which as the relevant section says should be omitted and it only has the CPZ time it doesn't refer to this time as the time of suspension. Also it uses the acronym O/S which is not a recognised acronym that I am aware of. See photos
Also the photo's that are up are not clear to put my car in the suspended bay.

Link to photos ticket etc https://www.flickr.com/photos/56721626@N04/...57646810338274/

I have written a first draft. I have also come across a very detailed argument by the bogsdollocks in this link below. I was going to save this detail for the next letter after they send the obligatory refusal letter not upholding my appeal. Or is it advisable to unload both barrels straight away?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2411363

I have also seen this TMO from 2011. Which I presume covers Haringey for at least having the signs, albeit ones that don't conform to the order.

If signs need to be Dft or SoS approved does this mean the particular sign for the event in question? If so should it be published on the Dft website? I have had a look and see no TRO/TMO for my road, all I have found is the general borough wide authorisation for the specification and wording of the temporary bay suspension sign. I did think that some sort of TRO or TMO would need to be raised in order that the council can suspend bays or can they just do this as they please?

I did have a brief chat with the CEO who suggested I say I had just come back from holiday. I had in fact been in Cornwall, without my car and had not been present when the signs had been erected.

Here is my draft.

To Whom It May Concern

I am appealing against a PCN received on my vehicle on 3rd November 2014.

The grounds for my appeal are that the signage for the parking suspension upon which the PCN was given does not comply with authorisation provided by the Department for Transport on 14th November 2011.
(http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2964.pdf).

The DfT authorisation for the LB of Haringey states that the temporary suspension of parking spaces should be notified with an authorised sign that states the following:

a) information regarding the time of day, date or dates, (with the year omitted) and location of the suspended parking place or places shall be known on the front of the authorised sign;

It is clear that the parking bay suspension sign does not conform to this regulation. The year is not omitted. Nor is the time, which the suspension is from and to, on the dates mentioned, clearly outlined. The sign only states the hours of the CPZ which is also not in full as the CPZ in this case changes for match and event days.

It is also not clear which bays the suspension is referring to.
The use of the symbol O/S is not a recognised acronym and therefore is not clear information.
If the O/S stands for Opposite or outside and the number refers to the property number then the PCN is also issued incorrectly as my car is parked in front of number 64 Upper Tollington Park and therefore not contained within the suspension.

Having returned from Cornwall the previous evening in a friends vehicle I did not see the sign displayed both as it was dark, I was tired from the journey and I did not pass the sign to get to my flat. I also have no idea when these signs were erected, I know only that they were not in position when I left previously. I feel as a resident of Upper Tollington Park with a paid residents permit I have not been given the opportunity to adhere to this temporary parking suspension. Had you given appropriate warning of this suspension or notified us residents (you have my email for online permits) then I would have been able to move my car across the road as I have indeed now done.

I have demonstrated that the temporary suspension sign is incorrect.
The car is not within the suspended bay.
therefore I require that this penalty charge be cancelled forthwith.
Especially given the circumstances with which I have come to this point.


Kind regards





PS Please forward :-
The suspension request form.
The traffic Order in full.
The ticket history and print out from the CEO hand-held computer terminal
Copy CEO notebook entry.
All CEO photos in full size colour format that have my car in them and/or make up your evidence of this contravention.
All other evidence you believe proves the contravention.
DfT/SoS authorisation for the sign
Proof of the time sign(s) was erected including photos

personally if this is your first informal reps, i would not include the sign compliance argument yet, just include the part about having returned from Cornwall and ask for their discretion to cancel, but ask that, if they reject your reps, that they should then forward the items in your PS please forward list.

if they reject you can include the sign compliance argument in your formal reps after you receive the Notice to owner, do not admit or include any info about where you actually parked, its for them to prove where you were parked
Jonnie
Thanks for that Boxers64 I have re-writen the draft like this.

To Whom It May Concern

I am appealing against a PCN received on my vehicle on 3rd November 2014.

Having returned from Cornwall the previous evening in a friends vehicle I did not see the sign displayed both as it was dark, I was tired from the journey and I did not pass the sign to get to my flat. I also have no idea when these signs were erected, I know only that they were not in position when I left previously. I feel as a resident of Upper Tollington Park with a paid residents permit I have not been given the opportunity to adhere to this temporary parking suspension. Had you given appropriate warning of this suspension or notified us residents (you have my email for online permits) then I would have been able to move my car across the road as I have indeed now done.

I note that you are able to consider cancelling PCN’s where appropriate, I therefore appeal to your good nature and sense of fairness given the circumstances outlined above. I did speak with your CEO about this who advised me to write and detail the situation regarding my absence.





Kind regards



Mr J Palmer

PS Please forward :-
The suspension request form.
The traffic Order in full.
The ticket history and print out from the CEO hand-held computer terminal
Copy CEO notebook entry.
All CEO photos in full size colour format that have my car in them and/or make up your evidence of this contravention.
All other evidence you believe proves the contravention.
DfT/SoS authorisation for the sign
Proof of the time sign(s) was erected including photos


I guess we will see how they react to that.
Jonnie
Ok So just received a notice to owner on this one!?

It seems that although I have proof that I sent the appeal out on the 12/11/2014 in the form of post office receipts and also a copy of the envelope with the correct address, in this instance the PO Box number was incorrectly copied at the post office. So Haringey council may not have received the appeal. I am sending them a letter to outline that this mistake has occurred and scans of the receipts and addressed envelope.

The letter.

Mr J xxxx
xxx Upper Tollington Park
xxxxxx
PCN xxxxxxxxxxx

To Whom It May Concern


Thank you for the recent correspondence the notice to owner.

I must inform you that this is unexpected as I exercised my right to appeal sending you a correspondence on the 12/11/2014 at 12:50 from Brecknock road post office.

Please see receipts, a copy of which I have included with this correspondence.

I have also included a scan of the envelope that was used to send the appeal in. As you can see it is addressed with the PO Box 4789, However it has come to my attention that the PO Box number on the receipt is PO Box 4787. So it appears that the Post Office have mistakenly input the incorrect PO Box. However the post code and office department are all correct.

Please can you take this post office error into account when dealing with my appeal as I feel I have not had the chance to have my appeal fairly heard.

I have included a copy of the original appeal letter that I sent on the 12/11/2014.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter

Kind Regards



PS Could you still please forward :-
The suspension request form.
The traffic Order in full.
The ticket history and print out from the CEO hand-held computer terminal
Copy CEO notebook entry.
All CEO photos in full size colour format that have my car in them and/or make up your evidence of this contravention.
All other evidence you believe proves the contravention.
DfT/SoS authorisation for the sign
Proof of the time sign(s) was erected including photos

I realise that they may say I should have checked the address on the receipt, however it is not my mistake in the original instance and it is one number where a 9 has been exchanged for a 7 which I simply didn't see, so I am going to see what they say.

Receipts and envelope

Pcn 21 receptand env by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

I will post the NTO below too for you to have a look at. Thanks in advance for any advice.

NTO

PCN 21 NTO 1001 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

PCN 21 NTO 2002 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

PCN 21 NTO 3003 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

PCN 21 NTO 4004 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

Do you think I should outline in the letter that there is a mistake on the address or let Haringey spot it?
Jonnie
I have updated and changed my cover letter to this one below and also sent out a copy of the PO track and trace confirmation.

To Whom It May Concern


Thank you for the recent correspondence the notice to owner.

I must inform you that this is unexpected as I exercised my right to appeal sending you a correspondence on the 12/11/2014 at 12:50 from Brecknock road post office using their signed for service.

Please see receipts, a copy of which I have included with this correspondence.

I have also included a scanned copy of the envelope I made and saved on my computer also printed on the 12/11/2014 the original of which was used to send the appeal in. Please note the letter is addressed Haringey Council Parking Services, PO Box 4789.
I have also included a print out of the post office track and trace page where it details that the letter was delivered on the 13/11/2014

Please can you check your records and post for my appeal of the 12/11/2014.

I feel I have not had the chance to have my appeal fairly heard even though I have followed the correct procedure.

I have included a copy of the original appeal letter that I sent on the 12/11/2014.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter

Kind Regards
boxers64
QUOTE (Jonnie @ Thu, 5 Mar 2015 - 12:41) *
I have updated and changed my cover letter to this one below and also sent out a copy of the PO track and trace confirmation.

To Whom It May Concern


Thank you for the recent correspondence the notice to owner.

I must inform you that this is unexpected as I exercised my right to appeal sending you a correspondence on the 12/11/2014 at 12:50 from Brecknock road post office using their signed for service.

Please see receipts, a copy of which I have included with this correspondence.

I have also included a scanned copy of the envelope I made and saved on my computer also printed on the 12/11/2014 the original of which was used to send the appeal in. Please note the letter is addressed Haringey Council Parking Services, PO Box 4789.
I have also included a print out of the post office track and trace page where it details that the letter was delivered on the 13/11/2014

Please can you check your records and post for my appeal of the 12/11/2014.

I feel I have not had the chance to have my appeal fairly heard even though I have followed the correct procedure.

I have included a copy of the original appeal letter that I sent on the 12/11/2014.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter

Kind Regards

lost touch with you a bit! so are we just waiting for a response from the athourity now
Jonnie
Hi Boxers,

Yes, I just sent out the above letter today.

Hopefully they will see fit and at least grant me time to evaluate the original appeal that I sent in good faith.
hcandersen
You have a NTO and you must make reps, that's the procedure.

There is no point in the approach you've taken as it merely leaves you open to the risk that they won't respond and you will miss the 28-day deadline, thereby increasing the penalty by 50%.

Make reps and by all means include your point about your original challenge, in this way they are more likely to re-offer the discount if they reject your reps. But you must make reps.
Jonnie
Yes I now see this error, as I have received a reply to the previous letter with the PATAS right to appeal forms.

I do feel I haven't had the chance to get this right as I did not receive a letter of rejection in the first place, I had thought that this was because my appeal had not reached the correct address due to an error on the post office's part. (see above) However in this reply (see below) they say that they did receive my initial representations and replied to it with a letter of rejection on the 27th January 2015. This is the one that there is no sign of.

The correspondence officer also says that she has attached a copy of this rejection letter with this current correspondence. It is not included.

As I originally posted I had already put together my second letter to send after the initial rejection was sent which I see now should have been sent last time instead of a letter only telling them I had not received the first letter of rejection which seems to have given them the opportunity to move the process on to the PATAS stage. perhaps foolish of me, but done through bad circumstances and lack of knowledge, I'm no expert.

I note that they refer to their records showing that the advance warning signs of the bay suspension went up on the 27th October 2013 8 days before the suspension was in effect. Is there a specified time frame that these warnings should go up to give fair warning? I was actually away before these signs were erected.

I would be extremely grateful for and help and advice with this.

below is the most recent letter.

PCN 21 reply and patas007redacted by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

PCN 21 reply and patas002 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

PCN 21 reply and patas003 by palmerjonnie, on Flickr

I should also add that none of the correspondences that I have received have sent any of the documents I have requested in the post script of my representations.

Below here is my full representation that I was going to send after the first letter of rejection, again your opinions are much appreciated. A lot of it is lifted from other cases you may be familiar with.


To Whom It May Concern

I am appealing against a PCN received on my vehicle on 3rd November 2014.

The grounds for my appeal are that the signage for the parking suspension upon which the PCN was given does not comply with authorisation provided by the Department for Transport on 14th November 2011.
(http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2964.pdf).

The DfT authorisation for the LB of Haringey states that the temporary suspension of parking spaces should be notified with an authorised sign that states the following:

a) information regarding the time of day, date or dates, (with the year omitted) and location of the suspended parking place or places shall be known on the front of the authorised sign;

It is clear that the parking bay suspension sign does not conform to this regulation. Most importantly the year is not omitted. Also the time, which the suspension is from and to, on the dates mentioned, are not clearly outlined. The sign only states the hours of the CPZ. If the sign is stating that the bay suspension is during the times of the CPZ which is 8:30am to 6:30pm which is also not in full as the CPZ in this case changes for match and event days, Then it needs to detail that the suspension is from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm to eradicate any possible misunderstanding and to comply fully with the authorization given by the Dft on 14th November 2011 Section 64. 1.a) information regarding the time of day and not simply state the CPZ time.

It is also not clear which bays the suspension is referring to.
The use of the symbol O/S is not a recognised acronym and therefore is not clear information.
If the O/S stands for Opposite or outside and the number refers to the property number then the PCN is also issued incorrectly as my car is parked in front of number 64 Upper Tollington Park and therefore not contained within the suspension. This bay is not a separated bay and runs the whole length of the this part of the road

Having returned from Cornwall the previous evening in a friends vehicle I did not see the signs displayed both as it was dark, I was tired from the journey and I did not pass the sign to get to my flat. I also have no idea when these signs were erected, I know only that they were not in position when I left the previously. I feel as a resident of Upper Tollington Park with a paid residents permit I have not been given the opportunity to adhere to this temporary parking suspension. Had you given appropriate warning of this suspension or notified us residents (you have my email for online permits) then I would have been able to move my car across the road as I have indeed now done.

In order to spell out the importance of adherence to authorisations for such signs as this one I have done some research. So to reiterate The temporary suspension traffic sign used fails to comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as it is neither prescribed by regulations nor authorised by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 7.53 contained within the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 gives further direction;


7.53 Where it is required to suspend a parking or
loading bay, e.g. to enable works to be carried out,
a temporary sign should be provided. These are not
prescribed by the Regulations, other than for parking
meters (see para 6.30), and guidance should
therefore be sought from the Department

The council operate traffic enforcement under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This act under section 92 advises;

“traffic sign” has the meaning given by section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a traffic sign as either being.

(a) specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or
(b)authorised by the Secretary of State,
Section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984 adds further that;
(2) Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character.

The regulations referred to in section 64(1)(a) of the RTRA 1984 are known as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002. DfT circular 02/2003 informs about their purpose;

The TSRGD 2002 prescribe the designs and conditions of use for traffic signs to be
lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland and Wales.

Regulation 11 within the TSRGD 2002 reiterates this circular and section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984.

11. — (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.

Further to the TSRGD 2002 the DfT has compiled and published numerous manuals known as the “Traffic Signs Manuals” to provide deliberate and extensive detail and information on how Local Authorities are to apply and interpret the plethora of regulations and directions given within the TSRGD 2002. These manuals contain no confusion as to how the DfT expect Local Authorities to interpret the law on traffic signs.

The TSM Chapter 1 advises;

1.15 Authorities may only use signs–
including carriageway markings–of a
size, colour and type prescribed or
specially authorised by the Secretary of
State, The prescribed signs are included
in The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002.

1.18 The use on Public highways of
non-prescribed signs which have not
been authorised by, or on behalf of,
the Secretary of State, is illegal and
Authorities who so use unauthorised
signs act beyond their powers.
Additionally, an unauthorised sign in
the highway is an obstruction.

The TSM Chapter 3 advises;

2.1 All traffic signs placed on a highway or on a
road to which the public has access (right of passage
in Scotland), as defined in section 142 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and amended by the
New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, must be
either prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the
Secretary of State for Transport……. and that no non-prescribed
sign is used unless it has been formally authorised
in writing. Failure to do so may leave an authority
open to litigation, or make a traffic regulation order
unenforceable.

The TSM Chapter 5 advises;

2.1 All road markings placed on a highway or road
to which the public have access must be either
prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the
Secretary of State for Transport.

2.5 Care should be taken to ensure that markings
are used only in the manner prescribed in the
Regulations, and that no non-prescribed marking is
used unless it has been authorised in writing. Failure
to do so may leave an authority open to litigation, or
make a traffic regulation order unenforceable.

In addition the DfT has compiled and published more than 14 series of extensive detailed works known as “Working Drawings” to assist Local Authorities in ensuring that they get the design of traffic signs correct. It is nonsensical that the DfT would go to such extreme lengths of detail and precision if they believed legislators intended Local Authorities to be allowed freedom of action or any degree of autonomy in traffic sign design.

Although both the RTRA 1984 and the TSRGD 2002 were enacted prior to the Traffic Management Act 2004 they are both still active and form the legal foundation for traffic enforcement under the TMA 2004. Section 87 of the TMA 2004 made provision for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to Local Authorities in which they must have regard to when implementing and administering their traffic enforcement. It is clear from the extracts below that the Secretary of State expects Local Authorities to use traffic signs that comply with the law.

12. Enforcement authorities should aim to increase compliance with parking
restrictions through clear, well designed, legal and enforced parking controls.

17. all Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), traffic signs and road markings are in
compliance with legal requirements

25. Unclear restrictions, or restrictions that do not comply with
regulations or with the Secretary of State’s Guidance, will confuse people and
ultimately undermine the operation and enforcement of the scheme overall.

33. Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs, and clear and lawful
signs and lines are in place, the success of CPE will depend on the dedication
and quality of the staff that deliver it.

38. CEO duties will also include related activities such as the following:
checking and reporting defective traffic signs and road markings.

In addition to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance the DfT published further guidance for the benefit of Local Authorities. This publication is known as the “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities” and this gives further clarification in regard to traffic signs.

Annex E1: All local authorities are responsible for the accuracy and condition of the traffic
signs and road markings that identify parking restrictions in their area. The traffic
signs and road markings must conform strictly to the relevant regulations
(currently the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 – TSRGD –
and subsequent amendments) or have special authorisation from DfT. They
should also conform to the guidance set out in Chapters 3 and 5 of the Traffic
Signs Manual.

8.35 Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are
incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances
may make the Order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows
that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept
the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal.
An enforcement authority may be acting unlawfully and may damage its
reputation if it continues to issue PCNs that it knows to be unenforceable.

13.6 The Secretary of State will not sign an Order
until a senior official of the authority has confirmed in writing that all existing
and new TROs, traffic signs and road markings in the proposed CEA:
are in line with Government regulations and guidance in relevant chapters of
the Traffic Signs Manual or have special authorisation from DfT;

Considering all the above, what it is evidently clear, ever since the introduction of the RTRA 1984 up to the publication in 2008 of the DfT “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”, is that there has been consistent and explicit direction by both the legal profession and Government, as to what is considered to be a lawful traffic sign. The courts have helped confirm this direction, such as in Davies v Heatley[1971] RTR45 where it was determined that the fact that a traffic sign may be clear does not make it legally correct. This finding of fact has been considered correct by numerous adjudicators but most notably in the key cases between Burnett v Buckinghamhire CC (PAS case HIW0003), Mr J Letts v London Borough of Lambeth (PA 1980151656) and Mr Keivan Jalali Bijari v Bolton Metropolitan Council (case no BO05375E).

The legislators did accept that a degree of flexibility would be required by Local Authorities and this is why the law not only prescribes numerous variations of traffic signs but permits a Local Authority to approach the Secretary of State to seek authorisation to use a non prescribed traffic sign. If a Local Authority chooses not to follow the scope of the law then they must suffer the consequences without complaint rather than act ultra vires by attempting to enforce an unlawfully signed traffic restriction.

If the law intended only that a traffic sign must not mislead a motorist then the law would simply have stated as such and neither the legislators nor Government would have gone to such extreme and costly measures in drafting and publishing volumes of legislation and guidance to assist Local Authorities in regard to the specific design of traffic signs.

If the Council should continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that is in my favour and attempt to assert that, although the traffic sign fails to comply with the law, it is adequate to convey the restriction and that its non compliance with the law can be regarded as “de minimis” then I must strongly disagree. I have illustrated above that both the law and Government has gone to great trouble and effort to ensure that throughout the country motorists can be confident of finding identical traffic signs to the restrictions in force. This is not a case, where, for example, there is a very minor degree of wear to the lines or where one of the white lines is a millimetre or two out. The fact of the matter is that the council has simply used non prescribed signage without authorisation and it seems to me to be inappropriate to employ the “de minimis” principle to paper over the error. I certainly do not consider the amount of the penalty charge to be “de minimis” when compared to my disposable income.

If the Council do argue a case of “de minimis” then I too should be allowed, in the interest of justice and fairness, the same degree of flexibility and leniency when interpreting the traffic order bylaw. We are repeatedly informed that the purpose of traffic restrictions is to maintain traffic flow and to encourage road safety for all users of the public highway. My vehicle was not parked in such a manner that it interrupted the traffic flow nor did it endanger the safety of any person upon the public highway. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to apply the principle of “de minimis” to the alleged contravention just as equally as one might attempt to apply it in defence of the unlawful traffic sign.

The DfT in its Operational Guidance to Local Authorities is quite clear. Annex E2 gives clear and precise instruction;

PCNs may not be valid if they are issued where traffic signs and road markings
are incorrect or in poor condition. Representations demonstrating this should be
accepted.

I have demonstrated that the temporary suspension sign is incorrect.
The car is not within the suspended bay.
I inadequate warning that the bay was to be suspended.
Therefore I require that this penalty charge be cancelled forthwith.



Kind regards




PS Please forward :-
The suspension request form.
The traffic Order in full.
The ticket history and print out from the CEO hand-held computer terminal
Copy CEO notebook entry.
All CEO photos in full size colour format that have my car in them and/or make up your evidence of this contravention.
All other evidence you believe proves the contravention.
DfT/SoS authorisation for the sign
Proof of the time sign(s) was erected including photos
Jonnie
What is the advice now? How shall I go ahead? I'm a bit stuck now. Should I fill the PATAS form?
Mad Mick V
Not a lot of members can see the sign or the Council's reponse because you have used Flickr. Apologies for saying this but the whole of your reps are a cut and paste disaster.

If the Council has used the type of sign authorised by DfT then your comments about the year and o/s will not wash because any adjudicator will rule the changes as trivial and the sign as substantially compliant. Their key comment will be whether the motorist has been given a sufficiently clear indication of the nature of the restriction in place; the purpose of regulatory signs being to ensure that drivers clearly understand what prohibitions are in force.

You should appeal to PATAS on the basis of the circumstances you describe because you have nothing to lose. The two key points you need to put forward are something like this:-

a. As a residents permit holder I have legitimate expectations that I can park in the zone nearest my home but accept that this is subject to the Council suspending parking places providing it gives residents adequate notice. This has not happened; neither the Council nor the concessionaire has given prior notice either by mail/leaflet or telephone that this suspension was to take place. The Council has a duty to inform residents not just erect suspension signs.

b. My vehicle was in situ when the suspension signs were erected. I did not enter a parking bay whilst the suspension signs were in place and therefore I cannot be culpable. Neither am I at fault if the Council erected signs without my knowledge or took no steps to inform me. The vehicle had been in this position for at least ???? days prior to the suspension coming into effect. The VRM should have been noted either by the Council or the concessionaire when the signage was erected and also when the restriction came into force.

I have already offered the Council evidence that I was not in London when the suspension came into effect nor when the PCN was issued.

These are not mitigating circumstances but cold hard facts.

In view of the above I contend that the contravention did not occur.
Jonnie
Thanks for the reply Mick, and you comments. I had no idea my pics weren't viewable.
You're right as I mentioned I read many other appeal and cherry picked from them.
What about not having received a letter of rejection? They are saying they sent one but I don't have it
From the first time they were supposed to send it or from the second letter where they say they have enclosed it!
This means I have not been given the option of paying the fine at the reduced rate.
Nor have they sent me the evidence I requested. Also my partner says that she saw no work carried out during the time
That the suspension was in place for. Is it worth getting this evidence?
Thanks for outlining a defense option, it's much appreciated.
Mad Mick V
If you request stuff it is mostly done with a FOI request so I am not surprised that you haven't got it with parking representations. A grey area. Sometimes they do provide other times they don't.

You should certainly raise the issue of two documents being lost but if you have the PATAS form that comes with the NTO rejection !!!! I take it that you refer to the Council's reply to your original challenge.

Mick
Jonnie
Ok I shouldmake an foi request if there is time.

I was in deed referring to the councils reply to my original reps. They
also say in the letter with the Patas form they have included a copy of
This reply to my first reps, it was not in the envelope.
hcandersen
OP, get back on track please.

You have received a Notice of Rejection. If you wish to continue to dispute you must register your appeal. This is the one and only issue in front of you. Forget FOI, this can wait.

You do not need to go into detail in your appeal form because whatever arguments you made in your reps are already in the mix.

Contravention did not occur; personal hearing, which we recommend.

Until we see their NOR we cannot see whether there are any PIs, so you must post this and your reps.

But get on track and focus on compiling and submitting this simple form.
hcandersen
duplicate post.
Jonnie
Ok, will do.
Jonnie
I have sent the Patas form.
Jonnie
I have received my reply from PATAS and my hearing date of the 20th of May.
John U.K.
QUOTE (Jonnie @ Thu, 23 Apr 2015 - 17:13) *
I have received my reply from PATAS and my hearing date of the 20th of May.


So far so good.
BUT
you still have to post up their NoRR and, when you get it, their rejection of your challenge.

Copies of these should be in the Council's Evidence Pack which has to to reach PaTAS four days before the hearing, a copy of which will also be sent to you. But that gives little time for you to adequately prepare your case for the hearing.

Have you taken up with the Council the missing copy they said they enclosed with the NoR and PaTAS form??

Did you make reps as advised in post #12 by HCA?

What did you write in Box 5 on the PaTAS form?

Jonnie
Ok I have transferred all of the images to imageshack, as Mick had said that not everyone can see the Flickr ones, I hope that works. Also I have included the NoRR letter and PATAS form with box 5. Unfortunately John, I had already posted a letter to Haringey traffic management in reply to the NTO before HCA's post 12, this was a mistake as Haringey took it as my formal representation, as they would, and replied with the NoRR outlining that they had replied to my informal reps with an NoR that I didn't receive, and said they included a copy of this NoR for my records with the NoRR which I also didn't get. I have not yet taken this latest missing NoR with the council. Should I do this?
Ticket


Haringey photos



Jonnie
The rest of the Pictures/scans. Please excuse the dodgy hand writing I currently have a broken wrist in a cast.
NTO




NoRR



PATAS Form box 5
John U.K.
QUOTE
replied with the NoRR outlining that they had replied to my informal reps with an NoR that I didn't receive, and said they included a copy of this NoR for my records with the NoRR which I also didn't get. I have not yet taken this latest missing NoR with the council. Should I do this?


You have a choice.. contacting the Council to ask where the missing letter is (if telephoning don't be drawn into discussion about any other topic and keep a record of the call, follow up with written request).
OR
waiting to see if a copy appears in the Evidence Pack but this wil limit the time you have to prepare your case and you may have to ask for an new date.

QUOTE
Ok I have transferred all of the images to imageshack,


Is there a link to these?? Edit...they've appeared while writing this.
Mad Mick V
OP, this will be of interest especially the parts re compelling reasons and the no legal requirement to check:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/713.html

Mick
Jonnie
Thank you for that Mick, That is indeed an interesting transcript.

I will re read the NoRR to see how this is applicable.

Thanks again
Jonnie
Hello, I received my evidence pack from haringey for my hearing on the 20th.

There is evidence of them actioning a response to my informal reps but as we know they were never delivered.

I have this letter now, I have posted the two case summery pages and the informal letter below.

I have put together some extra statements and some compelling evidence, including highlighting the relevant paragraphs of the Humphrys v PATAS case.

I was also quite ill at the time when I returned to London and returned for a dr appointment which I am using as compelling evidence as I was not at my best regarding observation and have med certs for this.

I have also added that there seems to be no photographic evidence that the contravention occurred in that you cannot tell which bay the vehicle is in.

In the informal rep rejection it says I can still pay the penalty at the reduced rate if I pay within 14 days of the date that this letter was delivered which I make to be 22/05/2015 as it was delivered on the 09/05/2015. Somewhat amusing!

Summary






Informal rejection







Edit I've just realised the address is wrong on the informal rejection I do not live at 68! what does this mean? Surely at very least I should be offered the reduced rate or cancellation for there incompetence? Or does this mean nothing as if it is true that there is no obligation to reply to informal reps?
Jonnie
Just for closeur on this thread I went to see the PATAS adjudicator who ruled in my favour due to the incorrect address, how ever he pressed the wrong button so I had a little more hassle clearing that up.

But all well and good

Thank you all for your help.
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.