Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Towed from a quiet street in Manchester - multiple objections!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
cam28
Hi all,

This is my first post to the forum, but I've been reading plenty of threads over the past 7 days to familiarise myself with a) my options, b) the law and c) what I need to do in this thread to make the jobs of all the helpful people here easier. I'm just sorry I'm "taking" from the forum before I've had a chance to "give", but I give more than I take on other forums I'm a part of, as I'm sure is the way with you guys and other forums you frequent - but still, sorry to make my first post a huge question!

I've read the FAQs on the law, looked up as much of the relevant sections of laws as possible, and assembled everything I have from the council and my own evidence. It is all to follow, but first, let's cover the actual situation!


WHAT HAPPENED:
I was visiting a friend in Manchester (just outside the inner ring road) on a Saturday. The narrow street outside his apartment has single yellow lines running down it, but no signage to denote the restrictions. I asked my friend what the exact restrictions are, but he (as a resident of 18+ months) still isn't sure about the Saturday regulations. Multiple times I walked up and down the surrounding couple of streets but there are no signs at all - just the usual "this area is monitored by CCTV" signs.

I pulled over and saw two other cars parked on the road, so assumed the restriction was not in effect. (yes, I know what assuming makes...) I parked with two wheels on the footpath so as not to obstruct the road for passing traffic, which would have had to mount the kerb itself if I had parked fully on the road.

Fast forward an hour and I checked out the window to look at my car, and it wasn't there. We went outside to try and deduce what had happened. The car hadn't rolled to the bottom of the shallow hill, and we double checked for signage to suggest it might have been removed, but there was none. I rang the CCTV sign's number to ask them if they could see what had happened, and they told me they couldn't, but to ring "the pound" to check. I did, and gave them my registration, and they said "yes, that car's here, it was parked with two wheels on the footpath and causing an obstruction to pedestrians(it wasn't, but more on that later), £140 is the release fee."

I remained polite and went to pick my vehicle up, all of 1.5 miles away. Their card machine was broken so I had to gain access to my vehicle, to get my wallet, to go to the nearest cash machine, to go back, to pay the £140 in cash. The chap who "served" me was a cordial and helpful guy, the conversations with whom I did record on my phone for an irrefutable account of what happened at the office. As it turns out, the entire 3 square mile urban area in which I'd parked was a CPZ, which ran Monday-Saturday 8am-6pm, and I was again told I was towed because I had two wheels on the kerb.

So that's the situation. Well, their side. I'll post my opposition after all their documents and photos.
Now, here's everything I have - front and back - from the pound:
(Regrettably I don't have to hand the hand-written receipt for my cash payment, but it'll be here somewhere!)

PCN FRONT AND REAR



REMOVAL NOTICE FRONT AND REAR (was not affixed to my car, just put under the windscreen wiper):



REMOVAL AND RELEASE FEE RECEIPT, ALL PAGES (1-5):







Well... I have more photos of my car from the council, and my own evidence about why I'm going to get this overturned, but I've reached my image post limit! Help!
StuartBu
use an external Image Hosting Site like Photobucket which will generate links ..use the ones that start and end with [IMG] and paste them on here and your images will appear
qafqa
QUOTE
but I've reached my image post limit! Help!

Don't worry, as you have used photobucket the limit is only
per post, not for the thread so your next post will have
room for more.
BTW thanks for using the [IMG] code as advised by
StuartBu, going off-site and clicking through albums
is a
cam28
That's what I was doing, using Photobucket and IMG links... I hit an images-per-post limit so tried to split it over multiple posts, but then it merged my posts and I had the limit again. Oh well, I guess I'll have to wait for a reply before each extra set of images!

Onward...
THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS OF MY CAR:









So, that's their documentation. Now for my contentions and argument.










Here are my issues/findings/objections with what has happened.
MY OBJECTIONS:

There are many, but the main one has to be that on the route I take to the spot where I parked, one cannot see a "controlled zone" sign upon entry to the controlled zone. My route takes me south down the ring road (Great Ancoats Street), and then a left turn onto Redhill Street, following that all the way to its end, at which point I turn left onto Radium street and pull over to park.

The entrance to the CPZ at the front of Redhill Street has just one CPZ sign, and it is facing SOUTH. I was entering from the NORTH side and it is impossible to know one is entering a CPZ from that side of the junction. See photos below:

HEADING SOUTH ON GREAT ANCOATS STREET (WHICH I WAS ON THE DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION):
FROM THE PAVEMENT BEFORE THE JUNCTION


FROM THE TRAFFIC ISLAND BEFORE THE JUNCTION... SPOT THE CPZ SIGN


FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD WHERE A CAR WOULD BE WHILST TURNING INTO THE JUNCTION, LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE ONLY CPZ SIGN AT THE JUNCTION


cam28
LOOKING EAST DOWN REDHILL STREET, SHOWING THE ONLY CPZ SIGN POINTING SOUTH (AND A 20MPH ZONE SIGN ON THE LEFT OF THE JUNCTION)




NOW LOOKING NORTH AT THE SAME JUNCTION, NOTICE HOW THE CPZ IS ANGLED DIRECTLY AT MOTORISTS APPROACHING FROM THIS SIDE (BEHIND THE SILVER FORD):


AND AGAIN (VERY FAINTLY) BEHIND THE WHITE SKODA:


AND HERE IT IS FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE JUNCTION LOOKING NORTH, ONLY VISIBLE TO DRIVERS APPROACHING FROM THIS DIRECTION


So that is my main issue - that the signage at the junction at which I rntered was wholly obscured from the direction in which I was travelling.

---------------------------------------

The next major issue is that my friend, the resident in the building across from where I parked, has managed to capture multiple images of a car parked on the same side of the road, in exactly the same manner as I was, on a Saturday during the prescribed hours, yet it's only had a PCN - no removal! Why one rule for them and another for myself?





cam28
---------------------------------------
Now, according to the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Section 12.1:
CPZ means (a) an area (ii) into which EACH entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1. (emphasis added)
Whilst the entrance I used had an "insufficient" sign, albeit a sign... the junction before the one I used (turning left onto Blossom Street from Great Ancoats Street) DOES NOT HAVE A CPZ SIGN IN PLACE WHATSOEVER:
Entrance to Blossom St (and the CPZ):

Further up Blossom St

Yet further up:

And again:

To the end of Blossom St:

So there is no CPZ signage at this particular entrance to the CPZ, which is in direct conflic with the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Section 12.1 - so if each area is not indicated, is the CPZ in effect? This is the junction directly before the one I took, so there was not even indication of a possible CPZ whilst I was driving along its perimeter.
---------------------------------------

There are allowable exemptions to the enforcement of Penalty Charge Contravention Code 01 (parking on restricted road within prescribed hours):
8. Loading/Unloading. (nidirect.gov.uk site)
- My car was first observed at 15:27, was authorised for removal, and the photos show the car was ready to be towed at 15:31. Is this adequate time to respond to a PCN?
- From the photos you can actually see the removal sticker has been applied before the PCN, suggesting they were applied at the same time. To me this is a clear case of "de minimis" leaving me no time to react to the PCN even if I was loading things into my friend's apartment.
-As in my photos, the (defective) sign on Great ancoats street/redhill street definitely doesn't have a no loading box at the bottom. Section 12.3, chapter 3 of the Traffic Sign handbook states that "where loading is prohibited within type (a) CPZ [which this is], this may be indicated on the entry sign (see para 12.7), but only if the times are the same as those for the prohibition of waiting.
- Section 12.7 also states: The legend “No loading” is added below the
roundel on the signs to diagrams 663 and 663.1 where there is a prohibition of loading within the zone that applies at the same times as the prohibition of waiting (see para 12.3)
- Therefore, loading is 100% permitted and I was allowed totally inadequate time to return to my vehicle before it was removed, since between first sighting by the CEO and removal there were four minutes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The contravention code on my reason for towing is "01" - parked within a prescribed time on a restricted road - yet the reason given to me all the way through asking why it was towed was because it had 2 wheels on a footpath, which should be code 62.
- Also, nowhere on any of my documentation does it mention explicitly that I was obstructing the footpath or had any wheels on the kerb (besides the photos - but in this case I am challenging the adequate information as to why I was towed)
- I understand that I can be towed according to Manchester City Council's website: "for contravening parking restrictions". However, I have been supplied with false information throughout the process with the council employees.
- Further to this, on my fee receipt (scan above) you can see the reason for removal is "Restricted St (Footway)". What does "footway" have to do with contravention 01? Is this supposed to be a charge of restricted street, or of footway? This kind of vague explanation does not adequately explain which contravention is the reason for removal, and therefore I would suggest since it is not 100% one way or the other, i.e. not fully either, it is neither.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The vehicle removal receipt, in addition to showing a different contravention code to the one given to me as the reason for removal, lists the reason as "restricted st (footway)". According to the definition of footway as stated in [need to find reference], my vehicle is not near any footway at all (it was actually on a "footpath"). Therefore, the reason for towing is doubly defective.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Now, not only is the signage totally inadequate for where it SHOULD be - it is insufficient for the area it should cover.
See Traffic Signs Handbook Ch3 s12.8
"It is not essential for a type (a) CPZ, other than a disc or ticket zone, to be introduced where parking controls are required. Each road can be signed in accordance with sections 6 and 7 without the need to provide zone entry signs.
"[...]Research has shown that it is unrealistic to expect drivers to remember the times of operation of the zone when they come to park a considerable distance after passing a zone entry sign. The area of the zone should therefore be restricted to, for example, a town centre shopping area. A zone covering a whole town, or suburb of a conurbation, would be much too
large (see para 12.13).
"[...] In all the above cases, consideration should be given to replacing the zone with conventional signing as described in section 6, dividing the zone into several smaller ones or reducing the size of the zone and signing other roads individually."

- This controlled zone covers some 25 streets (I have a list to hand) spread over a square mile of territory which is known as "ancoats" - a suburb of Manchester. I am quite sure that this covers the entirety of the Ancoats area, which is as an area far too large for the use of a controlled zone which motorists could be expected to keep in mind. My drive through the controlled zone is a third of a mile alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------

On my removal receipt, my address is incorrect (wrong house number), but I understand this can be amended after the fact?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Let's also say that after all of the above, the "obstruction to pedestrians" still stands as their reason for removal (even though it's not written or stated anywhere). I would ask, obstructing whom on this back street in east Manchester on a Saturday afternoon?! It is always empty, but cars do travel up and down quite often. Hence, although a contravention, it makes more sense to keep the roadway clear - especially since there are two footpaths flanking it. Not that I was obstructing one of them anyway (there was four feet of room to move past my car", but there was a completely clear footpath across the road. Therefore if they choose to pursue this avenue of contravention, I would argue that it is without a shadow of a doubt "de minimis".

--------------------------------------------------------------
cam28
LET'S RECAP!
- Insufficient signage at the junction I entered. Not at all visible to motorists entering the CPZ from the north side of the junction. Impossible for motorists to know there is a CPZ in place.

- Other vehicles parked on the same street as I parked at the time, with no PCNs.

- The next Saturday, photographic evidence of a vehicle parked in exactly the same spot as I was (no exaggeration), with a PCN but not removed or authorised to be removed. Council is not enforcing its rule all the time and I should therefore not be made to pay when others are not.

- No CPZ signage whatsoever at one entrance to the CPZ. By their own laws, this voids the status of the CPZ as being a CPZ in the first place and its prescribed times are null and void.

- No disallowal of Loading within the CPZ, but I was given no time between the CEO sighting my vehicle, issuing a PCN, and authorising removal. Clear grounds for de minimis here, and should not have been removed so quickly and ruthlessly.

- Council have been exceedingly vague about why I was towed in the first place. Verbally telling me one contravention and writing down another, with vague and improper references to both here and there. This suggests they are not clear of their own rules, and cannot be expected to enforce that which they are not sure of and cannot fully explain to me, the victim(!) of the removal.

- CPZ covers a square mile and some 25 streets - under their own laws this is explicitly advised against, and is insufficient information for a motorist to take on board and adhere to.

- One of the two vague reasons for removal was "2 wheels on the footway obstructing pedestrians" - there was no obstruction, with 4 feet of space for them to pass, regardless of the fact that it is a quiet back-street with almost no pedestrians. There was also another footpath opposite the road, and parking on the road would have resulted in a much greater obstruction to any road-going traffic.









When I initially started making my inquiries into my options, I was of the opinion that I was 100% liable for the PCN but definitely not for the removal (due to the inconsistencies, de minimis, and incorrect paperwork supplied by the council). However now that I have actually seen the signage, which is totally not fit for purpose, I'm curious as to whether I should even be liable for the PCN - since I would never have known the restrictions in the first place.

So I’ve tried to do as much of the work as possible myself, but of course the reason I’m here is to get it approved/improved/removed as necessary. I’m sure I’ll get that, after reading round the forums a bit.

Any and all help/insight into the next steps from here is appreciated. If you've managed to read this far, I thank you!
Incandescent
My God, you can certainly type a lot !!

Anyway, the offence is parked whilst within the single yellow line restriction which is defined in the CPZ signs at the entrances to the zone. So from what you say, the signs are absent or badly placed where you entered the zone. There should be two signs, not one.

Missing or inadequate signage is valid for appealing a PCN but you need to be sure of your ground. However you have done your research, (good !) so must now use your evidence to appeal the PCN and tow. You can also appeal on disproportionate action in towing, Parking part on the footway is not a contravention there so it is not a reason to tow. If it is an obstruction, the police can still invoke the obstruction law, but they didn't, nor did the council ask them to, as they can.

On a lighter tone, I think your friend owes you a few beers for not providing info on the CPZ, lets say 6 pints ? That ought to make you feel better, or maybe a bottle of finest malt whisky.

The final point to make is that it is a total no-brainer to appeal this all the way to TPT as you have already paid all there is to pay, and could get all or some of it back. However, first you have to appeal to the council, and when they reject it, appeal to TPT, it costs you nothing extra, but will cost them £40 and if they lose, all the PCN and tow money. Your careful detective work should win this, but nothing is guaranteed at adjudication. My personal opinion is that there is some sort of scam going on with towing, but until we can see the contracts between council and towing company, it is difficult to see what might be going on, but any contract that is only pay-per-tow, is clearly suspect.
DancingDad
Inadequate CPZ signage is the main point to focus on.
That you were parked on a single yellow during restricted hours is the sole reason for the PCN.
Break that and all else is irrelevant.
That CPZ signage is twisted and out of place is sufficient to argue and win and you have the photo evidence.
They rely on that signage to convey the message to the motorist and have a duty to place signage that adequately provides the message. They failed.

They use the obstruction of the footway to justify the immediate tow. TBH, they do not strictly need to, contravening the yellow line is sufficient but this does bring into play their policy on removals. As they use footway as justification, does their local policy reflect this? Check other threads on removals in Manchester, one recent one had a copy of removal policy in it.

Interesting to note that they state TMA2004 allows them to require immediate payment of the PCN. Require them to detail the exact law or regulation that allows this under TMA 2004 and how that allows them to remove your right to informal representations and the owners right to formal.

Seems you were found be a patrolling removal truck, complete with on board CEO. Again check this against their policy. I seem to remember that they require a PCN and authority to remove from patrolling CEO and that this is checked and confirmed by the onboard CEO. May be faulty memory.
qafqa
There is a stripe through the PCN which obscures part of the text.
TicketFighter has a superb webpage with comprehensive information about Parking Tickets and Notices
http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/parkingtickets.htm
There is a section on that page which covers what a ticket issued on street must state.
If you compare exactly what is and isn't printed on the PCN with the legislation the failure to completely print significant parts could be included in the representation.
If the PCN is read carefully the badly printed or not printed text is noticeable,
the mechanism which renders the following readable seems to override such
fastidiousness.
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
cam28
Thanks for your help so far guys!

Yes, I can type a lot - just wanted to show willing, didn't want to do half a job and make you guys have to piece details together smile.gif

Going to work through all your suggestions and points now and start putting together my initial appeal. Will post it up for review when done.

Thanks again!
cam28
Hi all,

I've found some great stuff from Bogsy on this site, but it all depends on my PCN being a regulation 9 PCN.... Is it? I've tried to find out but I'm stumped with this one.

If it is, it's going in my appeal so do let me know. Thanks!
Bogsy
QUOTE (cam28 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 17:34) *
Hi all,

I've found some great stuff from Bogsy on this site, but it all depends on my PCN being a regulation 9 PCN.... Is it? I've tried to find out but I'm stumped with this one.

If it is, it's going in my appeal so do let me know. Thanks!


It is a regulation 9 PCN but I think at this stage you should focus on the inadequate signage. If need be we can include some of my stuff when faced with adjudication.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 18:20) *
QUOTE (cam28 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 17:34) *
Hi all,

I've found some great stuff from Bogsy on this site, but it all depends on my PCN being a regulation 9 PCN.... Is it? I've tried to find out but I'm stumped with this one.

If it is, it's going in my appeal so do let me know. Thanks!


It is a regulation 9 PCN but I think at this stage you should focus on the inadequate signage. If need be we can include some of my stuff when faced with adjudication.


I made a comment earlier
QUOTE
Interesting to note that they state TMA2004 allows them to require immediate payment of the PCN. Require them to detail the exact law or regulation that allows this under TMA 2004 and how that allows them to remove your right to informal representations and the owners right to formal.


This comment relates directly to Bogsy's special.
I would include the requirement but as said, focus on the signage.
All the question does is leave the door open for an adjudicator to being asked to consider the point. I'm sure Bogsy will be only too pleased to develop on the question should the need arise.
Bogsy
Good point DD. By asking them to confirm where the TMA 2004 requires payment of all charges on recovery will expose their incompetence and also leave the door open to introduce my stuff at the next stage.
cam28
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 18:41) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 18:20) *
QUOTE (cam28 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 17:34) *
Hi all,

I've found some great stuff from Bogsy on this site, but it all depends on my PCN being a regulation 9 PCN.... Is it? I've tried to find out but I'm stumped with this one.

If it is, it's going in my appeal so do let me know. Thanks!


It is a regulation 9 PCN but I think at this stage you should focus on the inadequate signage. If need be we can include some of my stuff when faced with adjudication.


I made a comment earlier
QUOTE
Interesting to note that they state TMA2004 allows them to require immediate payment of the PCN. Require them to detail the exact law or regulation that allows this under TMA 2004 and how that allows them to remove your right to informal representations and the owners right to formal.


This comment relates directly to Bogsy's special.
I would include the requirement but as said, focus on the signage.
All the question does is leave the door open for an adjudicator to being asked to consider the point. I'm sure Bogsy will be only too pleased to develop on the question should the need arise.



QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:06) *
Good point DD. By asking them to confirm where the TMA 2004 requires payment of all charges on recovery will expose their incompetence and also leave the door open to introduce my stuff at the next stage.



Thanks guys. This is what I was curious about - whether I should add all points of contention into the initial appeal, in case I wasn't allowed to bring new points up later on in the process.

Been out the past day so I'll work some more on the letter this eve. Thanks again.
Incandescent
QUOTE
This is what I was curious about - whether I should add all points of contention into the initial appeal, in case I wasn't allowed to bring new points up later on in the process.


You can bring up more points up at adjudication. After all, what if they raise an issue in their rejection that needs refuting ? YOu would need this to go into your evidence. However, bringing up newe arguments unrelated to what has previously transpired is not looked upon with favour by adjudicators, at least that is my impression. However English law allows evidence to be presented up to the hearing, provided it is passed to the other party before the hearing.
cam28
Thanks Incandescent. With that in mind, some of these points in my first draft may well need cutting.

Anyway here it is, again to me it seems pretty wordy but there's no way I want to leave out a detail that could cost me the £140!!

Comments/Suggestions very welcome, I've formed the bones here but expect it will need some tidying up/tonality changing etc.
It's got to be in by Saturday (or Friday, depending on the wording which I don't have to hand) so I'll be sending it via email on Thursday latest.

--------------------------------------------

RE: PCN _________ and Subsequent Towing of ________

Dear Parking Representations Officer

I wish to appeal against the PCN and subsequent towing of my vehicle _______ on the 8th November 2014. I contest that the PCN and towing were improperly enforced, issued and administered and that as a result, I should be reimbursed the full amount which I was requested to pay under duress.

I set out my reasons below.

POINT 1: OBSTRUCTED/INVISIBLE SIGNAGE

My first, and most major point of contention, is that the entry to the CPZ that I used was inadequately signed and that I could not have possibly been expected to see – and therefore to be aware of – the fact that I was entering a CPZ. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure road signage is visible to road users, and the fact that the Council failed to ensure this means that the PCN levied on me (and by extension, subsequent removal of my vehicle) are both void. Relevant clauses below.

The TSM Chapter 3 (restricted zone signage) advises in paragraph 1.15 “It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs.” With this in mind alone, my photographic evidence below shows that the CPZ signage on Redhill Street is not fit for purpose.
If further clarification is needed, the TSM Chapter 3 paragraph 1.19(II) states “… The sign should be angled to face towards the driver.” Again, the sign on Redhill Street is in clear contradiction to this, and is therefore wholly inadequate and cannot be enforceable.
Once more, in the chapter specifically governing Controlled Parking zones, the Law states “Zone entry signs for both types of CPZ, facing approaching traffic, must be placed…” (TSM Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.21). This means that the sign on Redhill street is not fit for purpose – as my photographs show, it faces traffic approaching from the south of Great Ancoats Street, but not the north - the direction from which I approached.
Therefore motorists approaching from the north could not know there was a CPZ in effect at all. I searched Radium street and the top of Redhill street for any sort of parking restriction signage but was never going to find any, given that the inadequate sign was a third of a mile away. This failure by the Council to denote the controlled parking zone means it cannot be enforced, and my PCN and Removal were both therefore unlawfully carried out and must be overturned.



Such is the crucially important nature of informing motorists of controlled and restricted parking areas, the Department for Transport released a document of “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities” in order to help them uphold and enforce the Traffic Management Act 2004. Below are some points which demonstrate that the responsibility lies with Manchester City Council, and the alleged parking contravention occurred entirely due to failure on their part to observe the below Guidance from the DfT:

Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.2: “Enforcement authorities should aim to increase compliance with parking restrictions through clear, well designed, legal and enforced parking controls.”
Chapter 12, Paragraph 12.1: “All Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), traffic signs and road markings are in compliance with legal requirements.”
Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.7: “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.”
Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.1: “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.” [Emphasis added]
Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.13: “CEO duties will also include related activities such as the following: checking and reporting defective trafficsigns and road markings. This includes signs that are obscured, damaged, or deliberately ‘spun round’… Defective or missing signs or lines may make the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that they indicate unenforceable, in which case CEOs should not issue a PCN.” [Emphasis added]

Finally, Chapter 8, Paragraph 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.”



Figure 1


Figure 2



Point 2: IMPROPERLY DEFINED CPZ

In addition to the particular entrance I used being inadequately signed, I bring to your attention the TSM Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.1(a)(II), which states that “a controlled parking zone means an area into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1,” and again at Paragraph 12.21: “Zone entry signs for both types of CPZ… must be placed… at every entry point.”
This means there should be a CPZ sign at each and every entrance to the CPZ. I provide evidence below that whilst it could be argued that there is no “visible” sign at Redhill street as I have shown above, the Council has in fact failed to erect any sort of CPZ sign whatsoever at what I presume should be the Blossom Street entrance to the CPZ.
By the definition of the law, this means that the CPZ is improperly defined and therefore cannot be enforced, given that one can enter the CPZ and park exactly where I parked on 8th November without seeing a single CPZ sign, if they enter via Blossom Street. This is too confusing to motorists to be considered enforceable.
I refer to a previously quoted excerpt from the DfT Operational Guidance for Local Authorities, Chapter 8, Paragraph 8.35: “Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are… 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.

Point 3: THE RIGHT TO APPEAL [This whole point is the Bogsy Special, if I have my terminology right, and it's pasted word for word so to save your eyes/time please feel free to skip over if you know it'll be correct!]

Right to Formal Appeal
I bring to the council's attention the matter of procedural impropriety. The council has incorrectly applied those charges specified under section 101A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in regard to the collection of my vehicle when the correct charges to apply are those under section 102(2A). Paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms this assertion. The charges under s.101A apply only when the vehicle being recovered is one that was considered to have the appearance of being abandoned and its disposal is pending. Clear evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008.Therefore, the council had no lawful right to insist the penalty charge be paid when I collected my vehicle nor did the council have any right to retain my vehicle until I also paid the removal charges. A council operating under civil enforcement powers is not given the same power to retain that is given to a council operating under criminalised enforcement powers. This is made quite clear under s.102 RTRA 1984. The power to retain until all charges are paid is purposely withheld, not only so that those rights that follow the service of a regulation 9 PCN can be fully exercised, but also because the right to retain is inappropriate for a civil matter. The council also had no right to administer the appeal process regulated under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Part 4 is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and yet where enforcement under the TMA 2004 occurs and a penalty charge is imposed then any appeal must be pursuant to and in accordance with section 80 TMA 2004. As my vehicle was not immobilised the council should have administered the appeal process under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as these are the regulations that satisfy s.80(1)(a) TMA 2004. It is no coincidence that had the council correctly applied those charges under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 then access to the Part 2 appeal process would not have been obstructed.

Before my vehicle was removed the council served a regulation 9 PCN. The council has not only denied me the opportunity to pay the PCN at a time of my choosing within the statutory 28 day period but they have also denied me the opportunity to make an informal challenge and the right to receive and respond to an NtO. The PCN and statute clearly bestow these rights upon me and it is no coincidence that had s.102(2A) been correctly applied then none of these rights would have been interfered with. If the council are advocating that these rights are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a notice filled with lies. If the PCN has no validity then it is a nullity and thus there can be no penalty charge and no lawful CEO removal.


Right to Informal Appeal

In addition, I was given no opportunity to submit an informal appeal. Being able to submit an informal appeal following receipt of a regulation 9 PCN is also one of the “subject provisions” and therefore a statutory right. The PCN confirms this right and the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance does under paragraph 83 make it clear that the loss of the right to an informal appeal is only applicable to regulation 10 PCN’s. I was served with a regulation 9 PCN.

83. The vehicle owner may dispute the issuing of a PCN at three stages: • Owners may make so-called ‘informal challenges’ or ‘informal representations’ against the PCN before the authority has served an NtO (this does not apply when the PCN is issued by post as the PCN then acts as the NtO).

Although I was given information on how to appeal this was only in regard to a formal appeal. There was nothing given to me that advised that any right to an informal appeal as advised by the PCN was lost or had been revoked. At the pound, I was given both the PCN and formal appeal documents and these items gave conflicting information as to what my legal rights were. This was and is confusing and prejudicial. It should also be noted that where a regulation 9 PCN is served then statute provides that any formal appeal against the PCN (not the removal costs) should be in response to receiving a Notice to Owner. The formal appeal document given to me was not a Notice to Owner but simply appeared to be a document served by virtue of regulation 11 of “the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007” informing me that I could make representations against removal (not the PCN).

This gave me differing and more restrictive grounds for appeal than a Notice to Owner. Although my vehicle was removed it seems irregular and unjust to give me differing and more restrictive grounds for appeal than any other situation where a regulation 9 PCN is served. I believe such unfair restrictions and limitations to be contrary to the general principles of law. The Traffic Management Act 2004 and its associated regulations as well as the RTRA 1984 do not stipulate that the statutory rights, provisions and procedures relating to the service of a regulation 9 PCN are revoked and void where that vehicle is later removed by virtue of s.99 RTRA 1984. Therefore I believe the Council has acted ultra vires and is guilty of procedural improprieties


POINT 4: IMPROPER METHOD OF REMOVAL

I believe that there has been a further procedural impropriety with regards to the method of removal of my vehicle on 03 November 2010.
The “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986” (S.I. 1986/183) do not prescribe the method of removal used in regard to my vehicle. With the commencement of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the introduction of Civil Enforcement Officers, S.I. 1986/183 was amended by “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment)(England) Regulations 2007” (S.I. 2007/3484) to include new regulation 5C. However, regulation 6 of S.I. 1986/183 has not been amended to take into consideration the newly inserted 5C regulation. As such there is no prescribed method of removal for vehicles that are removed by arrangement of a Civil Enforcement Officer. Without the methods of removal available to Civil Enforcement Officers being prescribed it cannot be certain that the method used was lawful and therefore the Council needs to establish that the method of removal was lawful.

POINT 5: DISPROPORTIONATE ACTION IN TOWING
(QUIET STREET AND OTHER CAR’S PCN)

Furthermore, not only was the towing improper as explained above, but it was a completely disproportionate response. The vehicle was parked on a Saturday late afternoon on a quiet street in a residential area outside the Manchester Ring Road. There are two footpaths running alongside the carriageway, allowing pedestrians to use either. In the unlikely event that there were pedestrians using Radium Street, my vehicle was not obstructing the footpath it was parked against at all. Indeed, I had decided to park on the street at that time and in that manner because there were two other cars parked there when I arrived. If there was any particular obstruction to be caused, even though I fail to see how, then Radium Street is so quiet that pedestrians are in no danger whatsoever by merely crossing to the other footpath.

Figure 3

Figure 4

As dictated by the Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales it is for the council to prove that the removal was proportionate and necessary. On 22 June 2006 the Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales stated to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
"Adjudicators are of the view that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the national legislation places a greater duty on councils to have regard to proportionality. In particular, the decision to remove a vehicle must be taken in the context of Article One of the First Protocol of the ECHR and requires the exercise of judgment. It is for the council to prove that the removal was proportionate and necessary. They need to be able to justify in every case why the issue of a PCN alone would not have achieved the desired objective (i.e. of a reasonable level of compliance with legitimate parking restrictions". [Emphasis added]

It is my contention that my vehicle was not parked in such a manner that removal in this instance was either proportionate or necessary and that the councils own guidelines specifically state that removal of a vehicle should be predicated upon;

1). The safety hazard it may pose if allowed to remain in situ, and should be reserved for similar “emergency” circumstances and;

2). “Removal” does not include the removal of vehicles for the purpose of scheduled maintenance and localised cosmetic works. Furthermore it is stated that in the first instance vehicles removed on the basis of 1). Above, should be moved to a nearby parking bay and not removed to a council car pound. This stipulation has been blatantly breached in this instance.
Furthermore, I submit that the Council were either a) fully aware of these guidelines, or b) operating without consistent application of what they believed to be the correct procedure. I believe this to be true because a resident of the apartment building on Radium Street, whose apartment overlooks where my car was parked, took the below photographs of a different car parked in the exact same manner, in the exact same place, exactly one week later (within parking-restricted time on Saturday 15th November), yet with only a PCN having been issued. This shows clear inconsistent action in the exact same case one week apart, and therefore if one car in two identical cases has not been removed, the Council cannot in any way justify removal for the other. If the council wishes to justify removal of my vehicle, they must also justify why the below vehicle was not removed and where the difference lies. See photos:
Photo
Photo

It is my belief that the enforcement authority cannot justify removal in this instance, particularly to the local impound yard. 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.
Further, as the Department for Transport points out to an authority provided with de-criminalised parking powers, Local Authorities would be advised not to enforce defective lines and signs as they would invalidate the ticket issued,
I therefore suggest that the decision to enforce defective restrictions must also be a conscious choice to act in breach of the law.

IN CONCLUSION:

• I do not accept that the parking restrictions imposed in the inadequately-marked CPZ around Radium Street are lawful. The PCN issued is therefore invalid. (Representation point: “The place where the vehicle was at rest was not in a civil enforcement area”)
• My car therefore should not have been removed in the first instance, let alone due to the procedural improprieties caused by the Council in removing it even if the PCN were valid. (“Representation point: in accordance with regulation 13 (limitations on the power to immobilise vehicles) of the General Regulations, there was in the circumstances of the case no power under those Regulations to immobilise the vehicle at the time at which it was immobilised or at all”)
• The actions of the authority are in full knowledge of the breach of law and their legal obligations in terms of legality, proportionality across cases and proportionality to the situation. (Representation point: “There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.”
I take this opportunity to notify you that it is my intention to appeal the Penalty Charge Notice and Removal to the full extent of the process. However, having seen the evidence presented above, I am sure you will agree with me that the only possible conclusion to this matter is for me to be fully reimbursed for the sum of £140, along with costs of £60 (petrol and time driving to the pound, then to a cash machine because the chip and pin was broken, then back to the pound, then my own petrol and time back from the pound, plus time lost in having to research and create this appeal.)
I look forward to your swift reply.

Yours Sincerely,

[cam28]
ford poplar
Was 01 'parked in a restricted street....' the only Contravention listed on the PCN? that section is illegible.
cam28
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Tue, 2 Dec 2014 - 03:44) *
Was 01 'parked in a restricted street....' the only Contravention listed on the PCN? that section is illegible.


It was indeed. They kept stating the reason for towing was that I had 2 wheels on the kerb and was obstructing pedestrians, but the actual reason on the PCN was just 01.
hcandersen
I've formed the bones here ...

For goodness sake, you don't mean there could be more!

There's so much froth and inaccuracy in what's already there that IMO more would only make matters worse.

The PCN should not have been issued with no more than 2 minutes' obs because there is no way that the the CEO could have excluded the possibility that legitimate activities were being undertaken e.g. delivering, assisted alighting/boarding etc. It's clear why the PCN was issued prematurely and it's the same reason why the vehicle was authorised for removal prematurely: you were parked on the footway (BTW, I don't get the impression from your posts that you think you were in the wrong, well you were. Parking on the footway is inconsiderate and will inevitably be a top priority for removal if you are in contravention).

Also, as there weren't traffic signs in the road then in order to comply with its duty to convey the restriction the authority must
place zone entry signs at the specified locations. They haven't and you have contemporaneous photos which show this to be the case at a location relevant to your entry into the zone. No signs, no enforceable restriction.

IMO, the removal was unlawful. It clearly cannot be the authority's policy to authorise vehicles for removal by the same CEO who issued the PCN ( this is what's stated in the information given to you when you obtained the release of your car). Neither should removal be authorised while activities which could legitimise it being stationary in these circumstances could still be being undertaken. Preposterous, but again it's their over-reaction to you being parked on the footway.

I also suspect that the person who authorised removal was not empowered to do so by the council. While the argument that removal does not fall within the TMA might not have a winning track record at appeal, the fact that the empowering legislation for removal is the RTRA and the authority think that it's the TMA is likely to lead to the officer not being authorised to remove the vehicle under the council's officer scheme of delegation (which probably refers to the post holder being authorised to exercise the authority's powers under Part VI of the TMA, but NOT the relevant sections of the RTRA). No delegated authority = unlawful removal.
cam28
Thanks for your input hcandersen.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 2 Dec 2014 - 12:24) *
I've formed the bones here ...

For goodness sake, you don't mean there could be more!

There's so much froth and inaccuracy in what's already there that IMO more would only make matters worse.


Haha no, I didn't mean there was more. If you prefer: "I've formed the froth and inaccuracy here, which I'll need help cleaning up."

I'd like to hear where the inaccuracy is though, as I believe I've only directly quoted passages of published documents and then explained why they pertain to this case. I don't want to make matters worse so I'm happy to be corrected.

You have got the wrong impression, I now know I was in the wrong about being parked on a footway. I would suggest it's even less considerate to park on the road which is single carriageway and only 3 to 4 meters wide, whereas there are two footways pedestrians can choose to use. Everybody parks on the footway there when it's outside restricted hours, which I thought it was. Perhaps why you've got that impression is because the focus in this case is not so much on the footway issue, since the council have chosen their reason for PCN and towing to be the "parked on restricted street" angle.

Anyway back on track - are you suggesting I replace most of what I've written with the points you've made hcandersen?



cam28
I've put together a much more concise appeal with only the "contravention did not occur" points, since I get the impression you guys think that should be enough to win the appeal. As incandescent says, I can add further points in later (such as, "well if the contravention DID occur, then these are the reasons why you shouldn't have towed my car")

I hope this one's a bit better - if the first one was too much then it might be easier on you guys to tell me what needs adding to this one, rather than taking out of the last one!

---------------------------------------

RE: PCN _________ and Subsequent Towing of ________

Dear Parking Representations Officer

I wish to appeal against the PCN and subsequent towing of my vehicle _______ on the 8th November 2014 on the following grounds:
1. The TSM Chapter 3 (restricted zone signage) advises in paragraph 1.15 “It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs,” and paragraph 1.19(II) states “… The sign should be angled to face towards the driver.” With this in mind, my photographic evidence below shows that the CPZ signage on Redhill Street directly faces traffic approaching from the south of Great Ancoats Street, but not the north - the direction from which I approached. I could not see the sign as I approached or entered Redhill Street.
I searched Radium street and the top of Redhill street for any sort of parking restriction signage but was never going to find any, given that the inadequate sign was a third of a mile away. Motorists entering the CPZ as I did cannot be expected to know it was a CPZ, therefore it cannot be enforceable by the Council, and this alleged contravention did not occur.

[photos of the invisible sign at redhill street]

2. In addition to the particular entrance I used being inadequately signed, the TSM Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.1(a)(II) states “a controlled parking zone means an area into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1,” and again at Paragraph 12.21: “Zone entry signs for both types of CPZ… must be placed… at every entry point.”
I provide evidence below that the Council has failed to erect a CPZ sign whatsoever at what I presume should be the Blossom Street entrance to the CPZ.

[photos of the non existent signs at blossom st]

This means that the CPZ is improperly defined, given that one can enter the CPZ and park exactly where I parked on 8th November without seeing a single CPZ sign, if they enter via Blossom Street. This means that the CPZ cannot be enforceable and thus on this point too, the alleged contravention did not occur.



3. The Department for Transport’s “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities” document, designed to aid in the application of the Traffic Management Act 2004, states:
• Chapter 6, Paragraph 6.13: “CEO duties will also include related activities such as the following: checking and reporting defective trafficsigns and road markings. This includes signs that are obscured, damaged, or deliberately ‘spun round’… Defective or missing signs or lines may make the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that they indicate unenforceable, in which case CEOs should not issue a PCN.”
• Chapter 8, Paragraph 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.”

Based on these two excerpts it is clear to see that due to defective and missing traffic signs, official DfT guidance states that the PCN concerned in this letter was unenforceable, should not have been issued, and that the authority should accept this initial representation.

For the reasons above, I trust you see that the contravention was unenforceable on multiple counts. Having seen the evidence presented above, I am sure you will agree with me that the only possible conclusion to this matter is for me to be fully reimbursed for the sum of £140, along with costs of £1.78 incurred by forcing me to travel to the pound to collect my vehicle when I should not have had to do so.
If you reject my appeal please send with your response full reasoning for the rejection, along with a copy of the relevant traffic order(s) on which you base your rejection. Please consider this a request under the freedom of information act, and please be aware that if this is the case, I will be forced to take the matter to the small claims court.
I look forward to your swift reply.

Yours Sincerely,

cam28
hcandersen
References to the Op Guidance are redundant because you also refer to the act and regs and it's these with which the authority must comply. The same applies to the TSM.

Your references should be to the 2004 Act, the General and Appeals regs, the TSRGD, the RTRA and the 1996 Procedures Order because these provide the legislative framework.

You refer to the council's guidelines. What are these? The council have policies and it is these which are binding upon the enforcement authority. These also form part of the legal framework.

Read reg 4(5) to understand what is and therefore by exception what isn't a 'procedural impropriety':

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/4/made

PIs can only apply to the TMA and regs, they cannot apply to any other action. Therefore, as removal of vehicles falls under the RTRA, by definition nothing related to this is capable of being a PI. In your previous draft you sprinkled this term around like confetti.

And as regards the authorisation of officers to exercise the powers of the council, various LG Acts provide this framework.





cam28
Thank you for the link hcandersen. I wasn't aware procedural impropriety was such a strictly defined term, let alone relating to a specific Act. There's no mention of PIs in my second draft, so that's not an issue, but thanks for the clarification - always willing to learn.

From going through the regulations you've mentioned (and more cases on this forum) I've found the specific passage I believe should be included:

"(TRAFFIC ORDERS PROCEDURE 1996)
Traffic signs
18. (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force"


As far as I can tell, this governs signs that are obscured/twisted round. Is this the one to include?

Also it would greatly help to have some clarification on whether including the following points in my reps would be beneficial or overkill to my case:
1) forced to pay PCN and removal fee upon collecting my car - not being given the option to pay later within the statutory 28 day window
2) I was given no opportunity to submit an informal appeal
3) My formal appeal should be in response to a NtO but I never received one
4) Any reps concerning why the vehicle should not have been towed (same CEO that issued the ticket, disproportionate action etc) - or whether this would weaken/confuse my argument that a contravention did not occur in the first place.
edit: 5) that the CEO recorded the contravention after 1 minute of observation, and did not give me the required 20 minutes' allowance for loading since the CPZ does not prohibit loading (can't remember in which regs I read this, but I can find it if worth it)


Thank you very much for your help hcandersen, I fear I've been a bit heavy with the wording of my appeals so far (having gone for the scatter gun approach) so I'm glad to see you're persevering with me!
cam28
Still doing some digging, and it looks like forum user "alexis" successfully appealed at adjudication after being parked on the same street as me on a saturday afternoon, same as me, having entered from redhill street, same as me.

I'm struggling finding the adjudicator's decision though. Anybody care to explain how I'd retrieve it, if I can at all? Alexis hasn't been on the forum since September, and the original link to the adjudication they posted doesn't work now.

Edit: the relevant document is Vallance vs Manchester City Council. I still can't access the document, but from Alexis' thread I know MCC's defense was that they acknowledged the sign was defective and that they'd ordered a new one, but that this didn't invalidate the whole zone... (this being in 2011, and nothing's changed in terms of signage at that junction!!) The judge overturned this and awarded Alexis the win. Hope this helps anyone stung by this junction in future.
John U.K.
Have you tried to PM (Private Message) 'Alexis'? On his thread, click on the little arrow beside his name for the drop-down menu...click on send a message and if his e-mail hasn't changed since he joined it should reach him.
cam28
I haven't tried that, but I'll give it a go. Thanks!
cam28
Their rejection notice came in the post today. Scrubbed scans to follow... obviously I'm going to go to adjudication, since my appeal has been on exactly the same grounds as Alexis', their rejection has stated exactly the same as in Alexis' case, and therefore I expect adjudication to have the same outcome as in Alexis' case - i.e. overturning the case in Alexis' favour.

With all of that said, any other pointers regarding this rejection notice would be much appreciated!

Here's the gist of my formal representations, sent last Thursday, so you can match up the points I made with their rebuttals:

1) The entry sign to the CPZ is obscured and not visible from my direction of travel. TSRGD 2002 says it must be.
The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 states any order relating to a road must be clearly communicated to the road users, which this was not, and that maintenance of signs enforcing such orders should be regularly carried out.
The TSM Chapter 3 (restricted zone signage) advises in paragraph 1.15 “It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs,” and paragraph 1.19(II) states “… The sign should be angled to face towards the driver.”
[photographic evidence]

2. There's only one sign for the CPZ. TSM Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.21 says there should be two, since the road in question is 6 metres wide. Signage is therefore inadequate - which has been proven in Vallance vs MCC 2011, and no maintenance work or new signs have been carried out/installed since then, so in this identical case it is impossible to argue that the contravention did occur.

3. TSM Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.1 states CPZs should have signs at every entrance. There isn't one on Blossom Street's entrance, so the CPZ is improperly defined.

4. [4 quotations from Operational Guidance for the TSRGD and TMA]
Section 87 of the TMA says local authorities "must have regard to the information contained in the guidance". Since the signs are inadequate, I asked the Council to demonstrate their "regard" shown to the guidance - if they had done so, the signs would be present and correct which they were obviously not. [this was more in the hope that they wouldn't fully address this point, but also it would be interesting to see how they can show their regard to the guidance without showing they failed to action it]


5. BOGSY SPECIAL: The single yellow line is subject to direction 25(1) TSRGD 2002 due to it being a road marking that indicates a restriction different to that indicated by a diagram 663 CPZ entry sign etc etc. [all text copied and pasted as per Bogsy's instructions in other threads where this point applied]
"If the council disagree with the above then they have an obligation to qualify any rejection."


6. BOGSY SPECIAL: S101A S101B.
"I was denied the right to a full appeal process AND asked to pay for my PCN “up-front” to secure release of my car from the pound, rather than at a time I wished within my statutory 28 day window." [all text copied and pasted as per Bogsy's instructions in other threads where this point applied]


If they were to reject it, here were my requests...
- Full reasoning for the rejection, responding to each point I have raised, along with a copy of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order on which you base your rejection.
- If the rejection is because you believe that the CPZ Signage is adequate, I would request information regarding your inspection regime for the signs and when they were last inspected.
- Copies of the CEO’s notes relating to the ticketing, authorisation and removal of my vehicle.
- A copy of the tow truck activity log.
Please consider the above a request under the freedom of information act.
Furthermore, please be aware that if this appeal is rejected, I will be forced to take the matter to the independent adjudicator.


Scrubbed scans coming next...
Bogsy
I've not posted anything I would regard as "specials". I offer legal arguments that in my opinion have some merit and provide a ground of appeal where no or little other ground is apparent. I would have crafted something tailored specifically for your circumstances had I known you was going to copy & paste from unrelated cases. The danger of copying & pasting en masse is that any legal argument may have since evolved as my CPZ & s.101 v s.102 arguments both have. Also, adjudicators are well aware of appeals that are lifted off the internet and tend to treat them with disdain.

Once we see the council's reply we can advise on how best to proceed.
cam28
Page 1:

My observations on this page:
- They state I will pass a CPZ sign. I did, but it was wholly not visible. (I've since turned into the CPZ again, and could definitely not see the sign at all when making the turn.)
- "The way we sign our zones complies with the law." - false, because there is only one sign where there should be two, as has been ruled on this exact junction by TPT in 2011



Page 2:

- Does the CEO have to formally note my vehicle was parked on a pavement, or will photographs of my car suffice?
- I wasn't arguing that I didn't commit a contravention because I was parked part-way on the pavement. Why are they bringing this up?
- There is no formal recording of my vehicle's reason for removal as being on the pavement. Throughout all documentation they've given me, the reason for PCN and removal have been "01 - parked on a restricted street within prescribed hours".

In terms of their rebuttals on this page...
1) The sign cannot be clearly seen at all. I've provided photographs to show this (previous page of the thread) and have since driven into the CPZ via that junction and confirmed it from a driver's point of view. (I may even capture a video to show it.) Do you guys think MCC have a leg to stand on with this one?
2) This is also totally false. The TSRGD states they must have two signs because the road is 6m wide, and Vallance vs MCC 2011 confirmed it on this exact junction. Again, do they have any case at all here?
3) Blossom Street's entry junction is parallel with the one I used. One can still enter the CPZ and park where I parked without passing a CPZ sign if using Blossom Street, so therefore this contravenes the TSRGD again doesn't it? And MCC are blatantly in the wrong... Or am I just being stupid?
4) They've noted the Guidance I quoted and are correct that they are not obligated to comply with it, but failed to demonstrate their "Regard" to the guidance, which IS in the TMA section 87 and therefore a requirement of them. They have failed to address my point on this one, which I understand is of some consequence in this appeal process?
5) This is in reply to Bogsy's point about SYLs and CPZ signs. I know he/she's trying to incite a failure to address the point, but it looks to me like it hasn't worked on this occasion - unless anyone here thinks differently.




Page 3:


6) They state that the fee must be paid before the vehicle is released, but have failed to address my ACTUAL point that this is in conflict with the terms on the PCN which supposedly offers me 28 days in which to pay - yet I was made to pay "up front". Again, failure to correctly address the point made.


Finally, with the info I requested from them which they'll get to me "in due course" - is this a failure to respond adequately? Or are they within their rights to do that.



And finally, page 4:








So, those are my observations on the matter. Sounds to me like they believe they're being lawful with their signage - and I do not - but because I've no experience of this, I'm not confident enough to believe I'm right even though all evidence in the TSRGD and TMA suggests to me I am. At this stage I'm going to send my original appeal to the TPT, along with a more formally written version of my above observations as to their rejection notice.

However, any insight is appreciated again! Unless anything changes, I'll send my appeal at the end of next week to allow time for any replies to come in.


QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 13 Dec 2014 - 18:06) *
I've not posted anything I would regard as "specials". I offer legal arguments that in my opinion have some merit and provide a ground of appeal where no or little other ground is apparent. I would have crafted something tailored specifically for your circumstances had I known you was going to copy & paste from unrelated cases. The danger of copying & pasting en masse is that any legal argument may have since evolved as my CPZ & s.101 v s.102 arguments both have. Also, adjudicators are well aware of appeals that are lifted off the internet and tend to treat them with disdain.

Once we see the council's reply we can advise on how best to proceed.


My apologies then Bogsy, when I've been searching these and other forums they often get referred to as such, so it seems to be something I've misinterpreted there. I accept that using anything from this forum from any member is my own responsibility, if it's incorrect for the situation then it's my fault - didn't wish for it to appear otherwise!
Bogsy
QUOTE (cam28 @ Sat, 13 Dec 2014 - 18:15) *
My apologies then Bogsy, when I've been searching these and other forums they often get referred to as such, so it seems to be something I've misinterpreted there. I accept that using anything from this forum from any member is my own responsibility, if it's incorrect for the situation then it's my fault - didn't wish for it to appear otherwise!


No need to apologise you've done nothing wrong. I didn't mean to come across as being niggled. It was just concern. I'll read through their reply and see if I can assist but on first glance it seems that the signage issue remains the primary and strongest point.
DancingDad
Signage is definitely the strong point.
They may have conducted a site survey on the tenth but that does not account for your photos or prove that the signage was correctly in place when you drove past it.

Second point is still IMO whether or not they can remove in the fashion they did against their policy.
Bogsy
The rejection letter seems pro forma to me. I'd put them to the test and insist on seeing the site inspection of 10th December and in particular any photographs taken.

I'd ask for a copy of the confirmation that they refer to in point 2.

For point 3, if the CPZ area extends beyond 12 streets I can offer you a legal argument to put forward.

As for their point 4 they must have regard to guidance and demonstrate that they did if challenged on it.

As for point 5 they misunderstood. However, I don't think you need to include it.
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.