Can anyone help? I stopped for a few minutes in Bromley High Street a few weeks ago to wait for my wife who had popped into a nearby shop (see attached CCTV images). There was no visible sign to suggest that there was no stopping, and there were several other cars dong the same – some with the drivers in or nearby; others that had parked. I remained in the car with the engine running for the 5-6 minutes it took for my wife to come back and then drove off.
I subsequently received a PCN (copy attached) referring to Code 45J, asserting that I had stopped in a taxi rank.
I made a representation, on the basis that I had pulled into the very beginning of what I thought was a lay-by and that there was no signage visible from my position (in the driver’s seat) to indicate that there was a taxi rank there and that I had only stopped while remaining in the car with the engine running. I also pointed out that I had since been back to have a look and could then see that there was a solitary sign about halfway down the lay-by but that it had been impossible to see that sign from where I had stopped.
My representation was rejected on the basis that ‘The bay in which your vehicle was parked is a share use loading bay/taxi rank. Goods vehicles may load/unload between the hours of 3am - 10am only. The taxi rank is in operation between 1Oam - Midnight and Midnight to 3am, during this time no waiting is permitted except taxis.’
Is there any basis on which I can appeal? There was a yellow line painted along the lay-by (see picture) leading me to think I could stop but not park, and the sign in question was too far away from where I had stopped to be visible to me. Moreover, it was mounted so high up on a lamp post that I might not have seen it even if I had been closer. As is evident from the attached picture there were three signs one above the other; the lower edge of the bottom one (with a picture of a camera) is 2.3 metres from the ground – the one mentioning the taxi rank must be almost three metres up.

Perhaps you might challenge the PCN on the grounds that the Council is not the enforcement authority thereby it cannot issue PCNs on this bay.

It looks like this is a TfL controlled bay according to:-


https://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/taxi-ranks.pdf.

Mick

With respect, are you sure you're looking at the same road? GSV shows nothing that indicates Red Route. Unfortunately the signs at the location are obscured by a TK Maxx HGV!

The TfL location is for 5 spaces and says "High Street, Bromley (TK Maxx)" The Council's letter and the photos suggest this is the place.

If there is another TK Maxx in High Street, Bromley I would agree the location needs further consideration.

Not sure whether red route is a red herring in this instance.

This is from Lexters thread :-

" I contacted TFL who informed me that the council do not have control over Taxi ranks and they were wrong to put a Ticket on my taxi regardless of what what I was doing."

That case, of course, related to a taxi, but I surmise that control of the bay is the same for other non-taxi parkers.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1052473

Mick

You seem to be confusing two issues, the Public Carriage office aka Tfl are responsible for taxi offences ie offences committed by taxis in breach of hackney carriage regulations, the local authority enforce traffic order regulations. Tfl cannot issue a penalty charge for any parking offence NOT on a red route.

Thanks for clearing that up C_K

Mick

I believe a Taxi Rank falls under the definition of a "parking place" and therefore the enforcement authority is defined under 1(2)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/8

Was it TfL or Bromley that designated/provided the parking place?

Hackney cabs (black cabs) cannot pick up whilst parked up in the street they can only be hailed if moving or picked up from a licenced taxi rank. Taxi ranks are appointed by Tfl and can be just a length of road no bay is required it is just a place authorised by Tfl for them to rest or ply for trade. Taxi only bays are the responsibility of the local authority who create the traffic order to ensure that the black cabs can use the rank it is the LA who enforce parking offences but in order to ply for trade from the bay it should be authorised by Tfl.

Thank you for this. However I am a bit confused as to what the consensus is and what this then means vis the PCN... I am new to this forum and am a bit confused as to what this means i should do!

PS. Looking at the TK Maxx website it does seem that there is only that one in Bromley

Maybe post up the PCN all pages for further advise

Here is the PCN. Anything there?

Also (re earlier discussion) what was the consensus - and what does that mean as far as the PCN goes?

Thank you!

Not really an expert, but think that maybe the PCN is defective in not giving the correct info on appeals others will say one way or the other


80Representations and appeals

(1)The Lord Chancellor may make provision by regulations entitling a person—
(a)who is or may be liable to pay a penalty charge, or
(b)who secures the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device on payment of an amount in accordance with regulations under section 79,to make representations to the enforcement authority and to appeal to an adjudicator if his representations are not accepted.
(2)The regulations may make such provision in connection with the rights conferred as appears to the Lord Chancellor to be appropriate, and may in particular make provision—
(a)requiring the authority to give a person notice of the rights conferred by the regulations,
(b)as to the grounds on which, and time within which, representations may be made,
©requiring supporting evidence in such circumstances as may be specified,
(d)as to the duties of the authority when representations are received,
(e)as to the circumstances in which there is a right of appeal to an adjudicator,
(f)generally as to the making, determination and effect of, and procedure in connection with, appeals, and
(g)enabling an adjudicator to review any decision made on, or in the course of, an appeal.
(3)The regulations may provide that, as respects a ground on which representations may be made, the adjudicator's function on an appeal is to decide whether to direct the enforcement authority to consider or re-consider (as the case may be) any representations relating to that ground.

For the avoidance of doubt, read the text for Regulation 10 PCNs -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made

It would probably have helped if the OP had posted ALL of the PCN not just 2 pages!

Can we get some time limits up front.

You have until the 29th to pay the discount and 5 April to register an appeal.

The next step is to either pay or appeal.

Were you stopped? Yes.
Was there a prohibition in place against this at that time? The authority claim there was. By implication a traffic order whose provisions were properly conveyed at the site by the use of specified signs and road markings. We don't know because the OP has not posted any of the authority's pictures, or if they have it's unclear that they are the authority's.

The OP's claim of not getting out of the car works against them, not for them. If a motorist stops in an area marked as being restricted, then their duty is to get out of their vehicle and establish the restriction.

Were you driving a taxi? No.

Have all pages of the PCN been posted? No.

Hi, I am the OP! I checked with Bromley Council and I have until 29th March to pay up at reduced rate, or I can appeal again.
So it seems to me that there are several avenues that have been explored here...

1) Suggested by MadMick - this is a TfL controlled bay thus the council cannot issue PCNs here. Some discussion ensued and I have some questions/clarifications to make:
a) Re location as questioned by Dastardlydick: yes there is only one TK Maxx in Bromley so the TfL-Appointed Taxi Rank document which MadMick cleverly found would seem to refer to this taxi rank
b) The debate seemed to hinge on whether it is a red route or not - what is the significance of red route in this case? Just to clarify, no it is not on a red route
b) Just to clarify what type of bay this was: the Notice of Rejection (rejecting my first appeal) said "The bay in which your vehicle was parked was a share use loading bay/taxi rank. Goods vehicles may load/unload between the hours of 3am-10am only. The taxi rank is in operation between the hours of 10am-midnight and midnight-3am, during this time no waiting is permitted except taxis."
c) Bogsy asks if it is TfL or Bromley that designated this 'parking place' - how does one find this out? He attaches a link but I can't figure out what it means. Can anyone decode it? And, whichever the the answer, how does it make a difference?
d) Clark-Kent (nice name!) - re what you said about TfL vs LA: can the LA issue a PCN to a non-taxi on a shared bay (as described above)?
>>> overall, lots of you very kindly offered your opinion on MadMick's genius idea, but I am afraid I am still really confused about whether this is viable or not. *PLEASE ADVISE!*

2) Suggested by PastMyBest: PCN is defective in not giving correct info on appeals Now my apologies here but as it is my first time posting here I had not realised the importance of keeping every single bit of correspondence and I had stupidly thrown away all the paperwork that did not relate specifically to my PCN! However I have asked the council so send me copies, am awaiting reply on whether they can do that or not. If so I will put them up.

3) Idea floated by hcandersen: Was there a prohibition in place against this at the time? (he goes on to say "The authority claim there was. By implication a traffic order whose provisions were properly conveyed at the site by the use of specified signs and road markings. We don't know because the OP has not posted any of the authority's pictures, or if they have it's unclear that they are the authority's.")
> At the very start of this post I put up the authority's PCN photos (taken by CCTV) and also two additional photos taken by me: one which shows the taxi rank's road markings and one which shows all the signs mounted high on a lamppost. Do these help in any way? Do the road markings look compliant for that kind of share use loading bay/taxi rank?

Plus some other avenues which have not been explored yet:

4) Is there any mileage in the fact that the sign is mounted so high up on the lampost? It may be the motorist's duty to get out & check signs but don't they also have a duty to make those signs easily visible? As I mentioned the sign was not easily visible as it was far from where I stopped (are there any rules about signage per stretch of road?) and also it was one of three mounted high up on a lampost. Are there any rules/guidelines on height of mounting? Or how many signs are supposed allowed one on top of the other, ie, clutter?

5) Is it ok that they used CCTV to issue this PCN?

I think clark kent's comments have answered the taxi rank enforcement agency point----so there is no joy there. But keeping on the taxi theme there is not a contravention 45J so we must examine further. The "J" relates to camera enforcement but this suffix is not used for taxi ranks according to the contravention code list.

So we must assume that camera enforcement will prove difficult because the taxi plate cannot be observed in the direction the OP's vehicle was facing. So that is probably why camera enforcement is not a given because whether or not the vehicle was a taxi cannot be proven.

Going back to my initial point I do not see TfL being happy that one of its authorised taxi ranks is subject to camera overview.

Second the PATAS Panel has given some updated guidance on the use of CCTV which places doubt on its use as opposed to a CEO patrol. In this case IMO the contravention can only be properly determined by a CEO and the use of CCTV is highly inappropriate.

Here's a recent PATAS case which embodies some of these points:-

Case Reference:2150015171
Appellant:Mr Wajahat Khan
Authority:Ealing
VRM:MC05ZTD
PCN:EA91549047
Contravention Date:08 Nov 2014
Contravention Time:18:07
Contravention Location:Alexandra Avenue Southall
Penalty Amount:£110.00
Contravention:Parked in a loading place or bay without loading
Decision Date:14 Feb 2015
Adjudicator:
Appeal Decision:Allowed
Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons:The Appellant attended the hearing in person. The Authority was not represented.

The Appellant made three points. First, he complained that the signage was inadequate. Having viewed the CCTV recording, I am not with the Appellant on this point.

Secondly, the Appellant submitted that there was insufficient warning on the deployment of traffic enforcement cameras. The Authority said, and I accept, that there are signs across the Borough so that motorists should be aware that camera enforcement occurs in the Borough. I accept the Authority's argument.

Thirdly, the Appellant said that a CEO should be used to patrol the area in stead of camera enforcement. The Authority's response is that because loading bays are restricted at all times and the level of compliance is low, the use of CEOs only reduces effectiveness of parking management.

The statutory requirement is to "have regard" to the Secretary of State's Guidance not to "comply with" it. This requirement was considered in R (on the application of X) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2013] EWHC 480 (Admin) and R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2006] 2AC 148. In the Tower Hamlets case, the Court was concerned with guidance relating to the Council's arrangements for foster parents and in Munjaz with guidance relating to mental health patients. In the light of these decisions it is clear that although the Guidance does not have the force of legislation it should normally be followed unless there is a cogent reason why not. It does not mean that the Guidance must be construed word by word as if it were a statute but must be read as whole and given a purposive interpretation.

The relevant part of the Guidance for my consideration is that camera enforcement should be used "[i]only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical".

The position was considered by a panel of Adjudicators in Miller and other v Transport for London and others (August 2014). The Panel found that the intention of the Guidance is clearly that camera enforcement should not be used routinely or willy-nilly, but only where there is a good reason for doing so, where there would be some problem in relying on CEOs alone. In the Panel's view "enforcement" in this context means effective enforcement, that is to say enforcement which achieves a high level of compliance (the quoted objective in the Operational Guidance being 100%).

The Panel was considering enforcement on a red route where the contravention occurs when a vehicle stops and noted that use of patrolling CEOs may not be a practical and effective means of preventing a vehicle from stopping and hence achieve a high level of compliance. It would be impracticable, bearing in mind resource constraints, to maintain the level of CEO presence necessary to ensure the free flow of traffic across the 400 or so miles of road in the red route system.

While the Authority cites the reason for camera enforcement as aiming to achieve effective enforcement, its argument is not on a par with red route cases. It goes without saying that the use of camera enforcement will increase the level of PCNs issued but, with the Secretary of State's Guidance in mind, this is not in itself a good reason for deploying cameras.

While the potential for contravention is reasonably high bearing in mind the restrictions are at all times, there is no evidence that the level of compliance is so high that the use of camera is necessary to address the problem.

The test is whether there is a cogent reason why the Secretary of State's preference for the use of CEO's only should be displaced. I do not find that the Authority has demonstrated that such a reason exists. There has been a procedural impropriety. I allow the appeal. [/i]

A yellow line was seen, but no attempt was made to look for the sign stating the restrictions. Then there is "leading me to think I could stop, but not park". Frankly the OP was there for 6 minutes as per the original post. At a location with a yellow line, (or double yellow as well) if a car is stationary then it is "Waiting", not parking. Parking takes place in car parks, and designated parking bays on-street.

A 6 minutes the time spend stationary was much more than just stopping. The sign is at the height commonly found for all such signs related to traffic restrictions. I'm not sure if board/alight applies here, but the time spend waiting means this exemption would be difficult to prove.

Sorry to have to say it, but the OP needs to "mug up" on what yellow lines mean, and the need, if a single yellow is there, to find out what is allowed.

I can't see an appeal to PATAS succeeding, I'm afraid. That is my opinion, others may differ, but it is certainly not clear cut and the OP must risk the full £130 to get a decision.

A Taxi Rank is usually conveyed by a road marking to diagram 1028.2 seen here..

You were not parked in a yellow 1028.2 bay. With the absence of a diagram 1028.2 bay marking it seems to me that you were not stopped in a Taxi Rank. You were parked on a section of single (or double) yellow line which conveys a no waiting prohibition (not a no stopping prohibition). Taxis are exempt from having to adhere to the no waiting prohibition but this does not make it an area of carriageway reserved specifically for Taxis since all vehicles can park on a no waiting prohibition to enable loading or unloading or boarding or alighting.


If it were me I'd argue that the alleged contravention did not occur as no diagram 1028.2 Taxi Rank is marked on the carriageway, no traffic sign conveyed a no stopping prohibition and the council has provided no evidence that the location is designated by order as a Taxi Rank rather than simply a no waiting prohibition with an exception for Taxis.

Can't read the traffic sign, but I think Bogsy is correct. This is not a taxi rank, it is a part-time parking place outside whose operational period there is a no waiting restriction for all vehicles except taxis. Therefore outside the times of operation of the parking place it is simply a length of highway with a waiting restriction and ALL the exemptions which apply to 'yellow lines' are in effect. Therefore any vehicle may stop there to load/unload/collect/deliver and to allow passengers to board or alight. In addition, a taxi may wait for all hours during ehich the waiting restriction applies. It is NOT a prohibition on stopping.

I'm 99% certain here, but I'd still like to see signs which are in focus.

Pl try and re-post with the wording visible.

If this is correct, then you're home and dry, except for the thrashing about of the authority, because the grounds of the contravention are incorrect, it's not a prohibition on stopping, it's a waiting restriction.

But we must see the sign and be able to read what it says.

OP, over to you.

Remember it is an authorised TfL Taxi rank as per:-

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/taxi-ranks.pdf.

I agree that signs and road markings have to be in place to denote it is such thereby justifying the contravention given.

Mick

Which is why need to see the signs in detail because from what we can see they do not indicate a taxi rank.

Signs, signs, signs.

The trouble is one looks on GSV, and there is a huge TKMax artic unloading in the bay and obscuring the sign we all need to see !

Over to the OP to find out.

Personal visit/authority's pictures.

OK, so here are some photos:
First photo shows the signage and I have written what the signs say because otherwise it is small to read. This pic also shows how high up the lampost these signs are placed - no one has commented on that... playing devil's advocate does that mean they could place them 4 metres high and it would still be our fault for not seeing the signs?
The second pic is an aerial shot, the red arrow shows where that lampost with the signs is.
The third pic is a closer shot of the road markings.
I have no idea if these photos will help at all but I sincerely hope so! Over to you guys now...

Hi Viking6

As i said i am not an expert. My post contains the text of reg 80 of TMA2004 the act the PCN appears to be served under.

I was asking for clarification on this as an argument to put to the LA. as much as suggesting a reason for appeal The lack of any comment on this leads me to believe that it is of no consequence.

I would suggest that the very good advise being given by others be taken into consideration.

The sign is clear and unequivocal, and not at any unusual height, certainly an appeal on a "too high" basis would fail at PATAS. Better to pay the discount IMHO. OP needs to understand better the meaning of single-yellow lines.

Of course, from 1st April they won't be able to use CCTV here as it doesn't come into the list of allowed places in the new regulations. This case best illustrates what Mr Pickles got cross about. There was no possible harm done by the OP being here for 6 minutes, yet was walloped for £65 for doing so.

extract from the new guidance of March 2015

Here is the definition of Taxi Rank

“taxi rank” means an area of carriageway reserved for use by taxis waiting to pick up passengers;

All depends on the traffic order.

Looking further into the signage it appears that the council are using a non permitted variant of diagram 639.1b

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_048

It is not permitted because the top sign is to diagram 650.1

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_052

Using a non permitted variant should not fall under substantial compliance because it's not the same as using a permitted sign which contains a minor error.

Furthermore, even if we ignore the diagram 639.1b element and just focus on it as a diagram 650.1 sign, direction 24(1) requires a 650.1 sign to be placed in conjunction with diagram 1028.2

24.—(1) Except where it is placed to indicate the effect of a temporary statutory provision and subject to paragraphs (2) and (5), a sign shown in a diagram specified in column (2) of an item in the Table shall not be placed except—
(a)on or near the side of a road; and
(b)in conjunction with, and on the same side of the road as, a road marking which is shown in a diagram and is in the form (if any) indicated in column (3) of that item.

(1) (2) (3)
Item Sign diagram number Road marking diagram number
11. 650.1 1028.2 when varied to include a continuous yellow line 200 or 300mm wide in the manner shown in diagram 1025.1

Diagram 1028.2 is the yellow taxi rank bay marking.

Looks like the council have used an unlawful set up.

What are the hours of operation of the taxi rank in the TfL sign?

IMO, I cannot see how a no stopping contravention, which is the one in the PCN, can be correct. A stopping prohibition in these circumstances must carry a broad yellow line, but this cannot double-up as a single yellow line at other times, it's simply not possible.


IMO, the combination of signs here should be seen from two perspectives. Firstly, the black cab driver who is the only one allowed to stop there during the hours of the TFL sign which must be the same as the no waiting sign. Secondly the general motorist who believes that being stationary at that location during the no waiting hours is permissible if they are unloading/alighting a passenger. IMO, these are irreconcilable and the contravention stated did not occur because the signs do not create this prohibition. If at all, the contravention was parked in a restricted street.

Good thing there are signs experts on here, because the alleged offence and the sign are incompatible. This should be a guaranteed win at PATAS, but things never seem certain with that august body.

TFL has numerous roles in London from running the tube to managing the main routes in and out of town. Taxi ranks are designated by TFL in the same way as they decide where bus routes and bus stops are placed. However in regards parking enforcement they only enforce on red routes, enforcement of Tfl taxi ranks and bus stops is down to the local council.