Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Suspended Bay for BBC Filming
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
scarahj
I parked my car in my road, I have a permit. At the time of parking there were NO signs prohibiting parking, when I went to my car a day later I had a ticket for parking in a suspended bay.

The BBC had decided to film in my road and gave a days notice.

The signs were 2metres off the ground.


My appeal has been denied, what do I need to right to further my appeal as this was an unfair ticket
John U.K.
As usual, please post up the PCN (both sides)
Also post up a copy of your challenge to the Council and their reply..

Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.

Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.

Also a GSV link of the location, please.

Is this, by chance, the same location as in this thread?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1084991
PASTMYBEST
Post up the PCN redacted, your appeal and the council rejection. Redact personal details only leave in dates times and location.
A GSV would also be helpful
scarahj
Challenge Rejected - 17 Days Until Full Charge

Vehicle make: VOLKSWAGEN
Vehicle colour: RED

Contravention: Parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space
Location: ANN STREET
Issue Date: 10/06/2015
Time of first sight: 11:42
Time of Issue: 11:44
Destination of notice: Attached to Windscreen
Outstanding amount: £35.00






I do not have the tools to scan PCN the information is the same as already posted.

I can't pull the images off the site.

Is less than a day enough to cancel a ticket on the basis no signs were up at time of parking and then they ticket me and threaten me with towing me away!



12/06/2015 Dear Ms
Re :
Letter of Rejection of Challenge – Traffic Management Act 2004 - s78; Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007; Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
PCN No
Date Issued
Location of Contravention Vehicle Registration No Contravention
: WU03554270
: 10/06/2015 11:44:32
: ANN STREET
: OV51CYO
: Parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space
I have received your challenge regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and after careful consideration of the circumstances have found no grounds for the cancellation of the charge.
The reason for issue of the PCN, is as follows:
Your vehicle was parked in an area where parking had been suspended. Temporary signs were in place and the evidence of this is enclosed. Your reasons for parking there are not acceptable as grounds for cancellation.
I have carefully considered your circumstances outlined and mitigation and have also considered the exercise of our discretion in line with our policies and procedures. The reasons for your case falling outside of our cancellation policy are:
 Please be advised that the parking in the area in which your vehicle was observed had been suspended between 7am on 9/6/15 until 7pm on 12/6/15. Signs in the area stated no parking between the above dates and hours.
Notice Processing, PO Box 198 Lowton Way, Hellaby, Sheffield S98 1LU Telephone 01903 239999 and ask for Parking Services
 The obligation upon the Council is to mark and sign those restrictions it wishes to enforce. In turn the motorist must comply with such restrictions that are reasonably brought to their notice. Common sense dictates that someone can only comply with something of which they have been made aware or ought to have known of had a reasonable enquiry been made.
 When parking the motorist is obliged on each and every occasion to consult the signage and or road markings to ensure compliance with restrictions in place irrespective of familiarity or otherwise with restrictions normally/previously in operation at the location in issue or to that end experience with other facilities elsewhere.
 The Articles of our TRO Part III Paragraph 9.3 allow parking bays to be suspended by the placing of appropriate signs in or adjacent to the suspended parking place indicating vehicles are prohibited from waiting or stopping.
 The suspension log, provided by our contractors shows that 2 signs were erected on 8/6/15, 1 day before the suspension became live. Therefore the Council contends that the signs were in place a sufficient period of time for residents/visitors to be aware of the restrictions in place.
 In summary to your appeal, as the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking restrictions in place your appeal has not been successful on this occasion.
 If you would like further details on how the Council considers appeals please visit
http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/parking/pa...ts/managing-on- street-parking/ . Where full details can be found in the Penalty Charge Notice Case Manual and the Civil Parking Enforcement Policy Manual.
For payment you have the following options:
 Via an automated telephone line with a credit card on 0845 680 0189 and choose option 1 for Worthing & option 1 for payments
 By sending a postal order payable to Worthing Borough Council and send it to Notice Processing, PO Box 198, Lowton Way, Hellaby, Sheffield, S98 1LU.
 By paying in person with cash, cheque or debit/credit card at the Parking Shop at 52 Chapel Road, Worthing BN11 1BE
 Via the internet link on www.adur-worthing.gov.uk - ‘Pay a Parking Ticket’ The amount now payable is £35
Notice Processing, PO Box 198 Lowton Way, Hellaby, Sheffield S98 1LU Telephone 01903 239999 and ask for Parking Services

Please note that the discounted charge of £35 will no longer be available after 14 days from the service of this letter and the charge will return to the original £70 if payment is not made in time.
Please quote your PCN reference and your vehicle registration number.
If no payment is received after 28 days from the service of this letter, a Notice to Owner (NTO) will be sent to the owner / keeper of the vehicle as registered with the DVLA. Please note that this Notice will not be sent to the driver. If you are the driver but not the owner, and you still wish to make formal representations, you are advised to contact the owner who can respond to the Notice accordingly.
If this Council rejects the representations to the NTO, a Notice of Rejection will be sent with details of the appeal procedure. You cannot appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal until the NTO has been issued and formal representations rejected.
Yours sincerely
Siobhan Thomas Appeals Officer

In turn the motorist must comply with such restrictions that are reasonably brought to their notice.

This is what I want to appeal on, how it 24 hours at 2m high sign 'reasonable'


scarahj
IS this enough information for you to be able to suggest help?
Mad Mick V
Did you take a photo of the sign or can you get one from the Council's website for your case?

Mick
Incandescent
Essentially you say there were no signs a day before, they say there were. The only way you'll get a decision either way is to take them to adjudication. If this is a London PCN that is PATAS, and you'll have to wait for the Notice to Owner, (NtO), appeal again, probably get rejected, then register your appeal at PATAS. They are legally obliged to tell you how to do this if they reject an appeal against a NtO. You lose the discount option if you do this, but the only sum at risk after that is the PCN penalty and no more.
Looking at your transcription of the rejection, they are being disingenuous in not stating when those suspension signs were put up. They have a legal duty to put up signs well in advance of the suspension start date, so there should have been signs when you parked-up. They will have an audit trail of the suspension request from the BBC and if you get to PATAS they'll have to produce it, they can't just bluff their way.

If you have no scanner, take a photo using your mobile phone and post that using the instructions on the forum; most people seem to manage it.

No GSV reference ?? Where is Ann Street ?
Mr Mustard
The Traffic Regulation Order needs to be checked to see the reasons for which parking can be suspended and whether it includes for filming.

If you have a permit and can leave you car there unused for weeks on end then a 1 day notice period is plainly inadequate, you could easily be away on holiday or working away or sick or anything. You don't have to go and look at your car every day.
bama
pics of the signs would help.
IF its a non-residents bay there is no duty to check suspensions according to the Judicial Review of Humphreys
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 713 (Admin) CO/1069/2014
DancingDad
QUOTE
The obligation upon the Council is to mark and sign those restrictions it wishes to enforce. In turn the motorist must comply with such restrictions that are reasonably brought to their notice. Common sense dictates that someone can only comply with something of which they have been made aware or ought to have known of had a reasonable enquiry been made.


They accept that signs must be reasonably placed. Including time if we read further where they say that they believed that you had reasonable time.
I note they do not say what time the signs were erected on the day, I suspect because this was well after you parked on that day.
An adjudicator would not, IMO, find it an unreasonable rejection had your car been left unchecked for two or three days but is a few hours unreasonable?
After all, many people park cars overnight and never check until they go out to work. There is no reason for a permit holder who parked, checked signs as they must, to rush out at hourly intervals "just in case"
And every expectation that having lawfully parked they would remain that way for a day at least.

The case Bama highlighted is useful even if a permit is in play. In that case it would depend solely on permit T&Cs and what they say about checking signs when parked (As opposed to when parking)

It would not be beyond the council's remit IMO, if when they places short notice suspension signs with lawfully parked vehicles displaying permits in the firing line, to do the right thing and phone the permit holders, asking them to move the vehicle. After all, permit holders are paying healthy chunks of money into council coffers for the privilege of reserved parking. It's called customer service.
Incandescent
+1

But we still don't know where this took place or what council. Clearly you did see the signs when you went to your car, and they were 2 metres above the road. This is about right, I can't see a complaint here, in fact many people complain they are too low and were obscured by vehicles.

So, further advice needs more from you.
hcandersen
DD, interesting case law which I recommend spaceman reads in respect of the absolute need under the act and common law for a 'decision maker' to make clear their reasons for reaching their decision. This decision also makes clear the point that a litigant cannot claim costs for loss of earnings in pursuing their own case.

I do not read into this decision anything of use to the OP in this thread as regards signs. The judge did not agree with the authority's view that a motorist is not expected to check on signs when they park, she observed the contradiction in the authority's position in that they acknowledged this first and then acted contrary to their understanding. In as much as the judge referred to this issue, IMO this was in respect of a motorist's responsibility after the event, but this did not extend to a view that if the restriction is altered after parking this automatically exempts the motorist. The review was of the adjudicator's (decision maker, DM) decision, not the authority's, although part of the judge's decision was based on the DM not taking into account all the issues which arose from the authority's decision and evidence.
DancingDad
Take your point HCA
And this case seems similar.
The Authority (Sheffield BTW for Incandescent) acknowledge that there must be a reasonable time allowed for motorists to check signs that may have changed the restrictions "after the event"
But deny that they are being unreasonable in rejecting as they believe sufficient time had passed.

This to me is the crux of the actual contravention.
When, exactly was the suspension signed? Not just date but time?
Is time between then and PCN service reasonable to expect a permit holder to check?
What, if anything does the permit T&Cs say about checking parking for suspensions?
What is council's policy towards "emergency" (stretching for a film spot) suspensions?
What is council's policy that defines notice that should be given for suspensions?
What does the traffic order say in terms of notice, short notice and emergency suspensions?

It all comes down to what is reasonable to enforce and what isn't.
And possibly what is unlawful. ie, is filming a good enough reason to suspend a parking bay with little notice.
Mad Mick V
Going back to Mr Mustard's critical point regarding the scope the Council has to suspend parking places---- it appears as if the Order doesn't extend to filming activity unless there is a catch-all phrase.

I believe the principal Order to be WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WORTHING) (PARKING PLACES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION)(CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2007.

http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/files/WU02.pdf

That Order indicates:-

9.1 Any person duly authorised by the issuing authority may suspend the use of any part of a parking place
whenever he considers such suspension is necessary;-
(a) for facilitating the movement of traffic or promoting its safety, or
(b) for facilitating any building operation, demolition or excavation in or adjacent to any part or the whole of a
parking place, or
© for maintaining, improving or reconstructing any part or the whole of a parking place or any part of the
adjacent highway, or
(d) for laying, erecting, altering, removing or repairing any sewer pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas,
water, electricity or telecommunications, or
(e) for placing maintenance or removal of any traffic sign in or adjacent to a parking place, or
(f) for the convenience of occupiers of premises adjacent to a parking place to facilitate the removal or
delivery of furniture from or to those premises, or
(g) for the convenience of occupiers of premises adjacent to a parking place on the occasion of weddings or
funerals or on other special occasions, or
(h) if due to a public procession, rejoicing or illumination or when the streets are thronged or liable to be
obstructed.

Mick
DancingDad
I assume (g) would be the catchall, special occasions.
But certainly worth asking council to state which part of which Traffic Order that they rely on to suspend parking places at short notice.
kommando
But (g) is also specific that it relates only to occupiers, so unless the BBC have premises on the road then no permission should have been granted.
bama
BBC filming is not a special occasion
scarahj
I have been trying to drag/cut and paste/copy all the images for ages and no joy. I don't have the software mentioned to get images over

Any other options? FB perhaps?







scarahj
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 17 Jun 2015 - 10:05) *
+1

But we still don't know where this took place or what council. Clearly you did see the signs when you went to your car, and they were 2 metres above the road. This is about right, I can't see a complaint here, in fact many people complain they are too low and were obscured by vehicles.

So, further advice needs more from you.



I looked for the signs straight after seeing the ticket and hand written note on my windscreen.

This took place in Worthing West Sussex
this road is a parking zone and I am a permit holder and I had parked fully in a bay to be clear and in my zone and at the time of parking, no signs up.

I already pay to even be able to park in my street and I can not see that it is legal to uphold a ticket when I was clear on that in my letter to contest this PCN
Mr Mustard
Call me pedantic (true!) but if parking is suspended why are BBC vehicles allowed to park? Surely parking has merely been especially reserved which the TMO does not allow for? (All depends what an adjudicator thinks of the person sitting in front of him/her as to whether they accept or scoff at that argument)
Mad Mick V
From the DfT website it appears as if the only suspension sign authorised for West Sussex is for Horsham ergo this is an illegal sign. Suggest the OP use my post 2 in this thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...amp;hl=Worthing

The suspension sign used is NOT of the type authorised by the Department for Transport (DfT) or by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act (TSRGD). Therefore the sign used is unauthorised and thus illegal, meaning that the contravention did not occur.

The Campbell V Camden case (PATAS 2090523567) established there was no prescribed sign under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act (TSRGD) for a parking suspension and that local authorities should have their signs approved by the DfT.
The lack of a prescribed sign is unequivocally stated and the Council's subsequent duties made clear at paragraph 7.53 of the DfT's Traffic Sign Manual Chapter 3:-

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

The enabling legislation (Sections 64 & 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) notes an obligation that the Council must seek approval from the DfT for its suspension sign.


Mick
DancingDad
I'm quite surprised on timing having seen the signs.
Placed on 8th, suspension starts on 9th, PCN served on 10th.

In many places PCN would have been within first hour of suspension and vehicle removed or relocated soon after.

Does not change any of the arguments against just surprised.
scarahj
I have sent another email and will post the reply on here.
scarahj
Waiting for my NTO but am determined to defend this ticket it can't be upheld
hcandersen
Just a postscript to Campbell, IMO the key issue was that the authority's order required the placing of traffic signs which in that case had been defined in the order as those specified or authorised under s64 of the RTRA.. and there weren't any.

It is a moot point what the adjudicator might have determined had the order not been so prescriptive.

scarahj

Dear Sarah,

DATE: 08 July 2015
Thank you for your email of 12 June about a temporary parking suspension sign at a location in Worthing. This has been passed to me for reply.
I regret the Department for Transport (DfT) does not hold this information as this is a local authority matter. I therefore suggest you contact your local authority accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Colmans

Got this in today to my advised response from Mad Mic V.
It appears from the letter that this will not be enough to quash the ticket.
DancingDad
If the DFT do not hold information on Authorisation, it ain't authorised.
Mr Mustard
This is the email address for checking up on Secretary of State Authorisations

TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk
hcandersen
Presumably because of 9(4).

Interestingly, 9(4) also allows anyone whether approved by the council or not to park in a suspended parking place providing they satisfy the criteria in 9(1). As I understand it, they do NOT have to be the persons on whose behalf the parking place was suspended.

If I were an armchair anarchist, I could wreak havoc, but I'm not, but it's tempting especially as I have relatives in Worthing.
scarahj
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 8 Jul 2015 - 22:08) *
Presumably because of 9(4).

Interestingly, 9(4) also allows anyone whether approved by the council or not to park in a suspended parking place providing they satisfy the criteria in 9(1). As I understand it, they do NOT have to be the persons on whose behalf the parking place was suspended.

If I were an armchair anarchist, I could wreak havoc, but I'm not, but it's tempting especially as I have relatives in Worthing.




If you feel yourself being tempted any and all assistance would be very much appreciated.



Thank you to all who have responded, it a breath of fresh air to have constructive and legally insightful replies from a website.
I will persevere and if justice prevails it should be a successful outcome.
Bogsy
Filming on the public highway and the associated parking requirements is usally done via a temporary traffic order made under s.16A RTRA 1984

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/16A

If the council have suspended parking places using powers under s.49(4) RTRA 1984

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/49

then I suggest any appeal includes the text below.

It is alleged that my vehicle was parked in a suspended parking place. However, the council has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the specific length of road occupied by my vehicle is by order, a designated parking place. I submit that unless the council can prove to the contrary and guide me to the relevant order, my vehicle was not parked in a parking place, be it suspended or otherwise.

If there is an order, then the Council’s power to suspend the parking place is pursuant to the direction under s.49(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act, the authority by whom a parking place is designated under section 45 of this Act may by order empower the local authority........to suspend the use of the parking place or any part of it on such occasions or in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the order

I submit that the reason for suspending the use of the parking place was not in accordance with any occasion or circumstance as determined by or under the order and unless the council is able to prove to the contrary, the penalty charge should be cancelled since the suspension had no legitimacy.
scarahj
Today I received the NTO
I want to be sure that I am ticking the right box, is it best to tick

The alleged contravention did not apply

There has been procedural impropriety

The order in Invalid

or Other Grounds??


TO recap I parked legally in my road I have a permit for, the signs were put up after I had parked and upon my next use of my car I had been served a PCN due to tv filming crew, pictures added and letter of rejection in the above thread

I need to be sure I approach this to quash this.

Mad Mick V
The illegality of the sign must feature in your appeal together with Bogsy's last post.

The TRO they quoted in their rejection indicates that a "traffic sign" means a sign of any size colour and type prescribed or authorised under or having effect as though prescribed or authorised under section 64 of the Act;"

"having effect as though prescribed or authorised" will not be a get out for them neither will describing a sign as a "notice" as they did in a previous case.

Here's a quick draft ------chop and change it about if you wish.

APPEAL TO THE TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL

The Charge

Contravention Code 21: Parked in a suspended bay or space.

The Appeal


1. The suspension sign does not comply with the TSRGD or a Secretary of State's Authorisation

The suspension sign used is NOT of the type authorised by the Department for Transport (DfT) or by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act (TSRGD). Therefore the sign used is unauthorised and thus illegal, meaning that the contravention did not occur.

The Campbell V Camden case (PATAS 2090523567) established there was no prescribed sign under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act (TSRGD) for a parking suspension and that local authorities should have their signs approved by the DfT.
The lack of a prescribed sign is unequivocally stated and the Council's subsequent duties made clear at paragraph 7.53 of the DfT's Traffic Sign Manual Chapter 3:-

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

The enabling legislation (Sections 64 & 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) notes an obligation that the Council must seek approval from the DfT for its suspension sign.

The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions dated 28 February 2008 states (paragraph 32):-
” A parking contravention is often a breach of a provision of a TRO,
which must have been made under the correct section
of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA).
Flawed orders may be unenforceable, and can damage both
the aims of CPE and the public perception of how it is managed”

The above clearly states that Local Authorities must have made their Traffic Orders under the correct section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

In the case of Worthing Council its TRO defines a traffic sign as:- "traffic sign" means a sign of any size colour and type prescribed or authorised under or having effect as though prescribed or authorised under section 64 of the Act;"

Clearly this does not legitimise the suspension sign used for the reasons given above and thereby the Order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned is invalid.

This is also justified by TSM Chapter 3, which advises;

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

The Council was obliged to follow the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In particular Sch 9 paras 21 and 22 which relate to the Secretary of States regulations and which state 22(e) “requiring the authority by whom any such order is made to place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic signs in connection with that order as may be so provided for”.

“Provided for” I contend relates both to the Traffic Signs and General Directions Act and to the Secretary of State’s authority to provide signs under Section 65 of the RTRA.

A sign which has not been “provided for” or which is unauthorised is illegal and I direct the Council to the following paragraph obtained from the DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1.

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


2. De Minimis / Substantial Compliance

This issue is commonly considered in respect of signage which is alleged defective or illegal. By erecting signs which do not satisfy the norm Councils often attempt to justify them by arguing substantial compliance. In this case there is overwhelming evidence that the suspension signage is illegal and thereby cannot be substantially compliant.

The important decision of the Court of Appeal in R v The Parking Adjudicator and Sunderland City Council on the application of Herron [2010]EWHC 1161(Admin) is obviously critical in the parties consideration of this case.

In that case the Court said "If by properly signed (the Adjudicator) meant that the sign had to be in substantial compliance with the statutory specification and not such as to mislead or fail to inform the motorist I would agree with him".

The key words being “compliance with the statutory specification”. In this respect the statutory specification is enabled by Section 65 of RTRA and evidenced by a sign duly authorised by the DfT under that legislation. The sign used in this case could not therefore comply with the statutory specification because it was not approved under statute.

Given that substantial compliance cannot apply in these circumstances the following precedent applies:-

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145

"Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind."

Therefore the sign used is not prescribed by statute and no contravention occurred.

2.The Issue of Notice or Sign.

In previous suspension sign cases the Council has argued that what was erected was a notice not a sign. Whilst it has noted in its initial response to my representations that it had authority under 9.3 of its Traffic Order restricting traffic could fall under different legislation. Therefore I would remind the Council that this also requires legal signage as follows:-

The Council has the authority to issue notices under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 to restrict traffic on a road including the waiting of vehicles and loading/unloading.

However any signage used has to comply with Sect 4.1 of the RTRA 1984 as follows:-

4 Provisions supplementary to ss. 2 and 3.

(1) A traffic regulation order may make provision for identifying any part of any road to which, or any time at which or period during which, any provision contained in the order is for the time being to apply by means of a traffic sign of a type or character specified in the order (being a type prescribed or character authorised under section 64 of this Act) and for the time being lawfully in place; and for the purposes of any such order so made any such traffic sign placed on and near a road shall be deemed to be lawfully in place unless the contrary is proved.

Which means:-

64 General provisions as to traffic signs.

(1) In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—

(a) specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or

(b) authorised by the Secretary of State,

Therefore, as the Council has erected a sign, it must be authorised or evident within the Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions legislation. For the reasons given above the sign used was not authorised and therefore enforcement cannot occur with an illegal sign.

Mick



RK0000
My advice is to find out what programme was being filmed by the BBC. As a resident of the street, you would normally receive a letter from the location manager of the project informing you of the filming, check that hasn't inadvertently ended up in your junk mail pile. On the letter will be the location manager's (or sometimes unit manager's or production manager's) contact details. If you can't find a residents letter, check with neighbours to see if they received one. If nobody did, that's either slack location management or a location manager who is literally at his or her wits' end on the production.

If no residents letter, not to worry. Simply get in touch with the local authority - their page on filming is here http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/pr-enquiries/ - phone and ask for the council's filming liaison person, ask what the programme was and who was the location manager. Get the number of the location manager, phone them and explain the situation. Tell them the last minute nature of the notice period meant you inadvertently got a ticket. Explain it reflects badly on the BBC that they should ride rough shod over residents, explain you're always really supportive of filming in the town (they love to hear that) and you wouldn't want to see it jeopardised by incidents such as this. Explain that given the short notice period it is only fair that they reimburse you for the cost of the pcn, or seek to get it cancelled on your behalf.

There are further things you can do to escalate matters if this fails, but you probably won't need to go that far.

Alas film productions do get requests for money quite a lot so be prepared to meet some early resistance to your claim - the best one I ever heard was a shoot where a location owner said "your art department have tidied my kitchen and they've binned my lottery ticket. The numbers came up last night so you owe me £20k"!! I think it took quite a lot of effort to get the guy to admit he was kidding. So, be prepared to email the location manager a copy of your pcn as proof.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if they didn't either send you the dough to pay it, or contact parking services themselves in an effort to get the pcn cancelled.

I know all of the above because I've worked in the film industry in the department that has to organise parking dispensations for filming vans etc. Sometimes I've had to organise the clearance of entire streets in order to film scenes set, say, in the 1960's. Depriving residents of the place where they normally park can be extremely difficult and not something I've ever taken lightly - the first port of call is to find a location which doesn't need any car clearance (eg up a drive or off the beaten track), but sometimes it simply has to be done if there are no suitable locations elsewhere. And if the script says "Exterior Terraced Street 1984" then somewhere in the shoot I know there'll be a lot of neighbourhood liaison...

Over the years I've had some interesting things happen, such as when filming in a London borough being offered the spaces on an entire square of residents parking bays when we only needed two sides. Conversation went something like...

Authority - you may as well have the whole square
Me - um, I'm pretty sure two sides will be plenty
Authority - oh go on, you may as well have them, better safe than sorry, it's not much more expensive to have the lot
Me - well, I suppose if they change the shots (camera positions) I'll be covered

The suspensions kicked in at 0800 on the shoot day, we did only need half the square. At around 0805, three traffic wardens on mopeds descended and merrily started ticketing parked residents cars on the opposite side of the square. I leapt in and stopped them before it turned into a PR disaster - we didn't need those bays, we were happy with what we had. It hadn't occurred to me they'd use the excuse to start ticketing everyone (I was young, and green). They'd already issued 5 tickets - I had one resident come out of his house very much kicking off... until I said I'd pay the ticket for him. And I did, and the other four too. Those car owners to this day don't even know they'd been pcn'd due to my stupidity in accepting more bays than I needed. After that I was much more careful.


**Edit** - obviously none of the above deals with the important procedural details already discussed in this thread. I offer it simply as a means to avoid the cost of the pcn, and I understand it is not a particularly elegant solution, especially in the light of all of the other excellent advice you've already been given here.
DancingDad
Interesting insight from RK0000
Many thanks for sharing and as said, an alternative option that IMO is well worth exploring.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 6 Aug 2015 - 10:22) *
Interesting insight from RK0000
Many thanks for sharing and as said, an alternative option that IMO is well worth exploring.


Indeed very interesting and i also think most useful. But should it not be a condition of the film companies contract with the council that they compensate any legitimate permit holder , who has no doubt already paid for the permit, rather than the council seeing it as a profit opportunity from all angles
scarahj

RECEIVED THIS RESPONSE THIS MORNING YAAAAAYYYY THANK YOU TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED, I HAVE A WIN!!!
I have attached the email as sent to me in the hope that anyone else reading it can take from it what they need. Amazing news, thank you thank you all.

I write further to your representations in relation to the above numbered Penalty Charge Notice.
I am pleased to inform you that I have on this occasion decided to exercise the use of my discretion and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
I can confirm our suspension notices are not required to be authorised by the Department for Transport, our suspensions are notices and not traffic signs.
I can also confirm that the Articles under our Traffic Regulation Orders do not specify when suspension notices have to be put out.
In relation to the Adjudication cases by PATAS these are not binding and do not set precedence on other Local Authorities.
I can also confirm that the Articles of the Order allow for parking bays to be suspended for filming this can be covered under Article provision 9.1(a), (g) or (h).
Parking Services, Worthing Borough Council, Portland House, 44 Richmond Road, Worthing BN11 1HS
Tel: 01903 239999 and ask for Parking Services
I can confirm your case does not fall under he De Minimis principle and Davis v Heatley is irrelevant to Civil Parking Enforcement.
I can also confirm our suspension notices have been upheld as adequate by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
The Penalty Charge Notice issued in connection with the contravention has now been cancelled.
Please note that a PCN is only cancelled on the first occasion of this contravention. Failure to park correctly and comply with a suspension notice in the future could lead to a further PCN being issued, which may not be cancelled under our Procedures.
Yours sincerely,
Jason Passfield Principal Parking Officer
nosferatu1001
A good result, but a pretty crap response.
hcandersen
He's an a**e, and an arrogant one to boot ... ' my discretion'!

So they rely on article 9(1), for the moment let's not worry about which sub-para.

Has the eeejit bothered to read 9(2) which provides:

Any person suspending the use of any part or the whole of a parking place in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 7.2, 9.1 or 9.2 above shall place or cause to be placed in or adjacent to any part of that parking place a traffic sign indicating that vehicles are prohibited from waiting or stopping.

Notice, my *********.
DancingDad
An interesting take on traffic signs.
These are notices !!!!!!!!!!

In which case the pillock ought to realise that they cannot use notices to enforce.
Mad Mick V
For the purpose of anyone reading this thread in the future it is necessary to comment further. As hca and DD have remarked the Council has little understanding of the submissions made by the OP.

The Council confuses the way in which a road closure (which requires a notice i.e. a TTRO) and a parking suspension operate. That is why they make the comment about the Davis case and it's relevance to the civil enforcement of parking (as if we were not dealing with such a case!).

Both road closures and parking suspensions require traffic signs that comply with Sect 64 of the RTRA 1984 and this is the common ground since the Council has erected a sign which doesn't comply.

If the Council were to tie the notice i.e the TTRO on a lamp post this wouldn't comply in my opinion because it is not a traffic sign. It would have to be used in conjunction with a Sect 64 approved sign.

If the Council believes that a road closure notice is all that is required it is sadly mistaken.

Mick
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.