Thread: Scooter PCN from Islington - can they remove the cover?

I wonder if you can help.

Can a CEO/PA remove the cover of my scooter in order to issue a pcn?
In this case, there was damage to the cover caused by that removal.

thanks

Mark

I cannot help you with English law, but in Scotland it has always been that if the VRM is under a cover, the PA cannot remove or otherwise interfere with it in order to ascertain the mark. However, as you have discovered once they have this and you are 'in the system' it is you that has to do all the running. Take all the relevant pictures of the bike in position with the cover in place for use in a possible appeal.

I am 99% sure that in England, they can lift a cover. Not remove it as such, just lift it to access the vehicle. I think normal practice is for the parking attendant to call for a senior PA to attend, to help cover their backs. They normally take photos too, before and after - but this isn't a legal requirement.

What if they damaged the cover? You'd have the right to sue, if you could prove they did it. It's not likely though.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was a requirement that your VRM and VED must be clearly on display whilst the vehicle is on a public road. ego, if you believe they should not lift your cover to see the VRM, then it follows you are already committing an offence by "hiding" the plate.

Obscured registration marks
(1) An authorised officer of a London Authority or a parking attendant acting in the course of his duties as such may remove anything which obscures a registration mark or any part of a registration mark fixed on a vehicle.
(2) None of the persons mentioned in subsection (3) below is to have any liability to any other person for damages or otherwise (whether at common law or otherwise) arising out of anything done or omitted to be done in the exercise or purported exercise of the power under subsection (1) above.
(3) Those persons are a borough council, Transport for London, any employee of a borough council or Transport for London, and any authorised officer, parking attendant or person by whom a parking attendant is employed.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not apply—
(a) if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith;
(b) to liability arising out of a failure to exercise due care and attention;
(c) so as to prevent an award of damages made in respect of an act or omission on the ground that the act or omission was unlawful by virtue of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).
(5) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to any other exemption from liability (whether at common law or otherwise).
(6) Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) In this section—

• “authorised officer”, in relation to a London authority, means—
  (a)
  any employee of that authority;
  
  (b)
  any person by whom, in pursuance of arrangements made with the authority, any functions under this section fall to be discharged; or
  
  (c)
  any employee of any such person,
  
  
  
  who is authorised in writing by the authority to act in relation to this section;
• “parking attendant” has the same meaning as in section 82(1) of the 1991 Act;
• “registration mark” means a registration mark assigned to a vehicle by the Secretary of State under section 23 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).

Thanks for all your replies. That appears to be pretty conclusive!