Only prescribed markings can be used ie TSRGD, NOTHING else can be painted on the road. The link I posted clearly states that a disabled bay may ONLY be painted if accompanied by the correct timeplate, nowhere in the regulations does it give an exemption just because they don't want to enforce it. The Council has a legal duty to maintain the highway and that includes ensuring any road markings comply with the law.

Traffic signs manual chapter 1 1.15 Authorities may only use signs– including carriageway markings–of a size, colour and type prescribed or specially authorised by the Secretary of State, The prescribed signs are included in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/19/paragraph/25/made The 1028.3 may only be placed on the highway in conjunction with the appropriate sign usually 661a

There is no such thing as a 'courtesy bay' there is no provision in the regulations for such road markings. Its either a 'disabled only bay' which is missing a time plate which the Council should rectify, or its an unlawfully painted bay which the Council has a legal obligation to remove. There are some advisory road markings such as 'keep clear' or the 'H' bars on drop kerbs but advisory disabled bays are unlawful.

If this was in London and the contravention was footway parking you will have to rely on Council goodwill to cancel the ticket as breaking down is not an exemption for footway parking as obviously you are unlikely to be driving on the footway when you break down.

If you are lucky the Council may even come along and put it in their nice pound to keep it safe and sound for you.

Just out of interest have you got the car back yet, if so how much did it cost?

Why are you filling out a witness statement? You said you contacted the Council and they cancelled the order for recovery and gave you a form to appeal to PATAS??

If its SORN its probably not even insured either way its still going to need a truck to recover it from the pound. I think rather than getting a nice pay day in damages from the Council this is going to end up leaving a big hole in the OPs pocket.

Edited

Its a bit reckless driving a car with a car cover over it, how could he see where he was going? Quit whilst you can, trying to justify this chancers behaviour is just making you look as daft as he is.

He should have gone to an army surplus store and got some camouflage netting then they might not have spotted it!

The vehicle was SORN so should not have been on the road anyway, it doesn't take a genius to work out what has happened here.

This is not a parking contravention

He 'broke down' and instead of paying to get the car recovered by a garage he purchased a car cover to try and conceal the vehicles identity, yeah that's really going to win an appeal! Get real he couldn't be bothered to buy a permit and mistakenly thought hiding it under a car cover would escape a penalty. The only realistic advice would be to pay up and learn from your mistake, dragging it out is only costing £50 a day which he will still be liable for if he never bothers to collect the car.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2008/3/section/9/enacted 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

You received the NTO for all the PCNs the information on those is the same as on the PCN its simply copied by a computer asking for a copy of the PCN is pointless the rest of the document would be the same for all Newham PCNs.

The London Local Authority acts tend to get amended as they get a new version, the one quoted on the paperwork is the one when the regulation got introduced 1996 for bus lanes, 2003 for moving traffic, there are others with minor changes such as the 2000 and 2008. The Traffic management Act also amended some of the regulations.

You just need to make it sound more professional, try adding the references to the traffic signs manual and prior PATAS cases for starters.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2000/7/schedule/2/enacted

Missing out on the reduced fee will not win at PATAS, nor will authorisation for the suspension. The ability to suspend the bay at any time lies in the current traffic orders they simply have to pop up a sign. You have been given the option to pay the full amount or go to PATAS, going to PATAS is a no brainer as the cost remains the same. Wasting time and possibly missing the appeal deadline writing a complaint to the chief exec because a letter got lost in the post is pointless. At the end of the day you told them you didn't get the letter so they gave you a second chance to appeal, which they did not have to do which is hardly grounds for complaint. I would just stick to the facts and go to PATAS with the original appeal that the sign was obscured.

Add in procedural impropriety as they have not actually addressed your appeal. All they have done is explained why the PCN was issued they have made no mention of the school sign or why they ignored govt. guidance on signage. Several cases have been won on the failure to consider recently its a strong point on its own but with the dodgy signage you have a good case.

There are no regulations that state how many PCNs can be issued, however you can only be held liable for a single charge for each contravention. If you have paid one charge then the grounds for cancellation would be the 'that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case'

From what I understand they have only enforced one PCN? If you are saying that only the 1st PCN issued can ever be enforced than that's clearly untrue and daft as the first may contain an error requiring a second to be issued. There are two issues here the annoyance that his vehicle was towed despite being parked causing an obstruction and his annoyance at the poor back office procedures resulting in NTOs that should never have been sent. It seems to me that he is trying to justify his complaint over the tow by moaning about the second issue which in reality is totally unconnected, along with completely unsubstantiated claims about meeting targets and removing PCNs. Maybe if he stuck to the facts then any complaint might be taken seriously rather than looking like a disgruntled driver throwing around malicious allegations. If you take away the incompetent back office fiasco, the situation on the day could have a perfectly reasonable explanation. The duty of the CEO on the truck is to check a PCN has been correctly issued before authorising its removal. It could be that the initial PCN had an error, wrong make, location etc so he issued a second which he also had an issue with and was meant to void and then finally issued the PCN which resulted in the tow. The tow could be the result of a complaint if the area really is off the beaten track as the OP claims its hardly going to be a prime hunting ground for 2 CEOs 'trying to meet targets'!

You are completely wasting your own and everyone else's time! You have no evidence whatsoever that the CEO took a PCN off your car yet at the same time want him/her disciplined, what do you expect an FOI to show a video of him/her removing the PCN? You parked somewhere where you caused an obstruction and your car was removed, the Councils admin procedures seem to leave a lot to be desired but at the end of the day that matter has been resolved and the other PCNs cancelled. The timing of the removal would suggest that the second CEO was the one assigned to the truck and therefore could have just removed the vehicle after checking the initial PCN if on the car, there would be no point issuing another.

The entire thread makes no sense, he is claiming that he got a PCN for being in a loading bay whilst loading?? He goes on to claim that an exemption exists to drop off or pick up a disabled passenger and the Council hid this fact from PATAS yet he claims he was loading and makes no mention of dropping off or picking up a disabled passenger? Surely if you are loading in a loading bay you are not contravening and that should have been the grounds for dismissal? The TMO must be supplied in the evidence pack given to both parties if not that should have been raised at PATAS. Maybe if help is required some facts that make sense would be a good start, the PATAS case number would be a good starting point!