There does not appear to be any get out of jail free card here but the text below was once used and the appeal was accepted at adjudication because the council failed to give the appeal any proper consideration. They just issued a template rejection letter. The adjudicator did not consider the merit of the argument because he had no reason to having allowed the appeal. You can give it a go if you want. I’m informed that the double yellow line is to diagram 1018.1 TSRGD 2002 and indicates a prohibition of waiting at any time. It is clear from diagram 1018.1 and direction 22(1) TSRGD 2002 that “at any time” is a reference to the applicable hours only since the applicable days, weeks and months can be varied. The prohibition can be varied from a minimum of 4 consecutive months up to a maximum of 12 consecutive months. Considering this fact, a motorist needs to be adequately informed of those consecutive days, weeks and months when the prohibition is applicable. Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires a council to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of a traffic order. However, upon investigation I have learned that the council relies upon the deliberate absence of any adjacent traffic sign as a means to convey that the no waiting at any time prohibition applies on every day of the year. The council’s deliberate non-placing of a traffic sign to convey the effect of the traffic order is not only completely contrary to Regulation 18 but is also a display of disregard for the law. When I parked there was no traffic sign placed that adequately conveyed that the 24 hour waiting prohibition was applicable that particular day. Therefore, I consider the council to have failed in its statutory duty to comply with regulation 18 and I believe the penalty charge to be unfairly and unreasonably imposed.

I think I've got it now. It's nothing to do with the TSRGD 2002 since this concerns zig zags in relation to signal controlled pedestrian crossings. However, Schedule 3 The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows FPN's to be served where s.25(5) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is contravened. S.25(5) makes it an offence to contravene The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997. Thanks for the point in the right direction.

Are there any of the signs linked below within the zone? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_046

I suggest you ask the council to provide you with a copy (if there is one) of the Traffic Regulation Order that designates the location as a Restricted Parking Zone.

Out of interest what law is it that allows points to be given for parking on white zig zags adjacent to a zebra crossing? I thought it might be s.36 RTA 1988 and failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign but white zig zags to diagram 1001.3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_113 only prohibit stopping in the controlled area when they are placed adjacent to a "signal controlled crossing facility" (see Reg 27 TSRGD 2002) but this definition does not appear to include Zebra crossing controlled areas. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/4/made

The relevance is that the TPT Chief Adjudicator is confirming what is the "controlled area" This adjudication case concerned a Pelican crossing while this thread concerns a Zebra crossing but nonetheless the limits of the controlled area are the same. No part of the OP's vehicle appears to be within the controlled area and therefore it is reasonable to argue that the alleged contravention did not occur.

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/EI05119J_2_.pdf

If you've been parking in that location for a considerable time (a period of months rather than weeks) without ever being penalised or warned then mention this in your appeal and advise that you had formed a "legitimate expectation" that parking in the location (due to the poor condition of the lines) was acceptable and if the council had now considered it unacceptable then it would have been appropriate to at least give warning notices prior to the commencement of enforcement.

Having looked at the location via google street view it seems that the carriageway has been raised to meet the level of the footway, in which case the contravention on the PCN did not occur. The council should have issued a code 28 PCN which outside London is a lower level contravention. Most likely the council will play hard ball but you should win at adjudication if the council don't back down.

Quite correct, my mistake I read this but should have read further.

If there was no yellow "No Stopping" sign adjacent to the zig zags then you'll behome dry. If there was then you should ask the council for the traffic order that regulates the restriction to see what exemptions apply. As above, see the video and if stopping on the zig zags was less than a minute let us know.

It is left up to the discretion of each council. Many council car parks say in small print that oversized vehicles should purchase tickets for each bay they occupy or partly occupy.

I fully agree with you Jamberson and that is in my opinion why the right to retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid was never bestowed on civil enforcement authorities. At the end of the day the TMA 2004 inserted s.101A & s.102(2A) into the RTRA 1984 and therefore it is appropriate to establish what is their intended purpose? It is also pertinent to establish why do the 1986 Removal Regulations provide two opportunities for the owner to recover there vehicle? 14. Period during which owner may remove vehicle before it can be disposed of 16. Period during which owner may remove vehicle before it is disposed of The application of s.102(2A) fits perfectly with the TMA 2004 since it does not interfere with penalty charges & NtO's and their payment nor the appeal processes set by the TMA 2004. S.101A however, interrupts the whole civil enforcement process. But there is reason for this. S.101A is intended (though this is not its sole intention) for where a vehicle is recovered between when it can be lawfully disposed of and before it is disposed of. A vehicle can only be disposed of if it has the appearance of being abandoned. A vehicle may appear to be abandoned because it has no VRM or the DVLA has no valid keeper details, in such cases the vehicle cannot be subjected to the civil enforcement process because there is no one to send an NtO to.Therefore it is appropriate, should the owner ever materialise, to work to a different set of rules.

I must have missed the bit where you went over its short fallings. Jamberson says it is a robust argument and you say not, fair enough. It would have been good to hear other opinions. On the subject of short fallings here's one. Once a vehicle is removed all councils advise that you cannot appeal against the penalty charge unless you first pay it. Really? Let us say that a vehicle receives 5 penalty charges before finally being removed. The owner informs the council that the vehicle is of no value and he has no intention of claiming it from the pound or of paying the penalty charges or the removal, storage & disposal charges. Consequently the vehicle is disposed of but it only has a scrap value of £50. The council therefore is still owed 5 outstanding penalty charges and a considerable sum for the cost of removal, storage and disposal even after subtracting £50. How does the council recover these outstanding charges? Section 102(2A) RTRA 1984 empowers a council to recover from the person responsible any removal, storage and disposal charges and s.102(3) empowers a council to pursue the sum owed through the courts if need be. However, s.102(2A) does not empower a council to recover any outstanding penalty charges from the owner. So how can the council lawfully pursue the 5 outstanding penalty charges? The answer is that they must do so in the manner prescribed by the regulations made under the TMA 2004. There is no alternative, other than to write them off. Therefore the council must serve a Notice to Owner in respect of each outstanding penalty charge. What happens if you serve a Notice to Owner? The owner has a right to make formal representations that's what!! So the mantra that in regard to removed vehicles you must first pay the penalty charge before you can appeal is a false one (a short fall). This is just one of many discrepencies/inconsistencies in the current removal procedures. The biggest is the fact that once a PCN is served then civil enforcement pursuant to the TMA 2004 is completely discarded despite that the contravention stated on the PCN is a parking contravention subject to civil enforcement. Civil enforcement does not end with the service of a PCN, it begins with it.

Why would you challenge a PCN if the traffic signs in place give the contravention stated credibility? Most people would just pay up not knowing that in actual fact they did nothing unlawful due to a traffic order error.

Don't be blinkered. You find out who the registered keeper is, write to them to ask if they paid the PCN or know who did and if so to provide adequate proof and then you can refund the appropriate person. Where PCN's are paid online then the council has the card details to ensure the money is returned to whoever paid it. If a council has unwittinglyly obtained money under false pretences (which can be claimed where traffic signs are not backed by a traffic order) then a council should be seen to do the right thing. Not quite with Jamberson on this one simply because you need to be informed that you are owed money to go looking for it and a story in a local paper for example will not inform that many people let alone the right people.

Agree absolutely. The legislation that controls access to DVLA data is the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. Refunds would be a purpose connected to the role of enforcement authority so why dither unless it's to obtain money under false pretences. Disclosure of registration and licensing particulars 27.—(1) The Secretary of State may make any particularscontained in the register available for use— (a) (i) by a local authority for any purpose connectedwith the investigation of an offence, (ii) by a local authority in Scotland, for any purposeconnected with the investigation of a decriminalised parking contravention,or (iii) by a local authority in England and Wales, for anypurpose connected with its activities as an enforcement authority within the meaningof Part 6 of theTraffic Management Act 2004©; (b)by a chief officer of police; ©by a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; (d)by an officer of Customs and Excise in NorthernIreland; or (e)by any person who can show to the satisfaction of theSecretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars tobe made available to him.

No need to be facetious. You wanted to know about penalty charge debts that TEC had refused to register and there are hundreds if not thousands every day. If I recall correctly, if 3 records or more are incorrect then TEC reject the whole batch and a batch can contain hundreds of debt applications. The council will then either drop the matter or go through the batch and correct any errors so that they can re-submit the batch. If the truth be told, it is those that fail to register with DVLA or who give DVLA incorrect information that will never have to worry about paying a PCN or the likelihood of bailiffs calling. As usual it is the honest and diligent that are lambs to the slaughter.

You've quoted s.101A RTRA 1984. This section only applies once a council can legitimately consider a vehicle to have the appearance of being abandoned, meaning it can lawfully be disposed of, it does not apply before a vehicle can lawfully be disposed of. This is best demonstrated by reg 16 and 18 in the following link. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2367/contents/made s.101A is about giving the owner a final chance to recover their vehicle inbetween when it can be disposed of and before it is disposed of. It is also about giving the owner the right to claim the proceeds of sale should it be disposed of. If a vehicle is collected before it can lawfully be disposed of the charges under s.102(2A) RTRA1984 apply (you even pointed out the relevance s.102(2A) in your previous posts) and this does not include any outstanding penalty charge nor any right to retain. The TMA 2004 inserted sections 101A and s.102(2A) into the RTRA 1984. The question to ask is why and what purpose does each serve in relation to the TMA 2004. No where does the law say that once a vehicle is removed the rights conveyed on the PCN are invalid except the penalty aspect. Odd that the 14 day discount period is still recognised but no other right, where does the law permit a PCN to apply in part and that part being the penaltyand discount period? s.101A are charges to be paid by the owner while the charges under s.102(2A) are to be paid by the "person responsible" (this is wider than the owner). Two sections that enable charges to be applied and two periods where a vehicle can be recovered. Coincidence? I think not. In addition to all this we also have the absurdity that a PCN is issued for a parking contravention that is subject to civil enforcement pursuant to Part 6 TMA 2004 and yet apart from the penalty aspect the PCN served is treated as a nullity and no Notice to Owner is served nor anything that acts as a NtO. Where's the civil enforcement pursuant to Part 6 TMA 2004? Further absurdity is that PCN's themselves often state "Do Not Pay The Penalty Charge If You Want to Challenge It" and yet this is overlooked in removal cases. Paying a penalty charge is either admitting liability or it isn't. Where does it say that such a principle is flexible? The discrepencies stick out like a sore thumb unless you have a closed mind.

Jamberson, post number 45 in the link below is a quick and easy way to bypass reading anything time consuming. The underlined words in it are hyperlinks should you not know this already. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76538&st=30 The council's rejection letter demonstrates that councils are completely muddled in what law they are applying.

Actually TEC is quite strict when it comes to registering debt and if a council does not provide all the required information in the required formats then TEC will reject the application to register the debt. TEC turn down applications everyday for discrepencies in the paperwork/datafiles.

but only 2 are pursuant to the TMA 2004.

In what way does it authorise them to retain a vehicle until all sums are paid?

The appeal text below has had some success where a person is able to send a copy of the P&D ticket with the appeal. YOu can give it a go at the next stage if you think it appropriate Dear Sirs I would like to appeal the penalty charge served upon me. Enclosed is a copy of the Pay & Display ticket that I purchased and displayed for inspection. It can clearly be seen that I paid the appropriate fee and that the ticket was valid when the officer inspected my vehicle. Unfortunately, at some point during my absence from the vehicle, the ticket somehow became dislodged from where it had been clearly displayed and fell into the foot well. I accept that your officer could not have known this and acted accordingly. However, now that the ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear that I did not avoid payment of the parking fee or that I had parked beyond time paid for. The only purpose a ticket needs to be displayed is to enable an officer to distinguish between those that have paid for parking and those that have not and those who have exceeded the time paid for. The ticket produced clearly shows that had your officer seen my ticket at the time of inspection that there would be no need to serve a penalty charge notice. The only remaining issue is whether the fact that the ticket was not clearly displayed at the time of inspection warrants the council taking a hard line and upholding the penalty charge. I believe that for the council to take such a stance would be contrary to the advice of the DfT and the Secretary of State. Paragraph 85 from the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities advises; 85. An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the CPE process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest This statutory guidance is given legal authority by section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 whereby statute instructs that the council must have regard to this guidance. Any failure to have regard to this guidance is a procedural impropriety as defined by regulation 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007; 4(5) In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means afailure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on itby the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations inrelation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum andincludes in particular— As a valid ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear to any reasonable person that it would not be in the public interest to penalise a person who paid the required fee and did nothing to the detriment of the public interest. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation where paragraph 85 applies than this. I therefore politely request that the council act fairly and proportionately in this matter and exercise their discretion sensibly and reasonably by cancelling this penalty charge. It would be best for all if we can resolve this without the need to seek independent adjudication. Yours with love, hugs and kisses

I agree with your thinking Jamberson. Where a regulation 9 PCN is served then there is a right to make informal representations before an NtO is served. If these informal representations are rejected and you want to pursue the matter further then you must wait for the NtO and submit formal representations. These rights following a PCN being served by a CEO are the bedrock of civil enforcement under the TMA 2004 and the law insists that these rights are conveyed on every PCN. However, when a vehicle is removed the rights conveyed on the PCN are being wholly ignored despite that no where under the TMA 2004 does it advise that they can be ignored should a vehicle be removed. It must not be forgotten that the contravention alleged on any PCN is a parking contravention subject to civil enforcement. We all know that it is Part 6 TMA 2004 that regulates civil enforcement and yet other than imposing a penalty charge, no other feature of civil enforcement pursuant to Part 6 TMA 2004 is applied. This fact must surely indicate that something is amiss! The alleged right for civil enforcement authorities to retain until all sums are paid is another dubious claim. Indulge me for a moment and take a look at s.102 RTRA 1984 as it was before decriminalised parking commenced. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102/1991-02-25?timeline=true Note how under s.102(4) all local authorities are given the right to retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid. Now see s.102 RTRA 1984 as it was when decriminalised parking enforcement under the RTA 1991 commenced in July 1993 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102/1993-07-05?timeline=true Note that s.102(4) does not include subparagraph (d) that was newly inserted into s.102(2). Therefore it is only those councils that continue to enforce under the criminal system that have the right to retain until all sums are paid. Those councils that operate under the decriminalised system have never had the power to lawfully retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid but unfortunately these councils have just carried on with their former power.