Towed from a single yellow at 9pm... Advice muchly appreciated!!

[larold]

Hello folks,

 

Stumbled upon this site searching google and it seems like a good source of knowledge and wisdom on such matters. So here goes...

 

The offence was in Reading Lane, Hackney according to the PCN from 21:34 - 21:36. I came back at around 11 to discover the car gone. I was parked on a single yellow line on a quiet side street. There are residents bays adjacent that cover up to 11pm, I had just assumed that I would be ok on a single yellow. There are no signs at all in relation to the parking restrictions, the only sign at all is one small one that reads "no loading" and refers to a strip of double yellow lines that starts near to where I was parked.

 

What makes it even more ludicrous is that the pound is literally half a mile down the road. And the release fee was £265. Actually unbelievable. If anyone has any advice on how to approach this I would really appreciate it, I've had good success with standard PCN's but I'm assuming it's a hell of a lot harder to get your money back off them.

 

It's obvious profiteering, the fine is in no way in line with the severity of the offence, and I'm sure there must be something I can do about this!

 

Thanks!

 

Laurence.

[seanamarts]

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

Someone, im sure, will be along very soon to give you advice.

[crem]

There are several things that will need considering on this for which there are a good few experts on this field on CAG. I am not one of them unfortunately so you will have to be patient till they browse through

 

For example, a SYL normally requires a time plate to say when it is in operation, but if it is in a CPZ then it doesn't need one. London uses lots of these I gather and someone like green&mean is very good on these.

 

Then also, I would guess the release fee included the PCN for the offence in the first place. As this curtails your right to challenge the PCN prior to paying, this could be maladministration and I think the bogsdollocks has some good stuff on this.

 

Beyond that, perhaps there are errors on the actual PCN and a number of CAGgers can help check for these.

[larold]

Much appreciated chaps, sounds like exactly the sort of stuff I need...

[green_and_mean]

That area of Hackney is in a 23.00hrs CPZ which is notorious for towing away, you have paid so have nothing to lose by writing an appeal the likely reasons would be a missing CPZ entry sign (check all etry points to the zone for 2 signs) or dodgy paperwork.

[larold]

Thanks for the advice so far... Will check that there are two signs on the entrances to the CPZ, would really appreciate any other advice on loopholes to investigate if possible. Possibly to do with the time between issuing the ticket and towing? This isn't clear on the ticket.

 

Will also be writing to my MP I think. If we were ruled by common sense I would be fairly confident but we all know that'''s laughably far from the truth!

 

Thanks in advance.

[TheBogsDollocks]

I suggest including all the text below in your appeal.

 

I bring to your attention that the council had no lawful right to insist I paid the penalty charge as a condition for the release of my vehicle. I am informed that the council consider their right to do so is provided under s.101A RTRA 1984. I contend that s.101A is only applicable when the vehicle being recovered is one that had been perceived by the council to have the appearance of being abandoned and the statutory requirements enabling its ultimate disposal have been satisfied. Evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008 and when one considers that the precursor to s.101A was s.101(4) RTRA 1984 then further evidence is found under regulation 16 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986. Both the aforementioned regulations fall under a “Part” that concerns the recovery and disposal of supposedly abandoned vehicles. I believe the correct charges to apply were those enabled under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984. Clear indication of this can be found under paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 TMA 2004. The charges to be paid under s.102(2A) do not include the penalty charge.

 

I further contend that the council had no lawful right to retain my vehicle until I paid the removal charges either. The right to retain a vehicle until the charges are paid is only applicable to councils not operating civil parking enforcement. This is clearly indicated under s.102(4) RTRA 1984. On investigation it appears that the right to retain a vehicle until the removal charges are paid has never existed where a council operates decriminalised parking enforcement. In support of this claim I bring to your attention that s.68 RTA 1991 inserted paragraph (d) into subsection 102(2) RTRA 1984 but s.102(4) was not amended to include the new paragraph (d). It seems Parliament purposely withheld from those councils with civil powers the right to retain a vehicle until the charges are paid. Such an approach does seem quite correct for what is after all a civil matter and is particularly fitting when one acknowledges that the removal charges are not punitive and form no part of the penalty.

 

When considering this appeal it is important to note that there is no power contained within s.101A RTRA 1984 that allows a council to “retain” a vehicle until the relevant charges are paid. Section 101A is all about providing the owner with power. This being the power to prevent disposal by paying the relevant charges and removing the vehicle within the prescribed period or where disposal has taken place, with the power to seek those proceeds of sale that exceeded the relevant charges. It is of equal importance to note that the appeal process provided under regulation 11 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and administered by the council is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and therefore it is not relevant to those vehicles subject to charges imposed under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984. Put simply, it does not apply to vehicles that were not considered to be abandoned.

 

I do not think it plausible that Parliament would insist a Regulation 9 PCN be served before a vehicle is removed if that PCN is to have no value to the recipient. If the council is advocating that the rights on the PCN are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a nullity. If it is a nullity then there is no charge to pay and there was no right to remove. It is absurd to serve a notice informing the recipient of their lawful rights and responsibilities only for it to be false. I contend that it is not false but is made to appear so only by the council’s incorrect application of the law. It is my understanding that in a CPE area the correct procedure in regard to a removed vehicle that a council does not perceive to be abandoned, is to allow a person to pay or appeal against the penalty charge in full accordance with those provisions of the TMA 2004 that correlate with the service of a regulation 9 PCN. As for any removal or storage charges then a council is by virtue of s.102(2A) entitled to ask for these to be paid when the vehicle is collected but if a person declines then a council must return the vehicle and decide whether to recover their removal charges in accordance with s.102(3) RTRA 1984. Where the removal charges are paid and an appellant’s appeal against the penalty charge is subsequently allowed then the adjudicator can direct a council to refund the removal charges in addition to cancelling the penalty charge.

 

I have here sufficiently demonstrated the council’s procedural impropriety when they applied s.101A RTRA 1984, when they retained my vehicle until all charges were paid and when they applied the appeal process provided under regulation 11 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. Unless the council accept this appeal then I will proceed to adjudication.