Car towed from unclear suspended bay with sign not visible

[tgls]

Hello everyone, I have read the topics on here and they make me feel positive about appealing this unjust and harassing PCN + Car Towing. Before I complete the appeal, I wanted to be sure I understand everything and the few legislations I came across.

 

I'll try to keep this simple....

 

Got back from a drive up north at 2am. No parking around my house so parked on next street which is the same zone. Other cars were parked there as usual. One space available so I parked there.

 

Post with sign

___|__________Car parked here

-------------------|

 

The car was parked at the end of the road, in the bay. I got out, turned right and went home.

 

Here are my issues:

 

1. I turned right to go home, am I supposed to go both ways each and every day of my life when I park the car to see if there's any restrictions?

 

According to (plz add www).legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made

1. A notice shall be displayed in a prominent position at each end of the length of road to which the order relates and at the points at which it will be necessary for vehicles or pedestrians to diverge from the road, stating the effect of the order and, where applicable, the alternative route or routes available for traffic.

Does this mean that a sign was meant to be posted in the direction I went too (as in both ends)? Please see attached photos (I went in the direction behind where I took this photo from)

The red line is where I was parked

 

 

2. According to (plz add www).ticketfighter.co.uk/parking.htm#suspended

 

(I cant post images but it's on the above page)

This sign with "Parking suspended" is invalid. It is not a permitted variant of either signs 636 or 636.1.

Does this apply to the sign in the attached image too because it does look very similar and the required sign is literally facing in the opposite direction from the road.

 

 

 

3. The notice itself reads,

"East Avenue E12 suspension of 2 parking spaces side of number 250 Browning Road

8am to 6:30pm

17/1/12 to 23/1/12

Offending vehicles subject to removal"

 

Firstly, even if I had seen the sign, the side of 250 browning road starts from where my car was parked up to approximately 5 car spaces. It is absolutely unclear which 2 parking spaces were suspended..

 

 

 

So do I have 3 valid cases here? Have I misunderstood anything? Will copy and pasting other letters available here regarding the sign being unlawful along with the rest be sufficient?

 

I am sorry if I am being too cautious but I have £265 depending on this coming from a father of 3 on low income supporting whole family. So this is a huge amount for me and I don't want the appeal rejected on technicalities.

 

God bless you all for the help you provide to citizens that the council are meant to be providing but steal from us instead.

 

Regards

 

PS. Admins and moderators, can you please update the links in my post as I am obviously not a spammer Thank you

[sailor sam]

Was that the only one sign? IMHO it should of either been half way along the bays to which it applies or there should of been one at each end. Others will no doubt comment.

[tgls]

Thanks for the quick reply Sam,

 

Yes that was the one and only sign on this side of the road.

 

green_and_mean posted something which might help here too. I have edited it to match my pnc

 

I would appeal on 3 grounds

a) the signs do not comply with the law

b) the sign's locations do not comply with the law

c) there is nothing to indicate which 2 parking spaces were temporarily suspended at the side of 250 Browning Road hence the notice was ambiguous and the PCN was issued for purely financial reasons.

 

Would I be correct to put "c"?

[sailor sam]

Well wiithout seeing G & Ms post I cannot commnet. Where is it BTW? But I would of thought that both B & C apply here. Not sure you need to mention the bit about the PCN was issued for purley financial reasons. That sounds like an accusation to me which may rub them up the wong way.

[tgls]

Well, I feel and am almost certain that 99% of tickets are for financial gains and nothing else. But you're right, it's best not to rub the pirates in any way when appealing

 

I can't post links still.

G&M's post showthread.php?334910-HELP-Parking-ticket-for-parking-in-bay-and-on-school-lines&p=3690190&viewfull=1#post3690190

[Jamberson]

Upwards of 99% of PCNs are for genuine reasons. I agree it's not a good idea to start arguing along those lines - it won't help your appeal but might in fact undermine it.

[TheBogsDollocks]

I suggest including all the text below in your appeal. The first paragraph attacks their insistence the penalty charge be paid on collection, 2nd paragraph attacks the fact the council would have retained your vehicle if you had not also immediately paid the removal charges.The 3rd paragraph attacks the council for imposing the wrong appeal process upon you. The 4th paragraph explains the correct procedures because you have to spell it out to them for the penny to drop.

 

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. Upon 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 acknowledge that there is no provision 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 the pending 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. A council operating CPE only has a statutory right to remove and to dispose; it has no statutory right to retain until all charges are paid as is made evident under s.102 RTRA 1984.

 

It is a truth that the appeal process provided under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 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. The most significant and crucial truth however, is that the appeal process provided under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 has no relationship with civil enforcement under the TMA 2004. It is important to recognise that the application of Part 4 is not dependent on a penalty charge being payable as the “relevant charges” under s.101A RTRA 1984 need not include a penalty charge. Where civil enforcement occurs then it is the regulations made pursuant to s.80 TMA 2004 that regulate the appropriate appeal process. It is Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 that satisfies s.80(1)(a), while Part 3 satisfies s.80(1)(b). As my vehicle was not immobilised, the correct appeal process for the council to apply was that under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. The TMA 2004 does not allow for any other possibility. Parliament simply decided for convenience and practicality to place the regulations, made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984, alongside those regulations made pursuant to s.80 TMA 2004. However, as made evident by s.80 TMA 2004, it was never intended for the regulations made pursuant to s.101B to be used as the basis for appeals against penalty charges. Had the council correctly applied s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 then I would have been able to access the Part 2 appeal process prescribed under s.80 TMA 2004.

 

 

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 Part 4 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.

Edited January 27, 2012 by TheBogsDollocks

[tgls]

Brilliant. Truly appreciated. Thank you. I have fully read and saved the above to send.

 

Does the above entitle me to a full refund and cancellation of the PCN?

 

Or do I still need to address the PCN issues on the ambiguous suspended bay signs?

[TheBogsDollocks]

Brilliant. Truly appreciated. Thank you. I have fully read and saved the above to send.

 

Does the above entitle me to a full refund and cancellation of the PCN?

 

Or do I still need to address the PCN issues on the ambiguous suspended bay signs?

 

I fully believe it should earn you a full refund but as with most tow cases it usually requires going to adjudication. The council will deny any wrong doing, as they must unless they want to declare they've got it wrong for the last 18 years and be subject to 18 years of restitution.

 

I suggest you make your primary grievence the suspension aspect and tag my offering on after it.

[tgls]

Thank you.

 

Does anyone know if this page legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made refers to suspended bays or road closures or both?

 

Where there's a parking suspension, are they required to put a sign up at each end of the suspended bays?

 

I would like to add that I've read hundreds of pages before actually posting all this. Believe it or not, all the top google results and best information always points to TheBogs's posts. Smashing work

[green_and_mean]

Thank you.

 

Does anyone know if this page legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made refers to suspended bays or road closures or both?

 

Where there's a parking suspension, are they required to put a sign up at each end of the suspended bays?

 

I would like to add that I've read hundreds of pages before actually posting all this. Believe it or not, all the top google results and best information always points to TheBogs's posts. Smashing work

 

Those regulations refer to temporary traffic orders, however a suspended bay unless its for a long period of time usually does not require a TMO as the original TMO for the bay allows for it to be suspended.

[tgls]

Sorry I don't understand that. So it doesn't refer to short suspended bays as in this case?

 

From another forum:

 

For info, the following are accepted terms:

Parking Place: Any area of highway designated as a parking place under a parking places order. It may contain one or more bays or spaces. Where individual bays are marked, the parking place will end with double white termination markings. Where individual bays are not marked the parking place will end with single white termination markings.

 

I don't know how to put this in a scary law type statement to prove how the suspension of bay and the pcn was incorrect. Any help would be great

 

As East Avenue is a one way road there was no way you would pass the suspension sign

before parking in that position.

 

A location based on a house in a different road doesn't help their case either.

[tgls]

To anyone else who may be seeking to fight a pcn/towing on suspended bays, here's some more valuable input from hcandersen of pepipoo.com forums (which is providing very good response times)

 

The sign purporting to suspend parking spaces is not a specified sign, neither is it authorised. Consequently, the council has failed to act in accordance with the conditions which it is obliged to fulfil in order to lawfully suspend the whole or part of a designated parking place which conditions are set out in the relevant articles of its traffic order.

 

And even if the sign was authorised or specified, it fails to delineate properly the area subject to the suspension because there aren't any parking spaces in this location, only a parking place. And given that the place could accommodate 5-6 cars, suspending 2 doesn't convey the clarity which the council's bound to do.

 

IMO, contravention did not occur.

 

HCA

[tgls]

Hello everyone,

 

I have completed the draft of the appeal and it's 5 and a half pages long after increasing the margins.

 

Is anyone with experience or a law background willing to briefly browse through it? No need to fully read it in detail.

 

I don't want to attach the draft for public viewing yet.

 

Thanks

[tgls]

No offers?

 

Never mind. I have attached the draft to this post. Input highly appreciated as I'd like to know if I've done this right and if there's anything I can add or should removed. Thank you once again

PCN-Towing Thieves2.pdf

[TheBogsDollocks]

No one came forward as 5 pages is beyond what is required and looking at your appeal I can see that you've copied and pasted. To be honest all you need say is that "the suspension sign is neither prescribed by the TSRGD 2002 nor authorised by the Secretary of State and therefore it is not a lawful "traffic sign" that accords with s.64 RTRA 1984 and thus fails to lawfully convey the effect of the order as required under the 1996 TRO Regulations". After this include this for point 3:

 

"I also contend that East Avenue is a one way street and there is absolutely no possibility that I would see the

parking suspension notice when approaching from Browning Road and parking immediately on the right where

the parking spaces begin." and then bring in all of point 4.

 

The danger with too much is that it is not taken seriously and looks like something lifted off the internet. Your choice though as this is only my opinion and has no more value than your own or others.

[tgls]

Your right. I actually feel the same. Believe it or not, this is the revised version and a page less. I found a few repetitions as did another very helpful member from pepipoo forums and now feel I can do a more complete one by tomorrow. Your input has been priceless. Thanks TBD

[TheBogsDollocks]

Your right. I actually feel the same. Believe it or not, this is the revised version and a page less. I found a few repetitions as did another very helpful member from pepipoo forums and now feel I can do a more complete one by tomorrow. Your input has been priceless. Thanks TBD

 

I've noticed you've got this in another forum so you may get conflicting advice. The main rule is keep it simple. I see no reason for this to go beyond 2 or 3 pages.

[tgls]

Yes I added it on one more forum however the advice has been very similar or the same. Some excellent pointers from there and some from here (my two new favourite forums on the net now)

[tgls]

Got the reply today after 5 weeks

 

NOTICE OF REJECTION

Followed by their normal template about why and where ticket was given.

 

They did not respond to my letter or the points made within

 

All it says is "I have taken all of the circumstances described in your representation and mitigation into consideration. However, I regret to inform you that I am unable to cancel the penalty charge and refund the removal fee on the grounds stated"

 

Honestly, no answer or anything.

 

Should I resend the original letter stating it hasn't been answered whatsoever?

Or shall I fill out the form attached with the rejection letter and so it gets forwarded to an adjudicator?

 

Finally, in the form, it's asking if I want a postal decision or a personal hearing. I don't think I have the patience for a personal hearing since the council mugs and steal from us legally. I swear if I could I would happily move out of this terrorizing police state (UK). Anyway, please let me know if it makes a difference whether it's a personal hearing or a postal decision.

 

Thanks guys for the help initially and now

[TheBogsDollocks]

Can you post up the letter in full. Don't send anything yet, wait for feedback here or on the other forum if you happen to post it there as well.

[tgls]

Files attached

Letter + Photos they sent

 

Edit: Why have the images been resized? What's the point of that?

[tgls]

It resizes it here so full images here forums.******.com/index.php?showtopic=67991&st=20&p=685978entry685978

 

Madness, this forum doesn't want any other web site to exist. It's removing the domain from the above link too. Admins, what's going on? ****** is support to say p e p i p o o (without spaces)

 

Thanks

[Jamberson]

That link seems to go to Peppey pu's homepage, not your thread. Try this: Go to a photo hosting site like Photobucket or Flickr, upload it on there and give us a link so we can see it.

[tgls]

Yea the link added spaces in there (which I didn't add btw, this site really has restrictions lol)

 

I added everything to the single pdf attached. My representation followed by scanned copies of their response and images. Thanks for checking guys

PCN-Towing_Thieves_Full.pdf