Jump to content


Council issuing NTO without serving a PCN for a dropped kerb offence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2513 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My issue

 

 

I received by post two Notice to Owner letters dated 11/11/2014 in different envelopes. These letter refer to the same office '27 Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriage way. Both have a unique PCN number on them for a notice I have never seen or been aware of, nor handed to me in person nor left on my vehicle for me to find.

 

 

Both refer to a contravention date and time, one 8/10/2014 at 10.52 PN11112536 and the other 8/10/2014 at 12.26 PN110-9538A for the same location, a local authority local road. Both request a payment within 28 days of £130. I can also make representation by post on a number of grounds should I think they apply.

 

 

In addition on the same date 8/10/2014 I found my vehicle was missing from the roadside outside my home address where I can usually see it from my kitchen window and that it apparently had been impounded by the council. After I made some enquiries I found out where my vehicle was, that I had a dropped kerb offence which I had not noticed before, so I complied and paid £200 (removal fee)+£65 (parking fine) =total of £265 on the following day 9/10/2014 (within 24 hours) to the car compound in order I could get my vehicle back and park again outside my home address. At the time of paying this 3rd PCN and towing fine I was given a photocopy of another (3rd) PCN PN11095390 again that I had not previously seen, again dating the same offence, same date as two above two PCNs but time 8/10/2014 12.28. Apparently then removed by the council on 8/10/2014 at 12.33 to their car compound.

 

 

My questions are

1 Do I have any grounds to see representation for all three PCNs for this same offence, on the same date, on the same location, by the same council, where my vehicle had not been moved, until the council removed it at 8/10/2014 at 12.33. Note I have already filled in a representation form to Warrington in Cheshire for PN 11095390 that I was made aware of on 8/10/2014 at the car compound.

2 Is it normal for a council to issue Notice to Owners letters to car owners without serving a PCN to them, and is this legal in the case of the ' 27' offence, in my case in question, parked near to dropped kerb but some 1 1/2 feet away from it on the carriageway.

3 Should I seek representation on the grounds that 'The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances. In this case I have already paid £65 for the PN11095390 for time 8/10/2014 12.28, so should I be also need to pay two more fines as well for PN11112526 for a time 8/10/2014 10.52 and PN1109538A for a time 8/10/2014 12.26.?

 

 

On balance these fines seem very excessive and costly and I think all 3 PCNs, (none that were ever handed to me or ever left on my vehicle), belong to the same single incident and span only 34 minutes apart.

 

 

Note I have already raised a formal complaint to the council 'Major' as an email titled ' excessive parking fines' with reference to

-over eager traffic wardens,

-a lack of parking spaces due to daily commuters taking up all the parking spaces so that residents can not park correctly,

-the fact my car was in need of attention due to engine / starting problems,

-the fact I was engaged at the time in a household 'leaking gas' national grid emergency repair and could not be called away immediately from my home,

-a lack of residents only parking zone unlike adjacent areas nearby,

-a question about the 3 minute rule being ignored judging by when my car was removed (12.33) on PN 10095390 (12.28)

-No opportunity to pay at a reduced cost.

- a question whether these computer generated NTO letters were not an error. (when I go into council site no photo graphs are available at all for the PN in question, so I wonder if there was every any evidence taken at the time by the traffic warden wandering my council estate?)

The recipient being the Major for the area then notified me that the council were looking into my complaint.

 

 

I also noticed the other day out of my kitchen window a owned council truck parked directly across the same dropped kerb outside my home. So I took two photos of it and sent them to the council worker who had replied to me, making the point How come Council worker can park across the same dropped kerb,- a sort of hypocrisy going on.

 

 

Can I ask for some degree of leniency in this case, or do I simply have to pay up for the other two at a cost of £260?

 

 

Any advice would be most welcome on where I legally stand and whether I have any ground for representation at all?.

Edited by Ken Naden
Additional information
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Do I have any grounds to see representation for all three PCNs for this same offence, on the same date, on the same location, by the same council, where my vehicle had not been moved, until the council removed it at 8/10/2014 at 12.33. Note I have already filled in a representation form to Warrington in Cheshire for PN 11095390 that I was made aware of on 8/10/2014 at the car compound.

 

Not sure what you are asking - "to see representation"? You mean to make representations (ie appeal)? Yes. If the car has literally not moved, then you should only be liable for the one PCN per calendar day - the others should be cancelled on appeal.

 

2 Is it normal for a council to issue Notice to Owners letters to car owners without serving a PCN to them, and is this legal in the case of the ' 27' offence, in my case in question, parked near to dropped kerb but some 1 1/2 feet away from it on the carriageway.

 

Yes, I think they can do this depending what type of enforcement they use. I'm not 100 percent sure though. What is the exact title and code number of the documents you were sent?

 

3 Should I seek representation on the grounds that 'The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances. In this case I have already paid £65 for the PN11095390 for time 8/10/2014 12.28, so should I be also need to pay two more fines as well for PN11112526 for a time 8/10/2014 10.52 and PN1109538A for a time 8/10/2014 12.26.?

 

No. That's not correct. A given contravention has a given rate for the PCN. Additional PCNs are one thing, which you can contest, but the amount is not incorrect.

 

Can I ask for some degree of leniency in this case, or do I simply have to pay up for the other two at a cost of £260?

 

You can ask for leniency. You've listed a few mitigating circumstances. You can try them. But as I said, you should only have the one PCN to deal with, the others you should be able to get quashed on the basis that you should only have been served one in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply and advice

 

 

Quote the exact wording of the offence as shown on PCNs

 

 

'27 Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriage way'

 

 

On my other questions I was told by a council worker today that the CEO PN1404

 

 

should have issued only one PCN and then had the car removed, and

 

 

not have issued 3 PCNs and then removed the car off the carriageway.

 

 

I would conclude

I would be eligible to make representation on the second two Notice to Owner letters on the grounds (reading the back of the letter) on

 

 

The penalty charge has already been paid in full or at a reduced amount within the specified period i.e. PCN PN11095390 £65 was paid when handed to me as a photocopy on 9/10/2014 . and the two NTO letters (demanding £130 each) as dated 11/11/2014 with associated PCNs PN1112536 and PN1109538A refer to the same offence on the same day at the same location.

 

 

Note in addition these later two PCNs were not even ever received or notified to me to allow them to be settled within 14 days should they still apply and as they refer to the same case These penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. and are an excess of the applicable amount and I would therefore expect these last two charges to be cancelled.

 

 

What do you think. It this wording OK to send out as a make representation in my circumstance? Any comments, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the clause about the charge exceeding the applicable amount is not appropriate in this case. The two extra charges are at the correct monetary amount - but should never have been made. It would also not be correct to appeal on the basis that the charge(s) have already been paid - they haven't, and nor should they be.

 

What you need to do is write a letter quoting both outstanding PCN numbers and state clearly that you were levied both charges for a contravention which had already had a PCN issued against it. Just explain that the vehicle had not moved, and so only one PCN should be payable - and give them that PCN number, and tell them it's paid. They should just cancel the extra two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some feedback

I since received a letter of apology dated 16/11/ 2004 from a Mr A Poiston, Senior processing Officer, Parking & Traffic Enforcement, LB Newham that they have cancelled two PCN numbers PN11112536 and PN11096538A with reason given that two CEO were operating in the area and a duplicate PCN from one of them had failed to print and should have been made void once that CEO had returned to base.

The letter of apology suggested that original PN11112536 from the first CEO operating in the area had not made an error at all as such but because of the second CEO actions this PCN will not be enforced by the council as 2 penalty charges cannot be set against the same vehicle for the same offence on the same day for a vehicle that had not moved.

Unfortunately I was unable to post an extract of this letter of apology on its exact wording due to a site restriction.

As two of these PCN are now cancelled and should no longer be under dispute concerning my case I have since made a Freedom of information request concerning the above. As follows

Dear Newham Borough Council,

I wish to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain copies of three Parking Penalty charges notices numbered PN11112536, PN1109538A and PN11095390 that were issued to my vehicle registration number xxxxxxx on the 8th October 2014 by London Borough of Newham Parking & Traffic Enforcement Civil Enforcement Officers.

I also wish under FOI to obtain copies of the respective photographic evidence that were taken at the time issued by he two Civil Enforcement Officers that were operating at the time.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Naden

At present I believe the events leading up to the issue of PCNs on my vehicle were as follows:-

First CEO had earlier issued a PCN PN11112536 at 8/10/2014 10.52 am for a alleged dropped curve offence. '27 Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriage way'

A second CEO PN1404 ignoring the above PCN (although not confirmed was probably already displayed on my car at the time) and decided to issue my vehicle with a second PCN from his own machine PN11096538A for a alleged dropped curve offence. ‘27’ at 8/10/2014 12.26 am but this PCN failed to print from his machine, so he then issued a third PCN ON1109539 8/10/2014 12.28. Slightly before this the second CEO must have also telephoned the car compound for a removal truck to arrange the removal of my vehicle, where the Newham tow truck came from a car compound a few miles away and probably a 20 minute journey to get to my car and then lift my car onto the low loader / tow truck and removed at 12.33 am from the carriageway and take it to the car compound..

My question is

Was the actions of the second CEO illegal or a best poor practice and could I complain about this to the Council and to get them to repay me the £265 that I had to pay up front to the Council car compound to get my vehicle released back to me.

Was it illegal or at best poor practice and an improper enforcement (inappropriate impropriety by the enforcing authority)?

1) For the second CEO to ignore the first CEOs PCN PN11112536 issued at 10.52 am presumably already displayed on the car window screen, (which if it was he then may have removed it himself and discarding it) and then issuing his own PCN PN11095390 to put on my car and presumably failing to get it printed in his first attempt to put on my car window screen.

Note at no time did I ever find any of these two CEO issued PCNs PN11112536 and PN1109530 displayed on my car to allow me to be notified about them nor to find the respective photographic evidence on the Councils web site.

I think at best the council have covered up their tracks to avoid me questioning them about their over eager second CEO and the ‘ill treatment; that I have received of having my car impounded from outside my home address.

2) that the second CEO could then make his own arrangements to have my car impounded probably before he had issued his PCN duplicates, and on the strength of this third PCN PN11095390 so that I would I have would have to pay £65 and then an additional £200 pound release fee at the car compound before I seek to make a retrospective representation (appeal) to try to get my money back.

Any advice most welcome.

Note I believe the relevant legislation under the Traffic Management Act 2004 is available on the following site "LEGISLATION . GOV . UK / UKPGA / 2004 / 18 / contents" without the spaces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you are doing this. Do you really think the second CEO decided to issue a pointless PCN, with the earlier one already there? It seems pretty unlikely to me. What would be the point? They could have towed you for the first PCN anyway, if they thought it necessary. There's no motivation for him to issue another one, if he knows you already have one.

 

If you want to be sure, and view the photographs, then you don't need an FOI request. Don't be surprised if you get a letter back telling you that things like this aren't covered by FOI. What you should do first, is just politely ask for them. If they aren't forthcoming, you can request them citing the Data Protection Act, which covers data and documents pertaining to individuals. And, I don't think they even make copies of the PCNs, although they do take photographs usually. (What's on the PCNs that you need to see?)

 

You may get lucky and they send you the photos anyway, but you may not. And, I would add, photographs are not mandatory so they might not even have any. But really, I can't see what you will achieve. You've only been held liable for one PCN, as I advised would happen. If you want to appeal against it, and the towing charges, then go ahead - based on the circumstances on the day, and on what caused you to be parked in contravention in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am doing what I am

I am going to get the photographic evidence to prove the second CEO PN1404 is likely to have removed the first CEOs PCN from my car window screen and placed his own PCN on my vehicle I have already requested the photo graphic evidence that the first CEO PCN was on the car window screen. I going also to find out from the car compound when my car was actually called by the second CEO to determine if this was well before he put the third ticket on the car,

 

 

I am going to email Sir Robin Wales (Major of Newham) to ask him if is prepared to intervene and be prepared to put the second CEO under a disciplinary caution for being unscrupulous in order to drum up his own quota of tickets issue on this day.

 

 

I agree there is should be no motivation in order to fine me for the dropped kerb offence. But the action of the second CEO is very questionable. Why did he do it? My view he did it to raise his own daily quota at the expense of the first CEO s quota and to then have the authority to ask my car to be removed to a car compound. I should have been allowed to return to my vehicle, find the first CEO ticket on my car and pay £65 and not be made to pay an extra £200 pound release fee. The first CEO was quite prepared to issue a PCN and walk away but the second CEO wasn't.

 

 

Thank you for quoting the data protection act. If the FOI fails I will use this act to seek the information about my car as its owner.

 

 

I have received a phone call today from the Parking & Traffic Enforcement team (in Newham) she told me although I have sent my Representation to Warrington in Cheshire this is purely a sorting office and all decisions are made back in London, hence why there is only a fax number given to the public for Warrington and no phone line. The worker when on to say TO ME TODAY I should have received a rejection letter dated 12.11.2014 that my representation made on the third PCN issued by the second CEO was denied. This worker also indicated photographic evidence was taken on the first PCN and it would be expected to be sent to me when my FOI request was processed.

 

 

I have a right for my case to be heard at a tribunal to see I can discredit the second CEO actions and try to be refunded for the £200 towing and release fee which was completely unnecessary and extreme for a car parked outside my own residence. And to also repeat the mitigating circumstances that the Council have refused to accept.

 

 

Why did I end up parking near the dropped kerb in the first place: that there was no parking space left outside my home due an influx of daily commuters taking up residents parking places, I did not notice the dropped kerb and I was more concerned about parking on a corner and I was in a hurry as I had the National grid visiting my property to carried an emergency gas supply pipe replacement and I could not leave my property when it was being done at the time these two CEO were issuing there multi tickets.

Edited by Ken Naden
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was no parking space left outside my home due an influx of daily commuters taking up residents parking places, I did not notice the dropped kerb and I was more concerned about parking on a corner and I was in a hurry as I had the National grid visiting my property to carried an emergency gas supply pipe replacement and I could not leave my property when it was being done at the time these two CEO were issuing there multi tickets.[/font][/color]

 

This is the basis of your appeal. You didn't notice the dropped kerb when you parked there - that's not a very strong line of appeal, but you can try it.

 

The council can decide to tow a vehicle for any parking contravention if it sees fit, and although you consider it completely unnecessary and extreme, dropped kerbs are there for a reason. A mother with a pushchair, or someone in a wheelchair for example, may not be able to cross safely, if at all, because you didn't notice the dropped kerb. It's the council's decision whether to remove your car - like it or not, they are entitled.

 

As for the CEO removing the earlier PCN - there's no evidence of that, and he certainly won't have taken photographs of himself doing it. Your demands for disciplinary action are pointless unless you can prove that he did something he shouldn't have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say my defence is not very strong. I need to write to the council and get more evidence to support my case as given below,, Identify the relevant section of The Traffic Management Act they made there decision on to remove my vehicle T 12.33 pm, after they issued the last and one standing PCN at 12.28 pm . Whether there is any scope to mention this was done vey quickly in 7 minutes. I wonder if the tow away truck was just in the driving past in the area at the time with the second CEO sitting in it as a passenger and they just decided to put a another PCN on my car and loaded it quickly on their truck. My letter would be something like

PCN number

Vehicle reg,

Name & address

Date

"Dear Sirs,

I was told in a telephone conversation on 21/11/2012 that I should have received the decision on my Representation to the above PCN but I have not received this letter which I was told was dated 12/11/2014. Can you resend please as your reply is urgently required. In order to come to an informed conclusion as to whether or not to make an adjudicators appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issue on my car referenced above and the subsequent vehicle removal, under the data protection act and Freedom of Information act I would like you to supply copies of:

All PCN issued against my vehicle on 8/10/2014 numbered: PN11112536, PN1109538A and PN11095390

With respect the above, three PCNs the Civil Enforcement Officer's notes operating in the area
(your letter of apology dated 18th November stated there were two CEOs);

Likewise the notes of the removal vehicle operatives;

Copies of any and all photos that your Civil Enforcement Officer(s) or
removal vehicle operatives
took of my vehicle;

Your faithfully

xxx

I need to get things moving to ,make an appeal with 28 days of this alleged letter of 12/11/2014 which I under stand is the usually 'We regret to uniform you your appeal has been turned down' which seems to happen 99% in most cases what ever ones points one make to them. It all about drumming up a source of income for the council with CEO and tow truck having set daily targets to reach, and very little about deciding if a car near to a dropped kerb is a serious safety hazard. Clear evidence for this is the lack of any safety consideration is numerous times and including today I have seen other vehicles including the council own vehicles parked well across the same dropped kerb, one today was a 'Conway' Truck carrying out some nearby landscape work when there was another parking space further down the road to park in. This is not a city centre side road where I could understand the need to monitor how long cars are parked, The area is dead quite council estate during the day with little or no pedestrians around. There hardly are any mothers pushing prams to speak of, and I have seen pedestrians choosing walking down the middle of the road because it is that quite. It is just an over eager CEO in this case who wanted to fill his quota and probably a tow truck driving past on this quite council estate side road and not very little about anyone safety. Plus the fine of £265 is excessive and unbalanced to the situation. I was simply trying to park outside my home whilst I dealt with a household emergency which I think was a reasonable mitigating circumstance the council should have accepted in stead of just rejecting my representation outright as they do in almost all cases...
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an angle which might be worth exploring - they are not permitted to enforce a second PCN against a vehicle which already has one for the same contravention. In this case, they have enforced a second (in fact, third) one, and the associated towing charges. That could breach the regulations (someone with more expertise will need to advise on that). The fact that they chose of their own free will to cancel the first is their look out. They should perhaps have upheld the first and cancelled the second - scrapping the tow charges along the way, since a tow has to have an associated PCN.

 

It's a long shot, but more promising than requesting copies of the PCNs, which probably don't even exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an angle which might be worth exploring - they are not permitted to enforce a second PCN against a vehicle which already has one for the same contravention.

 

 

 

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'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends how the regulations are worded. I'm not claiming to know - just that it is worth looking into. If the relevant regulations say things like "subsequent PCN" or "further PCNs" then there's something to argue. Whether it's daft or not is the council's funeral, not mine.

 

And maybe a PCN with an error does bar a second (valid) one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have since requested a copy of each PCN and CEOs and Tow truck notes under the FOI and Data Protection Acts (if they are still available as the first PCN got cancelled and second failed to print and third which I was forced to pay upon at the car compound to get my vehicle back, I have anyway as a photocopy) so I can check their consistency for Date, VRN, Street, location, contravention, etc to if there was any error in the first one, should I get them. This may rule out any suggestion the first PCN was wrongly completed.

 

 

I have managed to get a set of photographs from Newham in a letter from a R Mohammed where the photos were taken at 12.25 pm and ending at 13.13 pm... The fourth one shows the vehicle poking out and with its rear wheel adjacent to the dropped kerb and tow truck along side it in the background, and some space for a push chair to go down dropped curve still. 12.31 it was starting get loaded onto Tow truck and 13.13 was at car compound so it took say 40 or so minutes to get to the compound. So my guess is if the first PCN was issued 10.52 am the tow truck would have to have set off about 11.40 to 11.45 am say then to have reached the vehicle at 12.25 pm or it would have to have been already in the area and possibly just passing at the time.

 

 

If the second CEO was roaming the area on foot and issued a second PCN at 12.26 pm third PCN at 12.28 pm and by the photographs evidence, the tow truck was already alongside the vehicle at this time as shown in one of the photographs on the scene at 12.25 pm. The second CEO may also have simply come out of the tow trunk as a passenger although I have no proof of this at present. So if the tow truck operative was acting upon the third PCN issued by the second CEO this was very close to the 3 minute rule as the tow truck leads / chains etc can be shown in the 12th photograph were round the wheels at 12.31 pm and the car was on the tow truck at 12.32 pm.

 

 

The photographs also reveal that the tow truck was along side the car at 12.25 and no PCN was on the screen at 12.25 until PCN only shown on screen at 12.29 pm inline with the tickets issued time of 12.28 pm. So the first ticket from first PCN was removed or had blow away. Bearing in mind the weather was not significantly windy on 8/10/2014 in the area I think the second CEO removed the first CEOs penalty notice from the car window screen. The point is why was this done.

 

 

If the tow truck was acting on the first PCN that the council subsequently cancelled then I may use the angle suggested above by Jamesome as they have since cancelled this first PCN and the towing of the car may have been wrong.

 

 

If the tow truck was acting on the third PCN then I need to prove the third PCN did not need to be ever issued at all as the car already had a PCN and similarly the towing of the car may have been wrong. So I need some proof the first PCN was fully correct with no faults in it at all which is what I suspect, hence my recent council FOI and Data Protection act request to get a copy of it before the record of it is destroyed.

 

 

Quote

There is an angle which might be worth exploring - they are not permitted to enforce a second PCN gainst a vehicle which already has one for the same contravention. In this case, they have enforced a second (in fact, third) one, and the associated towing charges. That could breach the regulations (someone with more expertise will need to advise on that). The fact that they chose of their own free will to cancel the first is their look out. They should perhaps have upheld the first and cancelled the second - scrapping the tow charges along the way, since a tow has to have an associated PCN.

 

 

So thanks for making this comment.

 

 

Taking a step back my PCN case stems from the fact that:

Why there has been for some time now No Residential Parking Zone in in place by Newham Council for this area which is on the outskirts of Newham boundary to Redbridge boundary when it is known to the Newham Council that there is a traffic management issue, a pressure on resident's to find parking spaces outside their council homes due a large influx of daily commuters in and out the area who regard it as place of free parking area to travel in and out of Ilford town centre rather than use the set designated car parks available in both boroughs at the expense of Newham residents who are subsequently being unfairly targeted by over eager parking attendants attempting to fill their daily quota to raise sufficient revenue to the council.

 

 

Conversely the daily commuters know they cannot park further down in Newham in area in question as they are many Residential Parking Zones repeating down the main radial road into London and this restrict parking to residents only who have a badge on the car window screens. So they all up parking instead in my residential area where this radial road into London lies on the Newham Boundary and residents end up being forced park on street corners and getting parking tickets. Maybe this is the Current Newham Strategy to maximise their income from fees and charges for their ever depleting budget resources instead of protecting council residents to be able to park outside their homes.

 

 

I read in the London Councils' website Code of Practice about removals about a 15 minute rule before a vehicle can be clamped. I wonder if this time also applying to tying up the wheels of the vehicle with ropes in order to load it on a tow truck for removal at all?

 

Getting back to my individual multi PCNs case

-What is the section in the legislation. Is it Section 101 or 102 TMA 2004

-what I can ascertain right now and prove for sure

-what I need to do to build up my evidence still and how

-What ground/s / angle/s can approach to this case to make an appeal that it was wrong

-what is the probability I have with an adjudicator of winning it as an appeal.

 

Thanks again to others for your critical constructive comments and for looking at my case

Edited by Ken Naden
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more information

According to WWW ....PATASREGISTEROFAPPEALS..ORG..UK site the relevant legislation is given in a past case as

Enforcement under Section 14(4) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This states that the footway crossing was obstructed. and that

Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides:

(1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where-

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of-

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

The restriction applies twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. There is no requirement for any signs and the vehicle need not be causing any obstruction.

and I am told at least one wheel must be adjacent to the dropped kerb for the contravention to occur, even though a bonnet or boot may well overhand the prohibited area.

Status of my case at present

I am still waiting to received The letter of rejection from Newham Council that they say they posted to me by first class post on 12/11/2014, Tried today to go into PATAS site to open up an appeal form online. Put in 12/11/20014 VRN and PCN that I made my original representation on. It did not open. Either Newham have not notified PATAS of the rejection letter or I am entering data that is not the same as what would have been in The letter of Rejection from the enforcing authority. As I have only 28 days from 12/11/2014 I need a PATAS appeal form.

 

 

According to the PATAS site this all part of appendix 16. Have sent an email to PATAS to see if they have got Newham Letter of rejection or not.

 

 

Does anyone have the code of the appeal form.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finally received Letter of rejection on 26/11/2014 some 14 days after it was issued. However no PATAS form attached, so I have yet again had to ask for an appeal form from Newham Council. Oddly the Letter of rejection had an typo error in it in that it says third PCN was issued 12.18 and not 12.28. The end para mentions

'Should you decide to appeal and the adjudicator finds in your favour, Newham Council may be instructed to cancel the penalty and refund the removal fee or may be asked to refund the removal fee only'. It goes onto say...'An appeal cannot be made on mitigating circumstances but may refer the case back to the authority for further consideration.'

 

 

I am still awaiting to get a copy of first PCN that was issued to see of it contained errors or not. Have repeated my request to Newham for a reply to this. Should they still continue to hold this important information back I will ask that it is made available to me 3 days before any appeal date as per PATAS rules, and still make my appeal around

 

 

If the first PCN did not have any errors in it and was removed from the car for no good reason other than the fact the third PCN could then justify the car removal at 12.32 than there was an impropriety as there was no need to replace the first PCN.

 

 

Conversely if the removal was only justified on the first PCN which has since been cancelled then the removal was improper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Try adding the text below to your appeal.

 

 

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for Human Rights (“the Convention”) instructs that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law.

I accept that the Council had the right to remove my vehicle. However, once removed, the conditions provided for by law did not entitle the Council to continue to deprive possession of my vehicle until I paid the parking penalty charge and charge made in respect of the removal of my vehicle.

My vehicle was removed pursuant to section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the “RTRA 1984”). Under this Act the right for to retain a removed vehicle until payment is made is explicitly regulated under section 102(4).

102(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)above any sum is recoverable in respect of a vehicle by the chief officer of a police force or a local authority in whose custody the vehicle is, the chief officer or local authority shall be entitled to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid.

My vehicle was removed from within a civil enforcement area and therefore the sum recoverable was not “by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)” but by virtue of subsection 102(2A).

102(2A) If the place from which the vehicle is removed is in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the enforcement authority is entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of the vehicle as they may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confirms that the charge for removal was made under section 102 of the RTRA 1984.

1(1)This Schedule provides for the setting of the levels of—

(a)penalty charges, including any discounts or surcharges,

(b)charges made by authorities under section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles found in areas that are civil enforcement areas for parking contraventions,

As the right to retain a removed vehicle until payment is made does not extend to civil enforcement authorities, the conditions provided for by law did not entitle the Council to retain my vehicle and deprive me of its possession until I paid the charges. I therefore contend that the Council without justification, acted in a way that is incompatible with the Convention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...