PCN PLUS CAR TOWED WITHIN MINUTES - NEWHAM COUNCIL

[tedd4]

I parked my car in a residents and shared use parking bay which permitted residence as well as those who pay a fee.

I hadn’t noticed the time started at 8 o’clock and paid online at 9:44 for an hour and at 10:56 for 2 hours costing £5.60. 

there was an observation of five minutes from 08:17 and at 08 22 at which time the PCN was issued and attached to the car.

 

despite it being in an appropriate bay and not causing any obstruction or displacing any residences as there were many vacant places when I parked

I went to collect the car, the vehicle was also authorised for removal.

This occurred at 9:37am after obtaining authorisation for its removal.

The council states this occurs 30minutes after the PCN has been issued. 

 

Once I had discovered it had been taken to the pound and got a cab

had to pay for the PCN £65 and an additional £200 for the release of the car.

 

Furthermore, in order to drive the car out of the pound I had to take out additional insurance of £250 as I had borrowed the car and was driving under my own insurance policy which the pound claimed wasn’t sufficient.

 

I submitted an appeal which was rejected on the 5th of May stating that under the traffic management 2004 I received a PCN because I didn’t have a permit on display in the city and the Civil Enforcement Officer officer checked his computer and did not see any payments made by the PayByPhone method.

 

I noted at the time I returned to collect the car there were many spaces and they were at the time apart during the night.

It’s unlikely that a member of the local residents complained about the lack of parking space therefore causing an obstruction. 

 

I am not aware of any other council that acts so soon after issuing a PCN for the removal of the car. almost simultaneously to issuing a PCN.

 

On what grounds can this be appealed again? 

[ericsbrother]

have you any proof about the insurance being required before you could take the car away?

This applies both ways

ie did you have any car third party insurance on your policy and can you prove they rejected this assertion and refused to release the car without other insurance?

 

It is normal that any vehicle being removed must cause an obstruction but obstruction can be whatever they want it to be so your route is to take this to the parking tribunal.

this will cost you nothing.

 

The RTA refers to ROADS but a parking space on a road is still the road.

If it was a proper BAY then that may well be only lawful if the borough has a policy on off street parking and the council can't use the law for "illigitate purpose" 

(you ned to look this up and see what cases apply

[tedd4]

Thanks for the advice but I did have fully comp on my car that allows me to drive any car. I have no proof of the assertion but the broker I told him what they said and he told me that its true and that they did specialised insurance to drive the car out of the pound boundary which seems ridiculous given that it was a few yards.

 

The bay was the usual white road markings designating the area of road for shared use. Its not an off-road bay. It just seems that the 'authorisation' for code 12 criteria of it still being present 30mins after issuing a PCN seems harsh when there was just occupancy rather than obstruction. I will look up as mentioned.

[ericsbrother]

I dont care what the broker says, what proof do you have that the popund refused to accept your insurance?

now as it was on the public highway it will be harder to argue that their actions were for an illigitimate purpose so start reading up on it, esp the interesting cases at PATAS and the other parking tribunals appeals

for example, Holder v city of westminster 18th feb 2006 is almost identical to your case and was determined as unlawful removal.

 

appeal to the Traffic Adjudicator.

Edited June 8, 2020 by ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

Hammersmith and Fulham v Mrs Douthit is another good one, the council failed to use their discretion and couldnt prove that the vehicle was causing an obstruction.

[Peterbard]

Hi Tedd

It looks like you were given the statutory time before the car was lifted.

However the insurance thing really does not sound right.

 

I cant see how the insurance being fully comp would be relevant, maybe it didn't insure you for bumps on private land.

Did you ask which sections of your current insurance were deficient. Also who are the new insurers? Did you get a new certificate, is the pound a broker?

 

Why couldn't a member of their staff deliver the car to the kerbside?

 

Did you pay cash or credit/debit card, I am hoping the latter.

[Jamberson]

In addition to you being insured to drive, every vehicle on the road has to have a policy covering it. You wouldn't be able to legally drive a vehicle if the vehicle has no policy covering it. Is that the situation you were in? No-one had a policy for that specific car?

 

On the question of the tow, when you were towed you were also issued a PCN for the parking contravention. What was the contravention code/description as stated on the PCN?

[Manxman in exile]

That the owner of the borrowed car didn't actually have it insured is what I thought the issue probably was.  I understand it's quite a common problem when a car is impounded for no insurance, and the owner has to send a mate to collect the car from the pound, (wrongly) thinking the mate's "drive any other car" policy covers them.  It doesn't if the car isn't already insured by the owner - which was the problem in the first place.

[tedd4]

The car is registered in my name but it’s for my father to use and he has the car insured in his name. I am not a named driver. I have fully comprehensive insurance on another car that gives me Third a Party cover on other cars. This is the situation I explained to the staff at the pound. They insisted verbally that I needed to have my father come and drive it out or I need insurance on this car that covers driving within a car pound. I thought by virtue of the broker stating that they still Specialise  in these circumstances I didn’t question it anymore. They certainly didn’t suggest driving it to the gate/kerbside. 
 

The contravention states on the PCN was 12. Obtaining information on the removal was more difficult as a Enfield only show you pictures of the car and the PCN. I Couldn’t get details on the time authorisation was granted, the time of physically removing the car. 
 

I have no written proof regarding the inform given to me verbally by the Pound staff. They provided me with information on how to appeal. 
 

 

[Manxman in exile]

Are you absolutely certain your dad's car is insured?  (Don't take his word for it - he might be mistaken - and don't think "I know it's insured" - you might be mistaken.  Check it on askmid to make sure).

 

If it is insured and your insurance really does permit you to drive other insured cars, I'd definitely complain to the council that you were forced to spend £xxx to take out one-off insurance just to get the car out of the car pound.  As far as evidence of what you were told is concerned, if you can prove (1) the car was insured, (2) that your policy allowed you to drive other insured cars, and (3) that you paid £xxx to take out additional insurance, why on earth would you buy the extra insurance in (3) if you thought you were covered, other than that you were wrongly told you needed additional insurance?  Do you see what I mean?  Why spend additional money buying something you don't need because you've already got it?

 

I'm not aware you need special insurance to recover a car from a pound - but maybe I'm completely wrong...

 

(Did you have the insurance details with you when you went to the pound?)

[tedd4]

I did get a good outcome by appealing the Newham fine but only in regards to the removal of the vehicle to the pound. This was because the court didn’t hear back from Newham when notified of my appeal for this case. The court ordered the repayment for the equivalents mount  the removal and impounding.

[tedd4]

I parked in a shared residents bay and received a PCN as my stay exceeded by 10 minutes what I had paid. Twenty minutes after the PCN was issued the car was towed away.  It wasn’t causing any obstruction or preventing other residents from paring as there was 65% remaining capacity when I returned to the scene 40 minutes after the parking ticket expired. 
 

Once at the pound (£15 cab), I had to pay the fine to release the car (£200 pound + £65 PCN). However, I was driving as Third Party cover from my insurance taken out on my car. The pound refused to let me drive the car 50yards to pounds boundary stating I wasn’t covered. I asked if the person who drove it/parked it could bring it to the gate but they refused to help. It cost £225 insurance to drive it 50 yards. 
 

in my appeal, the London Tribunal adjudicator upheld the PCN, refunded me the pound fee £200 on the basis the council didn’t respond to my challenge but didn’t feel the council acted vexatiously so didn’t instruct them to refund my mitigating losses, namely the insurance £225 plus cab fare to the pound £15. 
 

If I wo the appeal, surely by refactor these should be reimbursed because I don’t believe I should have even towed in the first pace. If this was conceded, it would follow these are expenses that I wouldn’t have incurred? I don’t know of any other council that tows cars not for at of the reasons which authorises the towing after 30minutes. The council must have authorised its removal minutes after the PCN was issued. This I consider vexatious as well as refusing to bring it 50yds to the gate.

 

Is there anything more that can be done to retrieve these funds?

[BankFodder]

I think maybe should start off by posting up the appeal decision with its reasoning so that we can understand the basis of their decision to refund you.

[Gick]

The thread that this refers to is locked, so this comment is on your second thread.

 

You need to check all of the terms of your comprehensive policy, because I don't think that you are in fact covered to drive the second vehicle!

 

I am pretty sure that although you will normally be covered for third party risks, there is inevitably a caveat that it does not  apply for any vehicle owned by you or hired under a hire purchase agreement to you. Whilst I know that being the registered keeper is not the same as ownership, you would be hard pressed to show that it was owned by someone else, your father, without opening a can of worms as to why he is not the registered keeper of 'his' car.

 

Whilst not strictly 'fronting' it is looked upon in the same light by insurers.

[tedd4]

I was the owner of the car, at the time, it was registered in my name. It has since been transferred into my fathers name as he uses this car 95% of the time and I had only borrowed it for that journey.

 

The appeal decision was taken after the adjudicator adjourned the hearing for 14 days so that it gave Newham Council chance to state their case against my appeal. They failed to respond and do the decision was made on the basis that they had no arguement against my appeal and therefore my appeal was upheld. As for the additional costs, the adjudicator felt that the council didn’t act vexatiously and thus thought the impoundment was done unlawfully.

[dx100uk]

threads merged

 

[Jamberson]

On 28/05/2021 at 15:06, tedd4 said:

in my appeal, the London Tribunal adjudicator upheld the PCN, refunded me the pound fee £200 on the basis the council didn’t respond to my challenge

...

If I wo the appeal, surely by refactor these should be reimbursed because I don’t believe I should have even towed in the first pace.

 

Your argument about full reimbursement doesn't seem correct. If you won the appeal for the PCN because the council failed to write back to you after the event, it does not mean the vehicle was towed incorrectly to begin with.