Free Traffic Legal Advice

There’s no signs, Iv got an ongoing dispute over the same bay that mrmustard has kindly offered to help me with and that 1 is Contravention code: 12, I don’t have a permit because we didn’t need it for those bays, until CEO decided we did



Post a link to this thread pl, it'll resolve the current issue IMO.

On 14 Jan. the authority issued a PCN to my vehicle under code 12. This means that as at this date the authority considered that the location was within a designated parking place.

The location was given as Holbrook Road, opp hse 4.

On 21 Feb. the authority issued another PCN citing contravention code 26(parking adjacent to a dropped footway etc.).

The location was given as: Holbrook Road. Opp hse 4

I challenged this PCN and on *** the authority responded by letter rejecting my representations. This letter helpfully referred me to the governing legislation in this case which is the Traffic Management Act 2004. Further research shows that the relevant provision is s86. They also referred me erroneously to the London Local Authorities Act 2000 however this is nonsense as no part of this legislation is relevant. I think they meant s14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003( 14Parking at dropped footways) but even this is incorrect because that provision was repealed by Schedule 12 of the later TMA. Your grasp of applicable legislation is woeful.

Returning to the relevant provision under the TMA(86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.), I have extracted its essential elements below:

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—

......

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

This is subject to the following exceptions.

2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.

So, on 14 Jan. the location had to be a designated parking place in order for that PCN to be valid.

But on 21 Feb. it couldn't have been so designated otherwise the first exception to the alleged contravention would have applied.

At this point, I would refer the authority to another piece of legislation with which the council should be familiar, namely The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR), regulation 18 of which makes provision for traffic signs as follows:

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force..

But as can be seen in the CEO's photos and mine which are enclosed there are not any traffic signs within the parking place. And they must be placed 'in or within' the parking place because this is where the council's Traffic Management Orders require.

So:
If the parking place is designated, which was the authority's position on 14 Jan, then it was improperly marked by virtue of there not being any traffic signs conveying the restriction and therefore unenforceable, or

If the parking place was not designated, which is the only basis on which the PCN issued on 21 Feb.  could be valid(otherwise the first exception to the dropped footway prohibition would apply) then the first PCN is again invalid because the parking place did not exist in law As regards the 21 Feb PCN, the fact that markings(which are classified as 'traffic signs' as the authority should know - s64 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers) are present means that a motorist is entitled to consider that length of street to be a designated parking place, whether there's a TMO provision or not, and therefore the first exception applies and that PCN must be cancelled.

Or perhaps the parking place was designated and then de-designated in part with the road markings removed and amended. If this is the case then it is the authority's burden to prove this by reference to an amending TMO which it should be simple for them to provide. Even then, as my car was parked with the markings in situ I was entitled to rely upon the first exception before the council's contractors appeared as can be seen in the photos. 

Some thoughts..

Update, iv received notice of rejection

Sorry HCA, the council are correct about the 2003 Act, see Section 14 but they blow themselves up with the rubbish about the bay as 14(2)(a) covers that.

Expect you are right, am on holiday.

The hearing for this was today, the PCN was cancelled. I will post the written decision up tomorrow.

Case no. 2250222887 by Mr Teper
    

The Appellant is represented by Mr D Dishman, the Authority did not attend.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the level of the carriageway when in Holbrook Road on 21 February 2025 at 10:59.

I have allowed this appeal because I find, as a fact, that the location where the Appellant's vehicle was parked is a parking bay. This is created by the Traffic Management Order for Stratford South East 2010 No. 31 at item 146.

The appeal is allowed.

'vexatious'

denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to [imposes penalties without a lawful basis]..cause annoyance

Did you ask for costs or at least a steer from the adjudicator as to whether such a request would be entertained?