Author Topic: Barking & Dagenham PCN 14 parked in an electric vehicle space without charging  (Read 248 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Liffey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I originally posted this topic on Pepipoo.

My informal representations were rejected on the basis that the signage is adequate.

I was advised to obtain the TMO which I have now done.

I have now also received the Notice to Owner

Please can anyone resist with formal reps?









https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_4d4mz0Pa40kx_uaBsNTXIIG6q8QuNS/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VGDROl7JT_2oFzHvTusUBWjhYErd5uqP/view?usp=sharing

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Karma: +45/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Pepipoo has gone phut, so can you fill us in a bit more on the circumstances that gave rise to the PCN, please.

Chijiki

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Please can anyone resist with formal reps?


As it is a fine bright sunny Sunday morning, and I'm in a frivolous mood, I'll play along.

"I resist"

Liffey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
More details as requested:

I parked my hybrid car at a charging point, but the charging point was broken.  I was given a PCN after the officer observed my vehicle for only a few minutes.

I was advised on Pepipoo to argue procedural impropriety, as the PCN did not include certain mandatory information.  There were also comments about a SYL and a time restriction which I didn't really understand.  I was asked to provide photos from the original PCN as they showed that the charging point was also on an SYL.

Google street view link https://maps.app.goo.gl/DsyjWS7D7LqFr1dD8

I think that's why I was told to request the full TMO, although to be honest I really can't remember.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2024, 04:09:25 pm by cp8759 »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Karma: +45/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
For me the PCN is an abuse of process. The CEO should have checked the charging point first. How could you have charged your vehicle if the charging point is kaput.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
I parked my hybrid car at a charging point, but the charging point was broken.
Did you get a photo, or do you have any other evidence of this?

Also, please show us both sides of the original PCN without any redactions, see the guidance on this here.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Liffey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Yes, since receiving the PCN I contacted the company which owns the charging point and they confirmed it via email. I didn't hear back from them in time to include that information with the informal reps.




Liffey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Would anyone be able to help with the formal reps please? Especially the SYL point - is it correct to say there can't be a restriction like the one indicated on the sign, on an SYL?

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Council photos:











Realistically at this point you'll be heading to the tribunal if the council doesn't accept the representations, because the representations will be outside the initial 14 day period, so the discount won't be reoffered, so there will be no risk and nothing further to lose in taking this all the way.

The traffic order is The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Free Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Consolidation Order 2016 as amended by The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Electric Vehicle Charging Places) Amendment No.39 Order 2019.

Map tile: https://store.traffweb.app/barking-dagenham/documents/parkmap/msched/AB11_rv5_1.pdf
Map tile legend: https://store.traffweb.app/barking-dagenham/documents/parkmap/sched/Map%20Schedule%20Legend%20LBBD%20-%20Cons%202016%20v2.pdf

Yes, since receiving the PCN I contacted the company which owns the charging point and they confirmed it via email.
Let's see a copy of this email please.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

MMV Redux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
The problem with the OP's case is that he appears never to have attached the charging cable. As the sign says--" recharging point only"

I've attached the Webb V Wandsworth (2210311085) case which he won even though he had finished charging.See also 2240125760.

So, if attachment of a cable becomes the tipping point, the OP is in difficulty.

However, does the signage say anything about attachment or indeed the need to move on once the battery is recharged? Does it say anything about a time limited bay? The PCN certainly indicates "during restricted hours"--are we to presume that relates to " during the permitted hours" The TMO states:-

(d) Electric vehicle charging place may be used for the leaving during the permitted hours of such electric vehicles for so long as necessary to allow that vehicle to be restored to full charge by connecting to a recharging point.

What the hell are the permitted or restricted hours?

This is a clear failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty of LATOR 1996 because a very significant part of the information as to the effect of the Parking Places Order has not been conveyed to road users by the sign in situ.

To emphasise this ground I would reference Harvey Kutner v London Borough of Camden 2230471029.
"There has been a history of High Court and Court of Appeal decisions concerning signs conveying parking restrictions and a traffic authority’s duty under Regulation 18 of LATOR. These establish that a failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty as to signage is a proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a PCN, on the ground that the alleged contravention of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order did not occur. The key Court of Appeal case is Herron v. The Parking Adjudicator and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 905, and R (London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51] is also instructive".

Forget about the SYL, go for their failure to prove the parking contravention through the signage in place.

Mike

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
The problem with the OP's case is that he appears never to have attached the charging cable.
If the charging point it kaput why would you bother attaching the charging cable?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

MMV Redux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
@cp8759

The point I am making is that the two successful cases I posted were predicated on the vehicle's right to be in the bay:-

1) an electric vehicle, as allowed by the road marking; and

2) the vehicle being attached to the charging point as per the sign.

So it's obvious the OP will find it difficult to use those cases in support of any appeal because the Council will contend that he had no right to be in the bay. One, because his vehicle could not meet the requirement at 2) above and then, because of the charging point being "kaput", he had a duty to move on.

There have been successful cases of unrestricted parking where a meter fails but an EV bay carries it's own rules. I cannot see a default case being successful i.e. "I had a right to park because the bay did not meet it's intended purpose and couldn't be enforced"

Mike

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
We've won this argument where a pay and display machine was kaput, I would argue that it's the same principle.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

MMV Redux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Go for it!

Mike

Liffey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for the recent responses. I'm unsure if it's helpful now, but here is the email from the company: