Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Apparently I parked in a suspended bay... Unfortunately, I did not even know that they bay was suspended!

I sent what I thought was a very thorough and legal defence against the PCN - I had found pepipoo when I initially received the PCN, but did not post in the forum. I thought I would write a good appeal and then post it as a template for others. Well, my appeal was actually rejected. The below is v.lengthy:


Factual Background
On 11/04/24 at 18:46, I was issued with a PCN by Birmingham City Council for Contravention Code: 21F. The alleged contravention pertains to parking in a bay that was supposedly suspended beyond 18:00. However, I dispute the validity of the PCN based on several key factual points:
• The parking sign in the area explicitly states that parking is free after 18:00, suggesting that the bay was available for parking at the time of the alleged contravention.
• I received assurance from workers on the site opposite that the road was available for parking after 18:00, further supporting my belief that the bay was not suspended.
• As per the contravention guidelines, the space is suspended by the applicant for whom it is needed. If the workers had given me permission to use the space, because they were done working for the day, then I would be permitted to use the bays.
• Upon arrival, all cones had been moved from the road to the pavement, indicating that the bay was accessible for parking.
• Examination of photographs provided by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) reveals that a cone may have been moved to obstruct my passenger-side door after parking, suggesting manipulation of evidence. I do not believe that this cone was there when I had initially parked, because a passenger could leave the car via the passenger-side door without obstruction.

Grounds for Challenge
My challenge to the PCN issued by Birmingham City Council is founded upon the following legal grounds:
1. Procedural Irregularities: The issuance of the PCN may be subject to procedural irregularities, including but not limited to:
• Failure to comply with statutory requirements for the issuance of PCNs.
• Non-adherence to prescribed protocols for the verification of alleged contraventions.
• Lack of evidentiary support or inadequate documentation accompanying the PCN.
2. Defective Notice: There may be deficiencies in the content or form of the PCN itself, rendering it defective and legally invalid. Such deficiencies may include:
• Ambiguity or lack of clarity in specifying the alleged contravention.
• Failure to provide requisite information regarding the rights of the recipient to challenge the PCN.
• Contravention of statutory requirements pertaining to the content of PCNs
3. Error in Application of Law: There exists the possibility of an error in the application of relevant legal provisions or regulations pertaining to the alleged contravention. This includes:
• Misinterpretation or misapplication of parking or traffic regulations.
• Failure to consider mitigating circumstances or exemptions that may apply in the given situation.
• Inconsistencies between the facts of the case and the legal basis for issuing the PCN.
4. Evidence Disputes: Challenge may be mounted against the veracity or sufficiency of evidence presented by Birmingham City Council in support of the PCN. This includes:
• Inadequate or unreliable evidence to substantiate the alleged contravention.
• Failure to preserve or produce evidence in accordance with legal requirements.
• Disputes regarding the accuracy or authenticity of photographic evidence, witness statements, or other documentation.

It is incumbent upon Birmingham City Council to demonstrate strict adherence to statutory provisions governing the issuance of PCNs. Any deviations from these requirements render the PCN susceptible to challenge on grounds of non-compliance with the law.


Legal Arguments
In light of the aforementioned grounds for challenge, the following legal arguments are posited on my behalf:
1. Lack of Regulatory Compliance: Birmingham City Council failed to fulfill its duties under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The council neglected to place adequate traffic signs to inform motorists of the parking bay's suspension, thereby breaching regulatory obligations. Birmingham City Council failed to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements regarding signage and enforcement procedures. The absence of clear, compliant signage renders the PCN invalid and unenforceable under the law.
2. Contravention 21 and Sign Compliance: Contravention 21 stipulates that 'In the absence of a compliant sign the vehicle was not in contravention and the appeal must be allowed.' This principle underscores the critical importance of signage compliance in determining the validity of a PCN. In this case, the signage failed to meet the threshold of compliance. The parking sign indicating free parking after 18:00 contradicted the alleged suspension of the bay. It did not adequately convey that parking was prohibited beyond 18:00, thus rendering it non-compliant with regulatory requirements. Therefore, the PCN cannot stand on the basis of non-compliant signage alone.
3. Failure to Discharge Duties under Regulation 18:
The council has also failed to discharges its duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which requires 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

In this instance, the council failed to fulfill this duty. Despite the presence of multiple regulatory signs for the parking bays, the suspension sign was not consistently displayed - in fact all state "pay by phone" and shows ''8am - 6pm''. The absence of a suspension sign on certain regulatory signs, particularly the one opposite the parked vehicle, implies a failure on the part of the council to provide adequate and consistent information to road users. As such, the alleged contravention cannot be upheld due to the council's failure to discharge its duties under Regulation 18.
When I parked, I walked towards the pay & display machine and I was entitled to rely on the signs that I saw, which regulate the use of these parking bays. There is no burden on the motorist to go and check each and every regulatory sign for a bay just in case one of them happens to be displaying a parking suspension sign.

4. Failure to mention suspension on pay meter: Furthermore, there was no mention on the pay meter that bays were suspended all-day. The pay meter serves as a primary point of reference for motorists regarding parking regulations and payments. By neglecting to include suspension information on the pay meter, the council failed to provide comprehensive and accessible information to road users. Consequently, the alleged contravention cannot be deemed to have occurred, given the council's failure to fulfill its obligations under Regulation 18

5. Unauthorised Traffic Sign: The challenge to the PCN extends to the unauthorised use of the suspension sign. Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 mandates that traffic signs must be duly authorised to be enforceable. In this case, the suspension sign used lacks authorisation from the Department for Transport (DfT - ( https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/?search=birmingham )), as evidenced by its absence from the official DfT database of authorised signs. Without proper authorisation, the sign is deemed invalid and cannot form the basis for enforcement action. Therefore, the PCN issued on the basis of an unauthorised sign is legally untenable..


Precedent Case: Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
"Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind."

The legal principles established in Davies v Heatley further reinforce the argument against the validity of the PCN. This case elucidates that non-compliance with regulatory requirements regarding signage nullifies any contravention associated with the sign. As the suspension sign used lacks proper authorisation and compliance with regulatory standards, any alleged contravention thereof is rendered null and void. Thus, the PCN cannot be upheld based on the use of an unauthorised and non-compliant sign.

Conclusion
The principle of legal certainty dictates that laws and regulations must be clear, precise, and predictable in their application. Any ambiguity or uncertainty in the formulation or interpretation of parking or traffic regulations may render the PCN invalid due to lack of legal certainty. The challenge to the PCN issued by Birmingham City Council against me is grounded in substantive legal arguments, including defective signage, regulatory non-compliance, and the use of unauthorised traffic signs. It is respectfully submitted that the PCN be declared legally invalid and quashed, in accordance with the principles of justice, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law.




Google maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HZfH1NhPcgkTNfVv7


Google Drive - See PCN, pictures and their rejection: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Iqj7IhlwLOZDMQFRVfthWKQgj6rOoLfM?usp=sharing


My issues:
They basically ignored my entire appeal and rejected it without addressing my points. This was an innocent mistake and I believe the council is wrong to fine me for their inappropriate signage of the suspension.

Your photo of the PCN is no good, sorry. Please post front and back separately and the right way up !

Their letter is the usual Fob-Off sent in response to an informal challenge. You now have to decide whether to pay the discount or wait for the Notice to Owner and submit a formal representation. This means the discount option is lost although they may re-offer it when rejecting your formal reps.

Ultimately, you have to be willing to take them to adjudication if you are convinced of your case.  I have to say it doesn't look like a strong case at the moment, but see what the others say.

Are you the holder of the V5 Registration Certificate ? The Notice to Owner is sent to the name and address on the V5.

Have re-uploaded another picture of the PCN.

I am the holder of the V5 Registration Certificate.

If my case isn't strong, i'm willing to pay. Will wait and see what others say.

Annoyingly, I moved my car to that bay after having paid (and parked for 2 hours..) for whole-day parking a a little while away

Your informal challenge is very interesting but mostly irrelevant. The entire "Grounds for Challenge" section reads more like an essay on the topic but doesn't really deal with any issues in the case, the issue of the sign authorisation is fully answered by https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4536.pdf and the LATOR argument doesn't really stand up to scrutnity givent he council photos show a suspension sign on the pole which holds the regulatory sign next to your car:









That being said, you might as well wait for the notice to owner, as long as the notice to owner is challenged within 14 days of the date of issue the discount is normally reoffered. In the meantime I'll get hold of the traffic order and the suspension logs.

Hmm, I gather my case doesn't look very strong. Do my points under 'Legal Arguments' hold no merit?

I'm not sure where you've got those points from and I'm not at all convinced you know what they mean: they read like points taken out of context from different cases, none of them seem to apply here.

The LATOR argument is fully answered by the photos of the sign right next to your car, so that's a non-starter.

Contravention 21 does not stipulate anything other than "Parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space", so I have no idea why you think it stipulates "In the absence of a compliant sign the vehicle was not in contravention and the appeal must be allowed", that seems to be something copied (again out of context) from a previous decision. Without the full decision we cannot say if it has any relevance, but somehow I doubt it.

Points 1 and 3 seems to be the same. I suppose it is possible a benevolent adjudicator might accept that the signage was inadequate because you thought the suspension didn't apply after 6, but frankly I wouldn't want to risk the discount on that point alone. We definitely want to find something far more compelling if you're going to risk the full amount at the tribunal.

On the other hand if after you challenge the notice to owner the council doesn't reoffer the discount, then there would be no reason not to go the full length as you'd have nothing to lose.

If you don't pay the PCN, and assuming it is your name and address on the V5 Registration Certificate for the car, you will then receive a Notice to Owner. You can then submit representations against this. At this stage there is no discount option, but they may reoffer it when rejecting your representations.

As others on this forum have suggested, you do not appear to have a very strong case, I would think carefully before you commit yourself to this path.  As cp8759 has said, you need something much more compelling as an argument to present to an adjudicator. However you do have the absolute right in law to take the council all the way to adjudication. 

Thanks. I'm happy to make my representation against the notice to owner.

Is there anything specific that would be useful for me to include in the representation?

Will post everything once I get it.

Suspension logs: