Author Topic: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2  (Read 3854 times)

0 Members and 300 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #15 on: »
Make sure you opt for a telephone or online hearing if they contest this.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #16 on: »
Astonishingly Brent are sticking to their guns.

This morning I received an email with a document attached, but I can't seem to figure out how to attach it here, so this is a paste of the important bit:

On 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours, the vehicle with registration mark XXX was seen
in Riffel Road, outside Nos 8, use of which was suspended. Parking at the location on
Riffel Road was suspended between 28/02/2025 and 28/02/2025. The Brent (Parking
Places) (Zone MW) (No. 1) Order 2019.

The contemporaneous notes of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) that issued the
PCN state: parking suspension lo loading from Friday 28 February at any time Riffel
Road outside Nos. 8-12, reason domestic removal reference number BS/04025; all
windows of the vehicle were checked; no driver seen; no note seen; no
loading/unloading activity seen; no disability persons badge seen; no permit seen;
PCN attached to the vehicle and photographs taken.

The CEO concluded that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking
regulations and the completed PCN was issued on 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours
accordingly and affixed to the vehicle.

From the details recorded, the council was able to contact the D.V.L.A. and ascertain
the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle. In this case, Mr Robin Leigh Catto was the
D.V.L.A registered owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention and is
held liable for this PCN.

The Appellant Mr Robin Leigh Catto has appealed on the notice of appeal to the
Adjudicator on the ground: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
Enforcement Authority.

To summarise, the appellant has stated in the notice of appeal to the Adjudicator the
following information: the appellant states that the prohibited zone is outside houses
numbers 8- 12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I
checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture
clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking
restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost
had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I
shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore, this PCN should be
cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect
residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated
29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign
to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as
the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is
wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign
doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply
to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that
lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to, and the council decided it was
unnecessary to add another post.

In response to the notice of appeal received: the parking spaces located outside Nos.
8-12 were suspended on 28/02/2025. Sign of the suspension was affixed to the
nearest post, located at the same location. The nearest suspension sign was
positioned in front of the appellants vehicle at the time of the contravention. Please
refer to evidence form C for the photographs of the contravention. For the Learned
Adjudicator’s perusal, please find enclosed the suspension record sheet (please see
evidence J). The suspension sign was placed as close to the road as possible to allow
it to be viewed more easily by motorists, and although the appellant states there was
a post close to where he had parked, this post was against the garden wall of a
property and not in full view for motorists to see the signage.

If there is a whole or part suspension of a parking bay the suspension notice would be
positioned on the nearest/appropriate street furniture. Motorists should check the
adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked to ensure that there
is not a part suspension of a parking place. In this instance as per the first photograph
taken by the CEO clearly shows the signage in front of the appellants vehicle.

Parking bays may be suspended for a range of different reasons. Suspensions are not
arranged to allow vehicles to park, but to allow essential access for activities such as
domestic or commercial moves, special events, highway repairs, utility company works
(gas, electricity, water, telephone), building work, tree pruning or cutting or
loading/unloading of heavy equipment etc.

The Council always endeavours to erect suspension signs 1 week prior to the start of
the suspension if possible. In this particular case, the suspension sign was erected on
26/02/2025, to give residents due notice of when the suspension will be enforced.
The suspension sign is of yellow colour and highly visible. In this particular case, the
suspension sign was located behind in front of the appellants vehicle. The sign
displays nationally recognised sign for ‘No Waiting’ and the date and time of the
suspension. Resident permits holders are not allowed to park in suspended bays. The
Council is satisfied that the suspension sign at the location was adequate. Every
motorist is expected to check the relevant signage every day for possible suspensions
and act accordingly. Motorists are required to park legally at all times.

I have enclosed a copy of the Traffic Management Order in respect of the location of
the contravention. Article 12 of the Order refers to the ‘power to suspend the use of a
parking place.’

The Council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that an exemption does
not apply in this case. The Council is also satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued
and legally served. The Council has decided not to accept the mitigation put forward
in this case.

In conclusion, Brent Council wishes to contest the Appeal. No payment has been
received in respect of the PCN and the amount of £130 is outstanding.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #17 on: »
Have you got a date for the hearing.

They say:

Motorists should check the adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked

But you have no duty than to check the most obvious nearest sign.

It's vital you clearly explain the layout to the adjudicator, and that they haven't made any defence to what the parking sign you relied on is for.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #18 on: »
Thanks so much for replying so quickly!

The hearing is on 26/11/25.

Regarding your comment "But you have no duty than to check the most obvious nearest sign" in response to their claim "Motorists should check the adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked", is there somewhere reliable you know of that this is stated so that I can reference it regarding this discrepancy?

Thank you!!


Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #19 on: »
Forward me the email - marcb@csi.com

I want to look at the traffic order which should be in it.

If you look back you'll see I posted a couple of cases. Here's another one with my highlights.

Also you should upload the pic of your car next to the sign for the tribunal if you've not done so.
All pics have disappeared from this thread.
 
---------------


Case reference 2250421806
Appellant Dan Chandrakumar
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM MT20KBF

PCN Details
PCN LJ33934038
Contravention date 25 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:05:00
Contravention location Clarence Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space

Referral date -

Decision Date 26 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Lola Moses
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for parking in a suspended bay. The appeal was determined following a personal hearing via Microsoft Teams. The Appellant attended and made submissions in support of the appeal. The Enforcement Authority was not represented.
Appellant's case
2. The Appellant submits that the suspension signage was not adequately placed to notify him that the bay was suspended. He parked adjacent to a standard time plate which authorised parking for permit holders and did not display any suspension notice. He provided contemporaneous photographs showing that the only suspension sign was positioned approximately 30 metres away, at the opposite end of the bay, and was not visible from the point at which his vehicle was parked due to the presence of other parked vehicles. He argues that the bay was not lawfully suspended at the location where he parked.
Enforcement Authority’s case
3. The Enforcement Authority relies on photographic evidence showing a yellow suspension notice affixed to one time plate along the bay. Their case summary asserts that appropriate signage was in place and that it is the driver’s responsibility to check for any restrictions. The Authority does not dispute that only one suspension sign was used, nor that the time plate nearest to the Appellant’s vehicle did not carry that notice. They also rely on the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO), the Lambeth (Charged-For Parking Places) Order 2023 (LBC 2023 No. 2).
Findings and Conclusion
4. The TMO at Article 16.3 provides that in order for a parking bay to be suspended it must have a sign “…placed in or adjacent to that parking place or that part thereof, as the case may be, the use of which is suspended, a traffic sign indicating that waiting by all vehicles is prohibited.”

5. I am satisfied that the Appellant parked in a bay which was covered by a permit sign and that this sign did not carry a suspension notice. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that the only suspension sign in place was at the opposite end of the bay and approximately 30 metres away. The photographic evidence shows that this sign would not have been visible from the point where the vehicle was parked, particularly given the presence of other vehicles along the bay at the relevant time.

6. On the evidence, I find that the Enforcement Authority did not comply with the requirement under Article 16(3) to place the suspension sign “in or adjacent to” the part of the bay that was suspended, that is the location where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked.

7. In the absence of signage placed in accordance with the requirements of the TMO, I find that the suspension was not properly effected at that part of the bay. Accordingly, the restriction was not properly conveyed, and the alleged contravention did not occur.
Decision
8. I allow the appeal.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2025, 03:38:22 pm by stamfordman »

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #20 on: »
Thank you!

I have forwarded the email.

I can't seem to attach anything to this thread any more, so I have also sent you via email the relevant picture which has been sent to the tribunal with my appeal.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #21 on: »
How were your formal representations made?

If by email or online then deemed received 5 June which is day 1.

Therefore NOR deemed served 31 July is out of time by 1 day because there were 26 days remaining in June plus 31 for July = 57 days.

The adjudicator has NO power to vary this, it's strict and the law.

So, how did you make your reps?


Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #22 on: »
I made the representation online on 5/6/25.

The NOR (which I have emailed to you) is dated 29/7/25 not 31/7/25.

My understanding was that a NOR is deemed to have been served on the day it's sent.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #23 on: »
Here are relevant bits.







Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #24 on: »
My understanding was that a NOR is deemed to have been served on the day it's sent.

You're wrong. It's deemed served on the second working day after posting.

So, can we engage with this pl. The NOR is out of time and if you bring this to the adjudicator's attention you win.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #25 on: »
Thanks!

That sounds easy.

1 Do I wait for the tribunal or bring this up in advance?

2 Is there some official reference to this timing issue so that I can cite this if I'm challenged about it?

Thank you!

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #26 on: »
(7) If the enforcement authority fails to comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (4) within the 56-day period—

(a)it is deemed for the purposes of these Regulations to have accepted the representations made by the recipient, and

(b)it must—

(i)cancel the relevant enforcement notice,

(ii)refund any sum paid in relation to it, and

(iii)serve a notice on the recipient informing the recipient that the enforcement notice has been cancelled because the enforcement authority failed to serve a decision notice in accordance with paragraph (4)(b).

The Appeals Regs:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564/regulation/6

Simply include and lead with this in your appeal. This would be copied to the authority who, if they were to continue to resist i.e. they do not 'Do not contest', then apply for a costs award at your hearing.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #27 on: »
Amazing!

Thanks so much again!!

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #28 on: »
Both the 56 day time out and the signage are winners on their own so if for some strange reason the adjudicator doesn't buy one they almost certainly will the other.

Re: Brent, Code 21, Parked in a suspended bay/space, Riffel Road NW2
« Reply #29 on: »
Sorry to be pedantic, but the '56-day' issue is the law. It does not lie with the adjudicator to make alternative findings, the evidence is objective and they are required to apply the law.