Free Traffic Legal Advice

Pl post what you've submitted.

Pl post the full NOR.

With this person's lack of knowledge we could well find a procedural impropriety or two waiting to be discovered!

Thanks. But the full NOR pl, all pages.

Thanks. But the full NOR pl, all pages.

Hi, did you get a chance to look at the NOR for any technical errors?

Procedural impropriety.

The NOR fails to state regulation 6(6)(a).

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

 But on page two of the NOR its states the following:

"If you do not appeal before the end the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a charge certificate may be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle increasing the charge by 50%. Failure to pay at this stage may result in the debt being registered at the county court and city council may apply for a warrant to recover the debt"

Not on the link I can see. (.....206)

And (6)(a) is about more than this issue anyway e.g. adjudicator's discretion to register an appeal outside the 28-day period, costs etc.

So do I appeal on the above mentioned point only (i.e. procedural impropriety) or shall I also add the arguments raised in my formal representation (i.e. the contravention did not occur)?

If you are appealing to the tribunal:

- Opt for an online or telephone hearing

- Summarise all points for the adjudicator, picking up all relevant points in the NOR. Your reps will be in the evidence pack anyway, should the council contest the appeal.

Thanks, here is my draft appeal:

1) The contravention did NOT occur:

The CEOs pictures show metal barriers to the right of my vehicle, it is clear that Westminster Council have treated the metal barriers as the edge of the carriageway for at least 5 years (as per Google Street View).

Therefore, if the ‘de facto’ limit of the carriageway is the metal barriers then a motorist should be able to consider the metal barriers to be the ‘de jure’ edge of the carriageway. The CEOs pictures show my vehicle was parked less than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway hence no contravention has occurred.

Adjudication decision 2240321907 makes it clear that in such circumstances these represent the 'edge of the carriageway' as regards s85 of the Traffic Management Act. It therefore follows that the contravention did not occur as my car was at all times parked within 50cm of the 'edge of the carriageway'.

2) Boarding/alighting is exempted in the London Councils handbook and referenced in Westminster councils' policies when assessing a Code 26 contravention:
 
Code 26 primarily reflects legislation designed to stop double parking but enforcement can't rule out double parking briefly to unload/alight if there are no other parking places available.
In this case I was collecting my two young children from a mathematics class and this was the safest location I could find on North Wharf Road for my children to alight/board the vehicle.

3) Procedural impropriety:

The Council's notice of rejection fails to state regulation 6(6)(a) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.