Author Topic: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction” Location “Outside Garages”  (Read 7258 times)

0 Members and 210 Guests are viewing this topic.

Should this point not be argued also.

IMO, no. Obstruction is subjective, so how could you argue your opinion with any hope of success and why give them the chance to waffle on about 'obstruction'.
by the same token  what makes you think the Authority can argue obstruction??when there appears to be photographic evidence that the OP wasn't causing an obstruction.
Quote from: andy_foster
Mick, you are a very, very bad man

Each to their own, however I prefer to stick with objective argument in this case. But if the OP feels compelled to raise the issue that in their opinion they were not causing a (in law undefined) contravention of 'obstruction', then include in their reps.

In the response to the informal challenge, they didn’t necessarily say that I was causing an obstruction. They just outlined the “terms” for the “car park” in which it said if there are no lines for the bays then you must park without causing obstruction to pedestrian’s emergency vehicles etc blah blah, they didn’t explicitly say that I was in contravention of that and that’s the reason they upheld the PCN, so I can see why it doesn’t need to be brought up.

This is just what I’ve gathered

Nevermind what I said, they did actually say in the rejection to the informal appeal, “you were issued a PCN for causing an obstruction”

You said in post #1: I received a PCN this time for being “parked causing an obstruction”,

Can I also ask what you meant by “costs award”. Surely there’s no costs award with these types of matters, or have I misunderstood?

Lots of questions peripheral to the main issue.

Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses.

(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—

(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—

(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or

(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;


(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.

(3) An order must not be made against a party unless that party has been given an opportunity to make representations against the making of the order.

(4) An order must require the party against whom it is made to pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings.


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

They're very limited and the threshold is high, but IMO the authority are just being ignorant and obdurate here.

2024/2025 Stats for Parking at London Tribunals:


https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Parking%20Stats%202024-25%20final%20%28PWS%20version%29.xlsx


Yes that is the reason stated on the PCN for being issued.

I just thought it’s important to understand what I’m sending, hence I asked.

I understand everyone is giving up their own time to help me out here and it’s truly appreciated.

I will submit the formal appeal via Notice to Owner and send an update in any case.

Post a draft here first pl and keep a copy of what you send.

Just re-read the thread. Is the ridiculous 'Permit holders only beyond this point' sign still in place?

I’m just going to send what you sent, I won’t alter it.

Yes that sign is still in place.

Also is the formal representation the same portal as the informal representation? As it’s giving me the option to make a representation there, but it seems the same as the informal representation. Just want to make sure.

Thanks

I would suggest this amendment:

Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not exist simply because the markings are present or because untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so.  There is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks. As further proof of the council's confusion regarding the status of this piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit holders only past this point' which is displayed prominently at the entrance to the area.

But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning. So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory requirements'.

I’ve submitted the appeal.

Here is EXACTLY what I’ve sent:

“The contravention did not occur.

The basic facts of where my vehicle was parked are not in dispute and therefore I hope the authority would not belabour this aspect in their response.

This is a matter of law and how it applies to the council's demand for a penalty.

In order for the council to treat this area as an off-street car park and to demand penalties for failure to comply with its terms and condition of use, those conditions MUST be conveyed clearly to users. Accepted practice is to erect a board setting out those terms and what may happen if a motorist fails to comply. In addition, if the car park is marked then it is the council's duty to convey to a motorist that, as you glibly wrote in your letter dated 5 November, 'in a car park with marked spaces or areas you [ the motorist] need to park so that your entire vehicle is inside these lines.'

Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not exist simply because the markings are present or because untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so.  There is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks.

As further proof of the council's confusion regarding the status of this piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit holders only past this point' which is displayed prominently at the entrance to the area.

But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning. So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory requirements'.

Given that the authority failed to have regard to my previous representations, I do not hold out an expectation that this might change with formal representations. But I have not totally abandoned hope that the authority will not insist on taking this matter to adjudication at which my appeal would be allowed and favourable consideration given to making a costs award.

The contravention (as defined under para. 2(1)(c) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004) did not occur because 'any provision made by or under an order relating to the parking place' must be conveyed adequately.“

Surely if the car was parked on-street, only the police can enforce obstruction with a Fixed Penalty Notice, as the Traffic Management Act does not include 'obstruction' as a decriminalised offence ? Therefore the PCN is void.

I submitted the appeal but when I search the PCN it now says they received my representation in Oct.

https://ibb.co/tpP4Gbzt

Can anyone clarify please? This must be an admin error on their end surely?

It's not relevant at present, you received a NTO and have made representations against this in time.

They must consider.

@Incandescent, for better or worse, 'Parked causing an obstruction' is an approved contravention description which may be applied to a PCN as the grounds for demanding a penalty.

OK, but the offence is subjective. It's not like yellow lines, or over time, or outside bay markings.

Absolutely, which is why the TMA excluded on-street obstruction because the exercise of subjective opinion requires training and is best left with the police. But they did introduce the '50 cm' contravention to help councils deal with this form of parking(double parking), particularly near sports grounds.