Free Traffic Legal Advice

What is the status/history of the PCN on the Council website?

Please post up as a matter of urgency all sides of the NtO - redact only name and address and leave everything else in.

Then in the absence of Pepipoo please have a read of

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up all sides of all paperwork to and from the Council and a GSV link to the location.

I know it's a faff, but without the paperwork the experts here would be working blind

Also not sure if it helps but new TMOs seem to be a lot more summarised an example of one recently in and around the area which someone posted a snippet of on the other forum, prior to me getting the offical TMO for the bay in question

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Newham ("the Council') proposes to make the above Orders under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
2. The general effect of the Disabled Resident Parking Places Orders and the Disabled Persons Permit Parking Places Order would be to designate disabled resident parking places for use only by persons who are resident within the Beckton, Canning Town, Canning Town North, East Ham, East Ham South East, Green Street North, Market Street, Monega, Plaistow North, Plaistow South, Ruskin, Stratford, Stratford South East and Upton Park Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), who meet the current criteria for the provision of parking places for disabled persons and who have been issued disabled resident parking permits for their vehicles. Certain other vehicles may wait in the parking places in certain circumstances, e.g., to load or unload goods or pick up or set down passengers. A single parking place would be designated at each of the locations listed below. (NOTE - at locations where an 'overlap' is also stated, the proposed parking place would overlap the frontage of the adjacent property numbers, by up to 1 metre):-

https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2587.DojhGH

says 28 days beginning with date of service.
So

Date of Notice to Owner - Wednesday 24 April
Date of Service - Friday 26th = day 1 of the 28 days.

So I make the deadline to be midnight on the 28th day = Friday 23 May.

Hopefully others can confirm.

So you have a lttle time for the experts here (I am not one) to chip in.

Date of Notice to Owner - Wednesday 24 April
Date of Service - Friday 26th = day 1 of the 28 days.

Silly question, but where did you get Date of Service from, i assume youve added a 2 days for delivery? I believe the Date of notice would also be the date of service in which I don't have much time, either tonight or tomorrow but to play it safe I'm tempted to hit a reply before midnight today.

My attempt at the appeal as it stands is, first time I'm appealing past the initial informal council appeal, so not sure if it's worded correctly.

I am appealing the following PCN on the following grounds and request the PCN is cancelled.

Ground 1. I had parked in the said disabled bay to load my vehicle, which is allowed as per the TMO that came into force on 28th November 2015 for this bay which states on point 11.1.h - Page 7

11. (1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order, any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and if
 -  (h) in any other case the vehicle is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'

As it can be noted this clearly states parking in a disabled bay is allowed if one is loading/unloading at a premise adjacent, which was clearly the case here, as well as the fact I was parked in the bay for much less then 20 minutes, as the CEO had he observed would have noticed and made note of. After placing the PCN I had informed the warden I was loading yet this was not taken into consideration.

Ground 2. In addition to the above, there was no parking available in the resident or pay and display bays on the entore street or neighbouring street during that period, other than disabled bays in addition to the one I used that were empty. Had I parked on the street to load, it would have caused great inconveience to others and caused a backlog of traffic, hence the use of the disabled bay adjacent to my property was the most viable and reasonable approach and option to take and to be penalised is unfair.


Ground 3. Could add the bit that Mike mentioned and try my luck?

Ground 4. I had asked the neighbour, so can get written letter, although the bay isn;t specificially for them, rather any disabled resident permit holder

Thanks Mike! let me send the amended Groundds 3 & 4 in addition to my 1 & 2 across now.. and see what they come back with, fairly confident it'll be rejected then independant adjudicator it is.

Groudn 4 surely they'll just laught it off, while it makes sense however to them they don't even consider such things and will see this as a null point assuming as would the adjudicator?

With respect, I disagree and I'll set out my thinking.

There is no ISA (wheelchair) symbol on the sign, therefore it is not a 'parking place reserved for disabled badge holders.'

Instead, there is the standard 'P' and it is a 'Parking place' - see item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made

(the bay also looks like it doesn't meet the min. size requirements for a disabled bay)

IMO, it is a permit bay and the type of user and permit identifier are Disabled Resident Permit Holder E.

The other way of looking at the issue would be that if it was a dedicated disabled bay then as it doesn't carry the ISA symbol (column 3) then this wins on its own and it's not necessary to explore column 4 issues.

OP, the car was parked without displaying or holding the required permit. If you are going to rely upon an exemption, in this case loading, then it is your legal burden to prove your entitlement.

The CEO's photo shows an unattended vehicle.
You claim that you were in the process of '..loading at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'

So, IMO you need something like:
On ** I had been visiting ** who lives at no. *** which is a property adjacent to the parking place in question....and then your account. I suggest you start with this because as regards the facts regarding what you were doing, you're the only one who knows and there are very important matters which as yet haven't been aired. Your reps leap straight into legal matters when, if you are entitled to the exemption, the only issue is to set out why you are entitled.

For example:
Looking at your photo, there's enough luggage etc. for an army. If it's yours, then you must have been stating..in which case if you only moved your car into the parking place at the time of loading, where was it until then and why couldn't loading have waited until another parking place was free etc. etc.

'Adjacent', which I think is key, is not defined and therefore subjective. Here's one I saw online:

Adjacent means close to or near something. You may consider the people up and down your street to be neighbors, but your next-door neighbor is the person who lives in the house or apartment adjacent to yours. Adjacent can refer to two things that touch each other or have the same wall or border.