Free Traffic Legal Advice

my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver

The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).

Quote from: John U.K. on May 21, 2024, 02:23:19 pm

Quote

my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver

The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).

Okay in that case do i have to act on behlaf of my father purely because the NtO is in the reigstered keepers name, going forward when it goes to adjudication, would I be able to take it forward or he will have to, even though I was teh driver ?

Or does this change what I say, I should it be said my son had driven the car and was loading etc?

He can certainly give you written authority to act for him at adjudication: I thinkl (but am not certain) he can to the same for reps against NtO. Probably simpler (as you're online) to write the reps as from him.

He can just refer to the driver.

OP, three strands:
1. As said by others, only the person to whom the NTO is addressed may make reps. They may either do this personally or, by written authorisation, nominate another person to do so on their behalf and to represent them at adjudication. You never become the owner, you only act for them.

2. As far as we know, two very different matters.
a. The more straightforward. Was the driver engaged in an exempt activity and therefore may the owner tick 'contravention did not occur'? With respect, although we're managing to piece together the events there is one crucial element missing i.e. is the property 'adjacent' to the parking space. We don't need you to tell us the exact property number but you WILL have to demonstrate this to the authority because they're not under any obligation just to take your word for matters.

b. The enforceability of the restriction given the arguments regarding whether the restriction is signed as required.
This is the council website: https://www.newham.gov.uk/parking-permits/resident-parking-permits-1/2?documentId=547&categoryId=20124

Unambiguous as far as they are concerned, the bays are permit bays.

With respect to MMV Redux, IMO it's not possible to get the full picture without the 'said authorisation' (17 Oct 2011) particularly the use of what would otherwise be an improper road marking i.e. TSRGD do not permit the use of the 'Disabled' road marking visible the other council photos with a permit bay. 

3. What the Traffic Order provides - and we don't know at this stage.

Yes, you're correct. Thanks.

I've amended my previous post.

Also I’m thinking, if they’ll reject this then I have one final appeal right to the adjudicator, so shall I submit with main reason being exception, then mention the other two points around signage etc  giving us more time to solidify our case for final appeal at next stage ?

Sorry for the constant spam replies all, really getting into this, although a shame I left it so late..

So here's the final revised appeal to NtO.

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

Ground 1. On 16th February 2024, my son was loading the vehicle from the premise XX which is my property and this property is adjacent to the parking place in question, as per the TMO that came into force on 28th November 2015, this is one of the exemptions allowed as stated on point 11.1.h.


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 (extract from TMO) clearly states parking in a bay in question is allowed if one is loading/unloading at a premise adjacent, which was clearly the case here, as well as the fact the vehicle was parked in the parking place in question for less then 20 minutes, therefore the alleged contravention did not occur, as an exemption was in place and followed accordingly, as the CEO had he observed would have noticed and made note of had they followed procedure and enforce the TMO properly. After placing the PCN the CEO had been informed that the loading was taking place from the adjacent property, yet this was not taken into consideration.

Ground 2. In addition to the above, there was no parking available in the resident and pay and display bays on the entire street or neighbouring street during that period, other than disabled bays in addition to the one in question, all of which were empty as can be seen in the attached picture. Had my son stopped the vehicle on the middle of the street to load, it would have caused great inconvenience to others and caused a backlog of traffic, hence parking in the disabled bay adjacent to my property was the most viable and reasonable approach considering the circumstances and to be penalised with a PCN for this is unfair.


Ground 3. The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid.

Why so in your face? There was no contravention because loading from an adjacent property is an exemption...would suffice.

Sorry did I say something wrong or was I bit a too full on with my appeal :O, ie shouldnt add the reference and quotes from TMO?

Sorry, not trying to hide anything, thought to add them to the appeal to emphasise actions taken as a way to give my appeal some more umff, but I can see what you mean that it's my word and no proof .

As the loading took place, I was in and out of the house with luggage, each time I'd go in, I'd close the back or doors (security consicous some one may pass by and take something). As I returned to load the CEO was walking off and I noticed the PCN, at which point I called him and said we were loading etc but he just said too bad in a way - I can remove this from the reps, if there is no added benefit in it

So to answer your questions

1. At the point of the PCN no one was at the vehicle, as I was in the property getting further luggage.
2. Loading was in progress or half way through.
3. With the PCN issued and the conversation with CEO after, how would it change or impact the reps?
4. Evidence of conversation - I checked my Ring, recording not available going back that far, so only the CEO's bodycam I guess, if it goes that far.

The other point I can see if we're basing it on proof/evidence (fair) is around the parked less then 20 minutes, neither they nor I can now proove that :/