Free Traffic Legal Advice

+1

As Incandescent says, asap.

But, post yr draft reps here for comment before sending and remember in drafting them you are asking the Council to be kind and generous.

The PCN states only that a valid ticket wasn't displayed. This was impossible to do without a working machine. Pay by phone is a red herring here and in any case I've had a look at a recent traffic order and there is nothing about virtual payment.

See these two cases:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuQD76DOqbsKDRzzZs39zXb-gPdxF_CW/view

2190494295

As a person of similar age to the Appellant I have a degree of sympathy with the
complexities of making payment by phone at the roadside, particularly if the phone is
not of the latest type - although my sympathy in the present case is somewhat reduced
by the Council’s evidence that the registration number has been incorrectly registered
and used on previous occasions. . Nevertheless if this is the method required to
validate parking a motorist must simply cope with it or park the vehicle elsewhere.
In the present case, however, the PCN was issued for the contravention of failing to
display a P&D ticket (which is what the Traffic Management Order requires), not for
failing to make payment. I accept the Appellant’s evidence ( not challenged by the
Council) were no working P&D machines available; and it seems to me a motorist
cannot be required to pay a penalty for failing to display something which the Council
has prevented him from displaying. The Appeal is allowed on the basis that the
contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur .

---------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16DxyWjZpQIYl73ng1yVBH0QufRQdGgK6/view

2230447294

A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. on 18th November
2023; I spoke with the Appellant's representative Mr I. Murray-Smith on the
contact number provided.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert the said vehicle, at the relevant time
on the material date, to be 'parked in a car park without clearly displaying a
valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock.'
2. The Appellant's dispute as to liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge
Notice is on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge
comprehensively stated in the skeleton argument submitted by Mr Murray-
Smith (with supporting references and cited cases) which he reiterated and
further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
I am obliged to Mr Murray-Smith for his thorough research and the manner
of presentation of his contention.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so
parked contrary to an operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence
to the requisite standard to substantiate the assertion that the said vehicle
was 'parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display
ticket or voucher or parking clock.' :-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy
Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order
provisions, and contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil
Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: images showing
the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended, and an image of a sign
notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Civil Enforcement Officer confirms the lack of sight of a displayed
payment voucher, and the Enforcement Authority allege an absence of
payment receipt by the telephone service provider at the at the point of
issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to
evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations presented
on the Appellant's behalf.
i) I note that the signage at the location (if indeed it relates to the said
vehicle's parked position, since it is not possible to determine the position
of the same in relation to the said vehicle) does not reflect the restriction
invoked by the Traffic Management Order, since the inclusion of telephone
payment is not implemented in the Order.
This is a factual deflect which I find flaws the Enforcement Authority's
assertion. Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that a contravention is proved.
ii) I am concerned that the Enforcement Authority have sought to submit as
evidence a document (which it is statutorily obliged to furnish) other than
that of which it purports to be a copy.
This is a procedural deflect which I find flaws the Enforcement Authority's
propriety.

The Appeal is allowed.

Quote from: stamfordman on March 17, 2025, 10:13:33 am

The PCN states only that a valid ticket wasn't displayed. This was impossible to do without a working machine. Pay by phone is a red herring here and in any case I've had a look at a recent traffic order and there is nothing about virtual payment.

See these two cases:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuQD76DOqbsKDRzzZs39zXb-gPdxF_CW/view

2190494295

As a person of similar age to the Appellant I have a degree of sympathy with the
complexities of making payment by phone at the roadside, particularly if the phone is
not of the latest type - although my sympathy in the present case is somewhat reduced
by the Council’s evidence that the registration number has been incorrectly registered
and used on previous occasions. . Nevertheless if this is the method required to
validate parking a motorist must simply cope with it or park the vehicle elsewhere.
In the present case, however, the PCN was issued for the contravention of failing to
display a P&D ticket (which is what the Traffic Management Order requires), not for
failing to make payment. I accept the Appellant’s evidence ( not challenged by the
Council) were no working P&D machines available; and it seems to me a motorist
cannot be required to pay a penalty for failing to display something which the Council
has prevented him from displaying. The Appeal is allowed on the basis that the
contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur .

---------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16DxyWjZpQIYl73ng1yVBH0QufRQdGgK6/view

2230447294

A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. on 18th November
2023; I spoke with the Appellant's representative Mr I. Murray-Smith on the
contact number provided.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert the said vehicle, at the relevant time
on the material date, to be 'parked in a car park without clearly displaying a
valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock.'
2. The Appellant's dispute as to liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge
Notice is on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge
comprehensively stated in the skeleton argument submitted by Mr Murray-
Smith (with supporting references and cited cases) which he reiterated and
further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
I am obliged to Mr Murray-Smith for his thorough research and the manner
of presentation of his contention.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so
parked contrary to an operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence
to the requisite standard to substantiate the assertion that the said vehicle
was 'parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display
ticket or voucher or parking clock.' :-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy
Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order
provisions, and contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil
Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: images showing
the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended, and an image of a sign
notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Civil Enforcement Officer confirms the lack of sight of a displayed
payment voucher, and the Enforcement Authority allege an absence of
payment receipt by the telephone service provider at the at the point of
issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to
evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations presented
on the Appellant's behalf.
i) I note that the signage at the location (if indeed it relates to the said
vehicle's parked position, since it is not possible to determine the position
of the same in relation to the said vehicle) does not reflect the restriction
invoked by the Traffic Management Order, since the inclusion of telephone
payment is not implemented in the Order.
This is a factual deflect which I find flaws the Enforcement Authority's
assertion. Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that a contravention is proved.
ii) I am concerned that the Enforcement Authority have sought to submit as
evidence a document (which it is statutorily obliged to furnish) other than
that of which it purports to be a copy.
This is a procedural deflect which I find flaws the Enforcement Authority's
propriety.

The Appeal is allowed.

Hi

Just to give you all an update and request your HELP please!
My challenge to Sandwell MBC was rejected. Please see attached with the reasons they have stated. 

I then received a Notice to Keeper (NTO),it has been couple weeks since receiving it, I forgot to upload it here, however I don't know if I am blind or what but I cannot seem to find a date on it to say when NTO was issued, therefore, I don't know when it will be 28 days as I need to make another challenge ASAP!

Please could someone help me to word it as I am terrible at this or give me some pointers to make the challenge?

Many thanks

I would stress the NTO, they are doomed.

Dear Sir,
PCN ***********

Thank you for your undated Notice to Owner, a copy of which is enclosed.

My formal representations are as follows:
1. Procedural improprieties
The regulations in this case mandate the following:

Notice to Owner
......

(3) A notice to owner must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, state—

(a)the date of the notice, which must be the date on which the notice is posted,

This date has been omitted, therefore not only does the NTO fail to meet this stand-alone requirement, it also fails to state the "payment period' and the 'representations period' the calculation of both of which is predicated on the 'date of the notice'.

3 procedural improprieties.

2. Contravention did not occur
Not that these grounds should be necessary, but I also rely upon my original representations.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours....