Free Traffic Legal Advice

(n.b. I was not the driver or keeper, so can't take any "credit" for the quality of the parking, nor explain their thinking...!)

This was for a PCN initially served in June 2023.  The NTO did not arrive, so after receiving the CC the keeper waited for the OfR and got the process set back to NTO stage.

Here is the NTO and reps details:








Here is a copy of the PCN that was served on the car.  The keeper doesn't have the original any more and did not take a copy of the reverse.



Here are the CEO pictures taken from the online portal:






Since the incident, the markings have been repainted, and this is how they appear now:




- The driver stated to the keeper that they could not see any markings on the bay when they parked.  The first CEO pic supports that they were heavily worn at the side at which the driver presumably entered the space.  They claim that the vertical line in pic 2 faded out shortly after it goes under the car, and (as can be seen from pic 1) does not meet the horizontal line.  The faint white splodges outside the horizontal line are the remnants of "DISABLED"
- The driver did display a BB and clock as required
- It is not clear why the CEO took a picture of the disabled bay sign as a) the BB was properly displayed and b) the ticket is not for anything to do with disabled bays
- The bays have since been repainted, as per the final pic, which does suggest that Harrow knew they were worn



Thank you for any suggestions

Initial ideas - FOI request to Harrow for details on why the bays were recently repainted?  Would an admission that they were worn help?

OP, you posted 'I was not the driver or keeper' which means everything that's required to be done procedurally must be done by someone else.

It's not the first time that the keeper has asked me to help them so we are both clear on procedure and will submit things correctly.

Date first NTO issued - will be on the charge certificate;

They were waiting for ages after the CC to receive the OfR.  I have the CC here:

Date TEC ordered the CC and NTO cancelled(the revocation order) - is on the order which the keeper received from TEC.

The OfR?  I don't have a copy of this but can get one if it's important.

The Order for Recovery is the notice which includes the witness statement form which your friend submitted in time. 21 days are permitted and therefore working back from the date of submission- which is given in the order as 26 Sept.-this gives a date of service of the Order for Recovery as no earlier than 5 Sept. 2024.

What happened between 26 Sept. 2023 and 12 months later, 5 Sept. 2024, a prolonged exchange of correspondence or radio silence? Only the keeper knows.

And pl provide the full house of dates i.e. the date of issue of the OfR.

 

As requested, the OfR

Thank you, I shall do.

What do you think in regards to the heavily worn markings, also the suggestion of a FOI to see when and why the markings were repainted?  If the FOI states "repainted in July 2023 as markings were heavily worn" (or somesuch) this would seem to support a claim that the markings were not sufficient at the time?

Or is the procedural impropriety a sure fire winner on its own?

Harrow NOR.  Obviously we will be taking it to adjudication.  Anything else to add?  Also we would like to see about costs as it's ridiculous keeping a vulnerable person hanging on for more than a year.  I guess this is done after a win at adjudication?




I'm a bit perplexed by paragraph 4; "If you believed....".  Aside from the incredibly patronising tone, he has only had the opportunity to make an informal representation, so what is this "other chance"?  Am I missing something or is this just council patronising nonsense?

I would have mentioned the markings and repainting so as they carried forward to the appeal but you can still introduce them.

I did, although I haven't received the FOI details yet about when and why the markings were repainted.  Even assuming maximum response times, I will have these in time for the adjudicator appeal.

If you must FoI, and I think you should, then ask this:

Please provide a copy of the committee report (and published decision) which was submitted to the council pursuant to their obligation under s87 Traffic Management Act 2004 for the purpose of having regard to the Secretary of State's (who is the 'national authority' for these purposes)updated Statutory Guidance issued in October 2022.