Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, to get to the legal issue as regards the prevailing legislation:

3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

......or


(c)for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles, and—

(i)such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked; and

(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked;

This is your burden to prove.

What do you have as objective proof? Do you have any report from a mechanic/garage to the effect that there was a problem with your car? If so, were you aware of this problem beforehand?

What was your conversation with the CEO e.g. did they ask you to move etc?

Having your engine running is not in itself a defence. In fact it prompts the question, why? Surely most drivers who felt compelled to pull over and stop immediately because of a fault with their car would in fact turn off their engine.

There are circumstantial issues in your favour e.g. why would you stop otherwise because nobody left the car, you were also parked over double yellow lines whose presence would support your contention that it was safer to stop partly off the road because of the nature of local traffic etc.

Hi, thank you for your reply. to your questions:

1. There was nothing obvious. I just felt some kind of vibration and hence got out to check. I was only stopping there for a couple of minutes, and after ascertaining that there was no issue, I continued on my way.

2. I explained to the CEO when he came near to my car, but he wouldnt listen at all (you can see in the pics me trying to talk to him). He just clicked pics, and printed a PCN without listening. My whole point is that he didn't give me a fair chance, didn't ask me to move.

3. Having engine on is not a defense, what i meant to say that it was a short stop to check if things were okay. The hazard indicators were on, as the AC / music was running in the car, so kept the engine on to not drain the battery. As I mentioned I felt a vibration so wasn't thinking any issue with engine hence kept it running.

Overall, I will contest on the basis of not giving fair chance, no reason to stop as no one left the car, the car was not left unattended, and failure to consider my challenge on car safety in the informal appeal.

Please let me know if I missed anything.

Thanks.


Post the NTO pl, we must know what the time imperatives are.

How old is the car and pl confirm that you are the registered keeper.

Hi, please find the link for nto: https://ibb.co/album/DgKL0p

car is 2020 reg plate, and I am the registered keeper.

Thanks. Last day for reps is 25 Aug.

Still need more info on the emergency e.g. what did you check, how long did this take, were these checks interrupted by the CEO, did you continue to complete your inspection after PCN....

But above this is a procedural issue.

From the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance:
The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months [footnote 33] from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO.

Presumably the NTO was not accompanied by a statement of these 'exceptional circumstances'?

IMO, in any reps I would look to compare the authority's stance as regards rejecting your initial reps to their duty to have regard to the SoS's Guidance, perhaps...while the authority were not prepared to accept my prior representations, presumably because they did not consider that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional for the statutory exemptions to apply then, in the absence of any convincing statement of reasons by the authority as to what 'exceptional circumstances' should permit it to send the NTO more than 150 days after the relevant date and 100 days beyond the date in the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, I submit that this is a procedural impropriety and should these grounds not be accepted then the authority are required to give detailed and compelling reasons for such a rejection.


Unless something happened between them responding to your initial reps and the NTO. Did it?

Hi thank you for your detailed advice. And yes, there was no communication after 7th March, when they sent me an email rejecting my first rep.

To your other Qs:

what did you check: Since I felt some vibration (little like wobble, as if there was very low air pressure), I got down and checked all four tyres.

how long did this take: literally less than a few minutes.

were these checks interrupted by the CEO: He arrived within a minute of me stopping the car.  He didn't speak to me, and just started clicking car pics, and thats when I approached him to explain, but he didn't listen a thing. In fact, I saw him while I was pulling over to the side and partly on the curb, but I didn't think that he will give me a ticket

did you continue to complete your inspection after PCN: I took a few minute or so to check the tyre pressure (I had a 12V air pump in my boot, so used that to check the pressure), and then I continued on my way.

Hope this provides the details you mentioned. Thank you for your time and help.

You make reps on grounds 'contravention did not occur' and 'procedural impropriety'.

As regards the contravention, you rely upon the exemption to the prohibition which states:

3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence [now a contravention] under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court [now the enforcement authority] that the vehicle was parked—

.....


(c)for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles,

You believed that as the vehicle was behaving in an unusual and worrying manner this placed you, your passengers and other road users in prospective danger, you therefore pulled off the road at the earliest opportunity and immediately checked the car for visible signs which might explain the cause e.g. tyres, debris etc.
...then your words...

The CEO saw you while you were checking the vehicle(checks which were incomplete and continued after the PCN had been issued because having a PCN could not cure your vehicle's problems). You had to stop your checks in order to talk to the CEO who showed no concern for your dilemma. You do not believe this was correct procedure because being broken down is an exemption and they made no efforts at all to discuss this with you but simply started to issue the PCN. They could not have satisfied themselves that a contravention had occurred unless they had considered and eliminated the exception.

Procedural Impropriety
The PCN was issued on ***** and the subsequent NTO on ****. A period of *** days.

The authority should be aware of the Secretary of State's guidance which states that *******.

When issuing the NTO the authority did not offer any explanation regarding this inordinate delay and failure to meet the recommended timescale and therefore should these grounds of representation be rejected they are obliged to give an explanation and satisfactory reason why they have failed to comply with the SoS's guidance.

Just some thoughts..

You make reps on grounds 'contravention did not occur' and 'procedural impropriety'.

As regards the contravention, you rely upon the exemption to the prohibition which states:

3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence [now a contravention] under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court [now the enforcement authority] that the vehicle was parked—

.....


(c)for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles,

You believed that as the vehicle was behaving in an unusual and worrying manner this placed you, your passengers and other road users in prospective danger, you therefore pulled off the road at the earliest opportunity and immediately checked the car for visible signs which might explain the cause e.g. tyres, debris etc.
...then your words...

The CEO saw you while you were checking the vehicle(checks which were incomplete and continued after the PCN had been issued because having a PCN could not cure your vehicle's problems). You had to stop your checks in order to talk to the CEO who showed no concern for your dilemma. You do not believe this was correct procedure because being broken down is an exemption and they made no efforts at all to discuss this with you but simply started to issue the PCN. They could not have satisfied themselves that a contravention had occurred unless they had considered and eliminated the exception.

Procedural Impropriety
The PCN was issued on ***** and the subsequent NTO on ****. A period of *** days.

The authority should be aware of the Secretary of State's guidance which states that *******.

When issuing the NTO the authority did not offer any explanation regarding this inordinate delay and failure to meet the recommended timescale and therefore should these grounds of representation be rejected they are obliged to give an explanation and satisfactory reason why they have failed to comply with the SoS's guidance.

Just some thoughts..

Hi, I have finally received the rejection from the council.


My representation against NTO: https://ibb.co/KrsM9F7

Council rejection / response: https://ibb.co/phDtHnw

Could you please let me know your views. The next step, I am planning to make  an appeal to London Tribunals.

Quote

The next step is independent review, and I am planning to make representation.

Actually, an appeal to London Tribunals.

thank you, corrected the post.

Register your appeal.

Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.

You rely upon your formal representations. In addition, the following procedural errors in the authority's NOR:

Failure to advise me of the appeals procedure as required under regulation 6(a)(iii) of the the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, the 'Appeals' regulations, i.e. the adjudicator's power to register an appeal submitted late (Para. 2(4) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 (Procedure in adjudication proceedings) to the 'Appeals' regulation refers):

(4) If the notice of appeal is delivered to the proper officer after the end of the period specified in regulation 7(2)(a), 10(2)(a) or 13(2)(a) (as the case may be) (“the appeal period”)—

(a)the appellant must include in the notice a statement of the reasons which are relied upon for justifying the delay, and

(b)the adjudicator must treat any such statement of reasons for delay as a request to extend that period.

OP, they've attempted to rewrite the issue of the SoS's Stat Guidance and I think the adjudicator would take a dim view of this. Authorities are required under the Act 'to have regard to' the guidance. Ignoring is not having regard to.

Hi Thank you for your kind suggestion. Regarding your point on Failure to advise me of the appeals procedure, apologies but there were 4 pages that I didn't upload earlier as they were generic text. Please find attached here: https://ibb.co/zPn0Xsg

Considering these documents, should I drop the point on failure to advise? Please let me know.

Many thanks!

These are guidance notes produced by ETA.

They are not law, in fact the law is misstated quite often. IMO, they are a shockingly inaccurate representation of the law and should be rewritten.

They do not affect the duty placed upon the authority, which is the basis of my references. Just as the tribunal cannot relieve an authority of its duty or interfere with or exercise its powers, so the authority must itself accurately state the adjudicator's powers in a NOR.

They haven't.

The power of the adjudicator to accept late appeals is a vital element of fairness within these proceedings, it is not an inconsequential matter which may be ignored by authorities.

Thank you for your reply, mush appreciated. I will make the representation as per your gudinace. Many thanks for your time!