Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sir or Madam

Dear Sir or Madam

Please may I have responses to the following?:

1. The exact measurements of parking bays in The Bittoms as per the attached photo.
2. The initial date the parking legends were placed.
3. The last time the parking legends were maintained at this location.
4. The exact measurements of similar parking bays in nearby streets as per the map.
5. Payment question: should a person pay and yet receive a PCN for whatever reason throughout the whole borough, do you reimburse? In particular, if the allegation is that they have parked beyond the parking bay lines.
6. If so, is this automatic or do people have to apply?
7. If the answer to the second part of  5 is yes, why does not the borough automatically refund the associated payments ?
8. Traffic Management Order: please provide this.

OP, you can ask questions as you wish. But this does not affect the enforcement process whose timetables must be followed.

With respect to Hippocrates, I think a council would not deal with this long list of items but instead IMO would be likely to treat the request as falling under FoI and respond that the cost to the authority of complying with this request exceeds the threshold:

Currently, the cost limit for complying with a [FoI] request or a linked series of requests from the same person or group is set at £600 for central government, Parliament and the armed forces and £450 for all other public authorities. You can refuse a request if you estimate that the cost of compliance would exceed this limit. This provision is found at section 12 of the Act.

If you lose you must pay £90 - that's it. If you don't pay they can escalate to bailiffs but there's no impact on financial status.

It's possible in this case you will lose but the adjudicator may make a non-binding recommendation to Kingston to cancel.

It is also possible that Kingston won't contest it and you win by default.

The duty to consider fairly here is a factor. I'd take a pic of the baby in its carrier on the pavement and ask the adjudicator how they'd then repark the car assuming you even could see you were out of the bay having avoided the post by the door. I guess you'd put the baby by another door and start again but the space is what it is at the time and markings only possibly visible depending on other cars. 

I'd also ask what signage alerts you to parking in bay markings.

Plus the other things.

All part of the game. I tried to download the TMO yesterday to no avail. I may do it the old-fashioned way and visit a library!

TMO: The Kingston upon Thames (Parking, Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order

PART III

SECTION 1 - General

Article 10.

I would challenge asking for discretion as the primary point but there are cases allowed at the tribunal on no signage about parking within bay markings being present so you could put them on notice about this and we can look at the traffic order..

-----------

Case reference 2240374029
Appellant Neel Bacheta
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM N333ELB

PCN Details
PCN HG21326104
Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
Contravention time 18:04:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space

Referral date -

Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1804.
The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent loading only bay.
However there is no evidence before me any condition to park fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully within the bay must be communicated.
As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.

---------

Case reference 2240567623
Appellant Sabah Sirajuddin
Authority London Borough of Bromley
VRM LX70GDY
 
PCN Details
PCN BY24142851
Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
Contravention time 16:45:00
Contravention location Elmfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the driver Mr Rafique.
His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay markings.
It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking place is divided into parking places by white lines within the bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is (and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the Appel is therefore allowed.

I will be using these tomorrow.

Congratulations once again, Phillip