Too soft IMO.
You should state the grounds of appeal clearly and then expand.
Having just read their policy on removals, IMO it contains unlawful policies.
Furthermore, the council will review the removal policy for residents’ vehicles. The priorities
and policies that apply for removal of vehicles in Newham is set out in Appendix D.
APPENDIX D – REMOVALS POLICY
In some circumstances we have to remove vehicles, these include:
Vehicles which are parked dangerously
If we are asked by the police
If a vehicle is in contravention of the parking controls WTF!
Vehicles which are causing a serious obstruction.
Priority 3
I. Parked committing a serious contravention (Please refer to Appendix C above).
Priority 4
I. All other contraventions NO, NO, NO. A PCN is simply a precondition for considering removal under exceptional circumstances, it CANNOT BE a reason in itself. This undermines Parliament's intention which is that most contraventions are punished sufficiently by issuing a penalty.
Additional information
Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 a vehicle is considered to have been
“removed” when ALL four wheels have been placed on the back of the removal truck. If the
driver returns before this action has been completed the removal should be terminated and
the vehicle released.
However this does not apply to “persistent evader” vehicles. In these cases a vehicle is
considered to have been removed once ALL four wheels have left the ground. The removal
should only be terminated if the driver returns before all wheels have left the ground.
Civil enforcement officers have no opportunity to use discretion and the council’s enforcement
contractor has been advised that the above removal criteria must be strictly adhered to. The
owner/keeper of a removed vehicle will be provided with the relevant representation forms
when they attend the car pound to reclaim their vehicle. All representations and mitigating
circumstances will be considered by the back office processing section.
Civil enforcement officers have no opportunity to use discretion and the council’s enforcement
contractor has been advised that the above removal criteria must be strictly adhered to.
Unlawful. See Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance:
Where a vehicle is causing a hazard or obstruction, the enforcement authority should remove rather than immobilise. Immobilisation and removal activity should only take place where it gives clear traffic management benefits.
An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the contravention. Powers should not be used randomly[tell that to Newham] , and authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO.
ONLY a suitably trained CEO may authorise removal (different from the one who issued the PCN).
Frankly, I'd go for their jugular and see what happens. I can help you draft something, but not today, this will take a day or 2.
Taking into account the above comments, a first draft below:
========
I make formal representations following the removal of my vehicle on 26 September 2026. I was required to pay £360 to secure its release, comprising an £80 penalty charge and a £280 removal charge.
I challenge the removal on the basis that Newham’s published removal policy is unlawful and that the decision to remove my vehicle was made pursuant to a policy which is incompatible with the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance.
I also ask the Council, to consider whether there are compelling reasons why some or all of the sums paid should be refunded.
1. Newham’s policy unlawfully treats a parking contravention as justification for removal
Newham’s published Parking Policy and Procedures states at paragraph 4.6.1 that, subject to specified exceptions:
“any vehicle which has been issued with a penalty charge notice can be removed by the council.”
Appendix D also identifies as a circumstance for removal a vehicle which is in contravention of parking controls, and its hierarchy ultimately places “all other contraventions” within Priority 4.
The effect of the policy is therefore to bring every parking contravention within the removal regime merely because a contravention has occurred and a PCN has been issued. Newham’s current published policy contains those provisions
I submit that this is unlawful.
The issue of a PCN and the subsequent decision to remove a vehicle are separate enforcement decisions. The existence of a parking contravention may provide the legal precondition for removal to be considered, but it cannot itself provide the justification for exercising the additional and substantially more intrusive removal power.
The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance expressly requires the decision whether to remove a vehicle to involve an exercise of judgment. If the existence of a contravention or PCN were itself sufficient justification for removal, there would be no meaningful separate decision for the CEO to make and that requirement would be rendered meaningless.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest that service of a PCN prevents the Council from subsequently considering removal. Indeed, the Statutory Guidance states that a vehicle parked where parking is prohibited, including on double yellow lines, can be removed once a PCN has been served. My submission is that this makes the removal power available for consideration; it does not dispense with the separate requirement for a lawful, case-specific decision to exercise that power.
2. Newham’s removal policy unlawfully removes the judgment required by the Statutory Guidance
Appendix D of Newham’s published policy states:
“Civil enforcement officers have no opportunity to use discretion and the council’s enforcement contractor has been advised that the above removal criteria must be strictly adhered to.”
That wording appears in Newham’s current published removal policy.
I submit that an inflexible removal policy of this nature is incompatible with the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance.
Section 87(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 requires a local authority exercising civil enforcement functions to have regard to statutory guidance issued by the appropriate national authority.
The Statutory Guidance provides that:
• removal activity should only take place where it gives clear traffic-management benefits;
• authorities should formulate and publish clear guidelines identifying the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with;
• removal powers “should not be used randomly”;
• the decision whether to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgment;
• that decision must follow specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO; and
• the removal operative must not take the decision.
Those requirements cannot, in my submission, be reconciled with a policy which ultimately places every parking contravention within the removal hierarchy while stating that CEOs have “no opportunity to use discretion” and that the criteria must be strictly followed.
A lawful removal policy may guide the exercise of judgment. It cannot eliminate that judgment.
Newham’s approach also conflicts with the Secretary of State’s express direction that removal powers “should not be used randomly.” A regime which ultimately encompasses “all other contraventions”, coupled with a stated absence of discretion, creates precisely the risk of indiscriminate removal against which the Statutory Guidance warns.
I therefore submit that Newham’s published policy unlawfully fetters the case-specific judgment required before the removal power is exercised.
3. The Council must demonstrate that the decision to remove my vehicle was lawfully made
My submission is not simply that my vehicle should have been assigned a different or lower removal priority. I do not invite the Council merely to reconsider the relative priority of my vehicle against other vehicles.
The issue is whether the decision actually to remove this particular vehicle was itself made lawfully.
The Council’s photographs do not appear to show the vehicle causing a hazard, serious obstruction, obstruction to pedestrians or obstruction to moving traffic.
The Statutory Guidance states that removal activity should only take place where it gives clear traffic-management benefits.
Accordingly, it is not sufficient merely to establish that the vehicle was parked in contravention and therefore that the statutory power of removal was available.
The Council should identify:
• what clear traffic-management benefit was considered before removal;
• what circumstances relating specifically to my vehicle were considered;
• what individual exercise of judgment took place; and
• why the additional step of removal was considered appropriate rather than enforcement being limited to the PCN.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not merely a challenge to the Council’s prioritisation of removals. The issue is whether removal resulted from the individual exercise of judgment required by the Statutory Guidance rather than from automatic application of a predetermined removal category.
4. The Council must establish the required specific and independent authorisation
The Statutory Guidance expressly states that the decision to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgment and must only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO. It further states that the removal operative should not make that decision.
This requirement is central to these representations.
The fact that one CEO concluded that a parking contravention had occurred and issued a PCN cannot, without more, establish that the separate decision actually to remove the vehicle was made through the lawful decision-making process required by the guidance.
A predetermined rule, automatic referral for removal, or mechanical application of a removal category cannot substitute for the required case-specific exercise of judgment.
I therefore require the Council to establish that an appropriately trained CEO made a genuine and individual decision to remove my vehicle.
If these representations are rejected, please provide:
• the issuing CEO’s contemporaneous notes;
• the separate removal authorisation record and the time at which authorisation was given;
• the identifying number of the CEO who authorised removal;
• confirmation that the authorising CEO was appropriately trained and authorised to make removal decisions;
• any contemporaneous record showing the circumstances considered and why removal of this particular vehicle was judged to be warranted;
• the removal vehicle log; and
• all photographs taken in connection with the removal.
If there is no evidence of a separate, individual and specifically authorised decision to remove the vehicle, I submit that the Council cannot demonstrate the exercise of judgment required by the Statutory Guidance.
Further, if the Council maintains that such an individual exercise of judgment did occur, I ask it to explain how that decision-making process is compatible with its published statement that CEOs have “no opportunity to use discretion” and that its removal criteria must be strictly adhered to.
5. Compelling reasons and exercise of discretion
Further and in any event, I ask the Council to consider the particular circumstances as compelling reasons why some or all of the sums paid should be refunded.
The vehicle was present at the location for approximately 20 minutes.
The Council’s photographs do not appear to show it causing an obstruction to pedestrians or moving traffic, nor do they demonstrate any obvious hazard or serious safety issue.
The PCN already provided an enforcement response to the alleged parking contravention. The additional decision to remove the vehicle resulted in a further £280 charge together with significant inconvenience.
I therefore ask the Council to exercise its discretion and refund the full £360 paid, or alternatively to refund the £280 removal charge.
Conclusion
Newham’s published removal policy states that, subject to specified exceptions, any vehicle issued with a PCN can be removed; ultimately includes “all other contraventions” within its removal hierarchy; and states that CEOs have “no opportunity to use discretion.”
I submit that this policy is incompatible with the Secretary of State’s requirement that the decision to remove must involve an individual exercise of judgment, should provide a clear traffic-management benefit, must follow specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO, and should not involve random or indiscriminate use of the removal power.
My case is therefore not simply that my vehicle should have received a lower removal priority or that removal was excessive in general terms. The central issue is whether the removal power was lawfully exercised at all in this particular case.
I therefore ask that these representations be accepted and that the full £360 be refunded.
If the Council rejects the representations, please address specifically:
1. how Newham’s published statement that CEOs have “no opportunity to use discretion” is compatible with the requirement for an exercise of judgment;
2. how a removal policy which ultimately encompasses “all other contraventions” complies with the direction that removal powers “should not be used randomly”;
3. what clear traffic-management benefit was identified in removing my particular vehicle;
4. what individual circumstances were considered before removal;
5. which appropriately trained CEO specifically authorised removal and at what time; and
6. what contemporaneous evidence demonstrates the individual exercise of judgment required before removal was authorised.
Please also provide the evidence requested above so that the lawfulness of the removal can be considered in any subsequent appeal to the adjudicator.