Free Traffic Legal Advice

Can we take the Council to task for their utter incompetence and failure to have due regard to the interests of the council tax payers who finance their activities. I refer specifically to their failure to exercise even the most basic form of supervision/management/ oversight over the conduct of utilities which obtain parking suspensions in Merton and the consequent neglect of their (i.e. Merton Council's) statutory duties. These appalling failures are most clearly signified by the fact that NO WORKS were carried out during the Murray Road 19 to 23 May suspension and by the fact that in a phone call I had with the Council early on 23 May (when , as I requested, I was assured that the call was recorded) I gave them a 2 hour ultimatum, for EITHER (i) the suspension notices to be removed within two hours of my call OR (ii) Thames Water to be carrying out actual works in the street within 2 hours of the call. The Council took the point and the notices were removed within the stipulated two hour period. How on earth can a reputable local authority conclude that it is just and equitable to impose parking fines on council tax payers in these circumstances?

Dear Merton,

Thank you for getting back to me with the information about when the suspension signage was put up. I would however like to raise 2 further points.

Firstly, during the suspension period of 19-23 May, which was purportedly for utility works to be carried out by Thames Water, in fact no such utility works took place. There wasn't a single Thames Water vehicle on the street at any point during that period, and no workmen carrying out works of any kind at any point during that 5-day period. I therefore would suggest that the PCNs should be considered invalid - there have been similar rulings in the past (e.g. case reference 2180505318) where the adjudicator has confirmed that suspension signage should only remain in place for the duration of any works, and if works are completed (or in this case never started) then the signage should be removed and no PCNs issued. I did in fact phone Merton Council offices on the morning of 23 May to complain that no works had been taking place throughout the week, and within 2 hours of my phone call the signage was accordingly taken down.

And secondly, regardless of the above point, I don't believe the PCN from 20 May (MT01121435) can be considered valid, on the grounds of continuous contravention. My vehicle did not move in between the first and second PCNs being issued (indeed I was away on holiday), and there have been many similar cases (e.g. case reference 2180505318) where the adjudicator has ruled that, following the issuing of a first PCN, any subsequent PCNs cannot be considered valid on the grounds of continuous contravention.

Please let me know, I am planning to formally challenge the PCNs on the above 2 grounds once the Notices to Owner arrive later this month, but I wanted to bring these points to your attention beforehand as I feel they are important.

Best wishes,
[name]