Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good local knowledge.

So OP, we must look at probabilities. Would the council be able to show that a reminder email was sent to your registered email account in time?

IMO, probably.

But the key question remains: why remove after PCN 6? Why not after 2, 3, 4 etc?

Not sure about the email thing. I will definitely use that as part of my challenge. Usually when I receive an email like that I will snooze it until a few days before expiry so that I get a second reminder to renew.

Your previous reply on this thread regarding the reason for towing is interesting, as I'm now thinking that they might have towed my car because of this unpaid ticket from December. Which I have paperwork showing why it was unpaid so maybe that's grounds for a refund on the towing part of all this.

This isn't anything to do with 'persistent evaders' and Mr Anderson is misleading here.

The PCN relevant to the impounding is the one used to impound.

Tower Hamlet's vehicle removal policy (most recent one we have) says for code 12:
Primary priority only if vehicle has been in place for three or more days without moving.


So this could have been removed on the first PCN given they no doubt noted it was without a permit for 2 weeks before this.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13NkOAkg8CDLQtYAj9Z5KP5lwv4y-9hWW

I suggest that the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance is consulted as well as the RTRA and regs issued thereunder.

A council MUST have a written policy regarding removal of vehicles;
This policy must 'have regard to' the SoS's Guidance.

So, they had to have towed under their policy and if this included reference to 'persistent evaders'(which it is obliged to do) then this must 'have regard to' the Guidance.

It is not possible to know upon which provision in their policy they relied until this is declared by them. The tired argument of 'we're allowed to remove a vehicle issued with a PCN' won't wash nowadays.

So, on what lawful basis did the council(I use this term because it is a power vested in the council) remove the vehicle after having issued five previous PCNs?

IMO, the reps against the tow and its associated PCN are:

(f)that the penalty charge or other charge paid to secure the release of the vehicle exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

You would expand on this with:
Continuous contravention therefore only the first PCN would have been valid. It therefore follows that the sixth PCN, which is the council's basis for removing the vehicle, is invalid and consequently any associated removal.

OP, until we see the pound paperwork in full then it's not possible to know whether 'procedural impropriety' might be additional grounds. (See edit below)

As regards the other PCNs, you can submit informal reps against each and I suggest that similar grounds apply:
(e)the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

This arises because the council failed to notify you that your permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost etc, something which was established custom and practice for at least the past ** years, see copies of previous emails below. IMO, when you apply for a permit you enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by them. IMO, it doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice(which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that they did notify you. It therefore follows that you should not be penalised for their failure. Of course they might rebut this by showing you an email which they sent, but at least you would then know.

In respect of each PCN other than the first the argument of 'continuous contravention' may be advanced.

Wait for others.

Edit: I don't think things bode well for the council.

I haven't found their policy, but did come across this:

The Parking Enforcement Plan (PEP) is long overdue an update, having being last updated over 15 years ago.

Which must mean that it does not 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance published October 2022 and this is a procedural impropriety.

Notice of proposed decision first published: 11/06/2024
Decision due: 11 Sep 24 by Cabinet

The Notice is probably inclusion in the council's Forward Plan, but the key point is that a decision would not be taken until 11 Sept. To use council planning jargon, while weight may occasionally be attached to emerging policies and plans, this must be limited. IMO, whatever the PEP might propose and however many iterations it's had before 11 Sept. are not relevant: the current policy is what's current and it doesn't comply with the Traffic Management Act's requirements and therefore 'procedural impropriety' are legitimate grounds for each PCN.

https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=147357&Opt=0

Pound docs, for convenience:











Please could you add the back of the PCN, in case of errors in the 'small print'.

Back of PCN added above.

It's not a 'court', it's adjudication.

The TMA does NOT define 'persistent evader'(contrary to what's stated in the 'policy') the SoS's Guidance does and clearly the authority's idea is incorrect: it is NOT about how many PCNs have been issued, it's about unpaid PCNs and as a PCN is NOT a demand for payment - merely notice that payment is required and would be demanded of the keeper - then 'unpaid' cannot occur until the payment period for a NTO has lapsed.

None of your PCNs has even got to the NTO stage.

The ONLY legal basis I can see under this so-called policy(I need to see the intro to the document to find out its status) is therefore the 'second priority' of resident's bay.

But you won't know until they actually tell you in writing.

I repeat my previous comment, IMO they have no chance.

Edit - at what time was your vehicle removed?

I don't know what time it was removed, I didn't even realise it was gone until the next day.

The documentation should tell you because otherwise how would you know the following:

until the appropriate period has elapsed since the giving of that penalty charge notice in respect of the contravention.

(4) In this regulation—

“the appropriate period” means—
(a)
in the case of a vehicle as respects which there are 3 or more penalty charges outstanding, 15 minutes;

(b)
in any other case 30 minutes;

In short, if they removed before 30 minutes had elapsed then this is a procedural impropriety unless 3 or more PCNs etc. etc.

And how would you know unless the time of removal is in evidence?

Here is my first attempt at a challenge for the oldest of the PCN's. For the remaining PCN's I will have more points to argue and not just the failure to remind me bit. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this so far. Any feedback on the below would be appreciated as I have five more of these to write.:

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

I have been a resident of Tower Hamlets for six years now. For each year that I have held a residential parking permit, I receive a reminder to renew my residents permit. This year I did NOT receive a reminder. I have attached a screen-shot showing all the previous saved reminders in my inbox, along with the dates for each of them. As you will see here, there is no reminder for 2024, the year in which my latest resident parking permit expired.

I have received a reminder in all previous years without fail, since June 2021. Because of this, the council has  established a precedent for renewal of permits. A change in this precedent is what has caused my failure to renew the permit on time.  As I have not been notified of a change in procedure, I assume this to be a technical error, in which case a technical error on behalf of the council should not be grounds for penalising a resident.

For avoidance of doubt, I have logged into my account on "towerhamlets.tarantopermits.com" and verified that my account details show the correct email address. As the correct email address is listed there, there should be no reason that I did not receive a reminder, except that of a technical nature with the council's systems.

As the council failed to notify me that the permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost, instructions and links for renewal etc... something which was established custom and practice for at least the past four years, I believe this PCN should be canceled.

From a legal standpoint: When someone as myself applies for a permit they enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by the council. It doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice (which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that you have in the past notified me on every occasion.  It therefore follows that I should not be penalised for the council's failure to uphold this well established agreement.

Sincerely,
XXXX

Not sure if anyone is still reading this... but here is my challenge for the remaining PCN's I will then write a third version when it comes to challenging the impound PCN and towing fees. Let me know if I can improve on this as I have only submitted challenges now for 2 out of 6 PCN's:



Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

These are the three main reasons for my challenge:

1. The penalties as a whole including the towing fees far exceeds what is just, this should be treated as a continuous contravention (details below)*
2. Major discrepancy in the sequence of PCN numbers (details below)**
3. I ask kindly for discretion due to an oversight in not renewing, as I did not get a reminder (details below)***


*REASON 1*

The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case; In respect of each PCN other than the first the argument of 'continuous contravention' may be advanced. I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the
same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours. Therefore I am challenging all the PCN’s issued to me for the same offence, one of which I have paid already to remove my car from IMPOUND:

TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)

**REASON 2**

This PCN dated the 25/072024 has a major discrepancy with the ticket number. If you look at the PCN numbers across the series of six PCN’s you will see that the PCN number for the 25th appears to be issued on the 29th. All the other PCN’s are in ascending numerical order, but the ticket number on the 25th is higher than the ticket number on the 26th (when it should be lower) and very similar to the ticket number on the 29th, as if they were given on the same day. I therefore believe this ticket has been issued fraudulently and represents a very serious breach of CEO protocol. I therefore believe that this ticket and all others should be canceled due to the potentially scandalous nature of the CEO’s offence.

TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)



***REASON 3***
I have been a resident of Tower Hamlets for six years now. For each year that I have held a residential parking permit, I receive a reminder to renew my residents permit. This year I did NOT receive a reminder. I have attached a screen-shot showing all the previous saved reminders in my inbox, along with the dates for each of them. As you will see here, there is no reminder for 2024, the year in which my latest resident parking permit expired.

I have received a reminder in all previous years without fail, since June 2021. Because of this, the council has  established a precedent for renewal of permits. A change in this precedent is what has caused my failure to renew the permit on time.  As I have not been notified of a change in procedure, I assume this to be a technical error, in which case a technical error on behalf of the council should not be grounds for penalising a resident.

For avoidance of doubt, I have logged into my account on "towerhamlets.tarantopermits.com" and verified that my account details show the correct email address. As the correct email address is listed there, there should be no reason that I did not receive a reminder, except that of a technical nature with the council's systems.

As the council failed to notify me that the permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost, instructions and links for renewal etc... something which was established custom and practice for at least the past four years, I believe this PCN should be canceled.

From a legal standpoint: When someone as myself applies for a permit they enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by the council. It doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice (which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that you have in the past notified me on every occasion.  It therefore follows that I should not be penalised for the council's failure to uphold this well established agreement.


Sincerely,
XXX