Free Traffic Legal Advice

Council photos here:

So here, I think: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QEBZXDapULkaFypA8
Clear sign and road marking.

Any reason for not noticing the sign which would have been right by your car ?

It's just plain stupidity and oversight... TBH as could have parked somewhere else but wasn't focusing as thought it was all a permit zone where I have a permit for.

I am looking at submitting the below informal challenge later today to begin the process.

1. The council enforcement officer did not follow the required observation period to see if an exempt activity was taking place and hence for the breach of council policy the PCN. Council observation policy mandates a minimum of 5 minute observation period but the enforcement officer issued the PCN instantly

The policy can be found here: https://www.newham.gov.uk/downloads/file/3926/newhamparkingpolicyprocedures

This shows on page 51/81 of the pdf page numbers (or page 48 of the bottom right page numbers) that a mandatory observation period of 5 minutes is required before an enforcement officer can issue a PCN under Newham Policy for Code 16 Parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.

If the council disagrees with this please provide the full observation policy which allows an enforcement officer to issue a PCN for code 16 without any observation period at all as the PCN was incorrectly issued instantly, so an informed decision regarding next steps can be taken


2. This is only an advisory bay so no PCN can be issued in any case, please provide the full Traffic Management Order that allows the council to issue a PCN against this particular contravention on this bay including the full list of exempt activities

3. The location stated in the PCN "OS 14" is incorrect and not clear

4. The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for an individual disabled person. Therefore the traffic sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid.

If the council disagrees please provide the full dispensation/approval from DFT so an informed decision regarding next steps can be taken.

5.The Council's intention of reserving disabled bays for residents only is discriminatory (against non-resident disabled people) and I would refer you to both the Equality Act 2010 and moreso to The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Therefore the traffic management rationale giving rise to the TMO is fatally flawed to the extent that the Council actions are ultra vires. In such circumstances enforcement of this bay cannot proceed.

Can we pl nail this type of bay.

It is NOT a 'disabled bay', it is a bay reserved to specified permit holders. In this case 'Disabled Resident' with the permit identifier CT.

As regards permit bays, the Traffic Sign etc. Regs provide wording variants which include:

3. A type or types of user may be included and, where the user is a type of permit holder, a permit identifier may be included.

4. A legend provided for at 3 above may be varied by the addition of “only” or “only at all times”

No authorisation is needed IMO. If the council have created in a traffic order a type of permit called 'Disabled Resident Permit' then they are perfectly entitled to do so IMO and the sign is correct.

'Disabled' is not a permitted road marking for this bay - but it looks as if it's being allowed to fade away.

OP, your point regarding observation would seem to be relevant, which is why I suspect you introduced 5 minutes into your narrative for how long you parked, but whether this could win the day I don't know.

I suspected so and you appear correct but let’s see what council says (most likely nothing specific).

given the lease agreement I have I am quite happy to take it all the way as very confident they (council) will mess up in any case so this is just to get the ball rolling


No flaws in PCN itself?

The observation period is council policy but good to understand if there is any statutory guidance or regs for observation period too or grace period at the start. Unclear why the officer issued the permit instantly without waiting to observe as required.

Picking upon PMB's point about bay markings, OP just stand back and look at the array of markings and signs, it's a mess.

Firstly, in order to review this it needs to be said IMO you were parked on the wrong side of the road therefore it's not what's behind you car which applies, it's what's in front!

Using GSV, the sequence starts o/s no. 18 with a single line parking place line. This means that the bay is continuous and not sub-divided by intra-bay markings into separate bays - standard for permit bays. Then two cars' lengths into the bay there's an internal dividing mark which is not accompanied by a traffic sign. This looks like a c**k-up. It could mean the end of the permit holder bay which would fit the single marking at the beginning. But this begs the question, if it's the end then what the hell is the next bay because there isn't a traffic sign to convey the new restriction.

But there is..if the next bay is a 24/7 disabled bay then as I understand it an upright sign isn't required, a road marking would do. So looking at this in the direction of travel of traffic it means that you were parked in a disabled bay. Not a permit bay.

Then when one reaches the end of this bay there's another end-bay marking with a traffic sign which does not include an arrow. This cannot therefore apply before the sign's reached, only after. Which means that the DPB is the next bay.

So, if the road marking is intended, it's a 24/7 disabled bay and it's the wrong contravention. But if not, it's a permit holder's bay, and you've got a permit!

IMO.

For me the 3 things i would concentrate on would be

1 the bay markings. There should be double edge markings to differentiate the bay from the others If you hold a permit bay for that bay why would you look for a different sign

the disabled legend being faded

The TMO does it accommodate a disabled resident bay or is it designated purely as a resident bay

 

Thank you.

1. Is there any specific regulation I can point to re the first point or tribunal cases etc?

2. For the faded disabed marking on the road, will leave it for the formal reps but unclear if its a strong point TBH - good to get your views?

3. I have requested the TMO via a FOI request as well an email I found for newham

Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual specifies at 13.6.8. that:

Where two bay markings, associated with different conditions, are sited next to each other there should normally be a gap of about 100 mm between them. If adjacent bays would normally have different widths, the greatest width should be adopted for all to avoid a potentially confusing stepped edge.

What the council purport to have done is created a single bay with different conditions, which is not a permitted layout. If the bay had been laid out correctly you would have been on notice that you were parking in a different bay potentially subject to different conditions.

Thanks will include this too

Here are searchable versions of The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017 and The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1, 2017) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2018.

@taffer87 let us know when you get the notice to owner and I'll help with the formal representations.