Author Topic: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake (Read 735 times)

taffer87 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2024, 01:40:19 pm »

Quote from: cp8759 on August 01, 2024, 07:26:58 pm

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.

Thank you, will post NTO when I receive it in my name - could be a while as will go to lease company first in their name

Here is the council response to informal challenge. Informal challenge I submitted also included for completeness.

Informal challenge:

"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.
6. The bay markings are extremely faded making it hard for drivers to be aware there are different policies / restrictions for different parts of the bay.
7. 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.”

However there is no gap in the bay markings at all. There should be double edge markings to differentiate the “resident disabled permit holder only” bay from the others. 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 drivers would be on notice that they were parking in a different bay potentially subject to different conditions. Thus the council cannot issue a PCN at this location.

If the council believes they are complying with 13.6.8 or have dispensation or rationale for not complying then please provide this in writing so that an informed decision can be taken regarding the next steps.

8. Council should use its discretion to cancel the PCN this being the first offence for this driver."

taffer87 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2024, 05:46:58 pm »

I have finally received the NTO in my name and address after they sent to lease co who is the RK and lease co wrote a simple letter stating car is on a long term lease of 3 year with me. Lease co has not received a notice of acceptance but council
may still say they sent

All and @cp8759 can you please help in written reps?

John U.K. · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2024, 05:58:14 pm »

Please re-instate/give the Reg Mark and PCN number(s)

taffer87 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:02:16 pm »

Thank you. Already posted all council photos in the very first and second posts so there should hopefully be no need.

cp8759 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:17:31 pm »

@taffer87 this is really simple : if you search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order:

Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.

However the common boundary is here https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7 and if you zoom out, it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that order.

In the circumstances we can cut out all the woffle from the informal representations and just go with this:

Dear London Borough of Nehwam,

The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017 (which I suspect you have not bothered to read) does not designate any parking place at the location where my car was parked. The order designates a parking place on "Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres", but if you have a look on Google Street view at https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvqxwbHQ21MHV2UY9 you will see the bay has been painted at least two car lengths further south than it should have. The result is that despite the signage, my car was not actually parked on a section of road designated by that order.

I invite you to actually read your own traffic order and apply your mind to the issues I have raised, if you issue a generic rejection with all the usual templated drivel about how the circumstances raised do not amount to an exemption or sufficient mitigation, I will apply to London Tribunals for a costs order on the ground that the notice of rejection is wholly unreasonable. This will apply even if you do not contest the appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.

taffer87 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 04, 2024, 10:30:47 am »

Quote from: cp8759 on October 02, 2024, 06:17:31 pm

@taffer87 this is really simple : if you search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order:

Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.

However the common boundary is here https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7 and if you zoom out, it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that order.

In the circumstances we can cut out all the woffle from the informal representations and just go with this:

Dear London Borough of Nehwam,

The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017 (which I suspect you have not bothered to read) does not designate any parking place at the location where my car was parked. The order designates a parking place on "Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres", but if you have a look on Google Street view at https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvqxwbHQ21MHV2UY9 you will see the bay has been painted at least two car lengths further south than it should have. The result is that despite the signage, my car was not actually parked on a section of road designated by that order.

I invite you to actually read your own traffic order and apply your mind to the issues I have raised, if you issue a generic rejection with all the usual templated drivel about how the circumstances raised do not amount to an exemption or sufficient mitigation, I will apply to London Tribunals for a costs order on the ground that the notice of rejection is wholly unreasonable. This will apply even if you do not contest the appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Awesome thank you @cp8759. I have sent this. Just to confirm you are referring to the disbaled bay markings which start here not being where the TMO says they should be? https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5dnGUqAe51RvCEb8

taffer87 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2024, 10:55:04 am »

@cp8759 here is the response from council. I have already submitted a London Tribunal appeal stating that "I rely on my formal representations and will provide additional detail and points on review of the council evidence pack.

Also I am including the image from council website when submitting the formal representations which only allows one option to be chosen (in case this or any other issues are present in the appeal reasons shown).

Thank you so much for any help with this from you and experienced members.

I will post the evidence pack from council when available (appeal is in a months time and have chosen in-person which I will change to phone hearing).

cp8759 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2024, 11:02:55 am »

@taffer87 drop me a PM if you'd like me to represent you at the tribunal.

taffer87 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2024, 11:41:44 am »

Thanks I will represent myself as have done it a couple of times before. Would be great to know if their notice of rejection creates any new avenues for the London Tribunal. Same for the Newham website reason options for formal representations.

I will upload evidence pack from council too when it comes.

Martyn21uk · « **Reply #24 on:** October 29, 2024, 12:09:46 pm »

Quote from: cp8759 on October 02, 2024, 06:17:31 pm

@taffer87 this is really simple : if you search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order:

Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.

However the common boundary is here https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7 and if you zoom out, it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that order.

I respectfully disagree with this, I think the bay is in exactly the right place. If you zoom out and take the point of the boundary between nos. 16 and 18 and then you go 8.1 metres south (to the right on GSV), then that takes you to the exact point where the bay starts. I fear you maybe misread the order to mean the bay should start on that boundary line, not 8.1 metres (2 car lengths) away from it.

taffer87 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:08:00 pm »

Thanks all. Does anyone see anything wrong with rejection letter or indeed the options given for formal representation (photos of both couple of posts up from here)

taffer87 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:40:46 pm »

Quote from: Martyn21uk on October 29, 2024, 12:09:46 pm

Quote from: cp8759 on October 02, 2024, 06:17:31 pm
@taffer87 this is really simple : if you search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order:

Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.

However the common boundary is here https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7 and if you zoom out, it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that order.

I respectfully disagree with this, I think the bay is in exactly the right place. If you zoom out and take the point of the boundary between nos. 16 and 18 and then you go 8.1 metres south (to the right on GSV), then that takes you to the exact point where the bay starts. I fear you maybe misread the order to mean the bay should start on that boundary line, not 8.1 metres (2 car lengths) away from it.

Thank you. Are there any other points I should be making in my tribunal appeal then? For the formal reps I had included with CP said as well as repeated the points from informal challenge.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2024, 06:27:21 pm »

IMO, the NOR is flawed in that it does not advise you correctly of your rights to appeal. Indeed, using the power which the authority has it has added a statement which is in flagrant disregard to and contrary to the regulations.

A NOR must give the following information:

(8) If the enforcement authority does not accept that there are compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b) or that any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, the enforcement authority’s decision notice must—

(a)inform R of the right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 10,

(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and

(c)describe the form and manner in which such an appeal is required to be made.

The NOR states the following:

'You have 28 days beginning with this Notice of Rejection to do this[register an appeal].'

It further states that:

'If neither payment nor appeal is made before the end of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection a charge certificate may be served increasing the charge by 50%. It will then be too late to appeal further.

However, regulation 9(8)(c) above requires a NOR to 'describe the form and manner in which such an appeal [to the adjudicator] is required to be made.'

Regulation 10 deals with an Appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision to reject representations and provides that:
10.—(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept that—

(a)any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, or

(b)there are compelling reasons of the kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b).

(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—

(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 9(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under this regulation, or

(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.

I submit that not only have the authority failed to comply regulation 9(8)(c) they have also stated the exact opposite of what is required to be included, namely:

That once a charge certificate has been served 'it will then be too late to appeal' when the regulations provide that the adjudicator is the ultimate arbiter of the time allowed for an appeal to be made, not the authority.

taffer87 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 01, 2024, 10:15:08 am »

Quote from: H C Andersen on October 30, 2024, 06:27:21 pm

IMO, the NOR is flawed in that it does not advise you correctly of your rights to appeal. Indeed, using the power which the authority has it has added a statement which is in flagrant disregard to and contrary to the regulations.

A NOR must give the following information:

(8) If the enforcement authority does not accept that there are compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b) or that any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, the enforcement authority’s decision notice must—

(a)inform R of the right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 10,

(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and

(c)describe the form and manner in which such an appeal is required to be made.

The NOR states the following:

'You have 28 days beginning with this Notice of Rejection to do this[register an appeal].'

It further states that:

'If neither payment nor appeal is made before the end of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection a charge certificate may be served increasing the charge by 50%. It will then be too late to appeal further.

However, regulation 9(8)(c) above requires a NOR to 'describe the form and manner in which such an appeal [to the adjudicator] is required to be made.'

Regulation 10 deals with an Appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision to reject representations and provides that:
10.—(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept that—

(a)any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, or

(b)there are compelling reasons of the kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b).

(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—

(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 9(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under this regulation, or

(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.

I submit that not only have the authority failed to comply regulation 9(8)(c) they have also stated the exact opposite of what is required to be included, namely:

That once a charge certificate has been served 'it will then be too late to appeal' when the regulations provide that the adjudicator is the ultimate arbiter of the time allowed for an appeal to be made, not the authority.

Thank you. This is indeed very helpful.

Is there something in TMA about reasons for the formal representation/appeal as the council website said to pick "one" reason but I saw the London tribunal website allows you to choose as many of the statutory reasons as you like.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #29 on:** November 01, 2024, 11:33:47 am »

Reg. 5 of the 'Appeals' regs:

Representations against the enforcement notice
5.—(1) The recipient may make representations against the enforcement notice to the enforcement authority which served it on the recipient.

5(2) The representations must be—

(a)made in the form determined by the enforcement authority, and

(b)to either or both of the following effects—

(i)that in relation to the alleged contravention, one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (4) apply;

(ii)that, whether or not any of those grounds apply, there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the enforcement authority should cancel the penalty charge and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.

Initiating an appeal

2.—(1) An appeal must be made by delivering a notice of appeal to the proper officer.

(2) A notice of appeal—

(a)must be in writing and signed by—

(i)the appellant, or

(ii)a person authorised to do so by the appellant,

(b)must state the name and address at which the appellant wishes documents in connection with the appeal to be sent,

(c)must state the date and any reference number of the disputed decision and the name of the enforcement authority, and

(d)may include any representations which the appellant desires to make in addition to the original representations.

Further representations by the parties
4.—(1) Any party may deliver representations in relation to the matters referred to in regulation 5(2)(b), 8(5) or 11(3), as appropriate in the circumstances, to the proper officer at any time before the appeal is determined.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake (Read 735 times)

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

John U.K.

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

cp8759

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

cp8759

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

Martyn21uk

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

H C Andersen

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

taffer87

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake

H C Andersen

Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by mistake