Free Traffic Legal Advice

OK so when you get the notice to owner we'll have plenty of evidence to put forwards.

Here you go:


Make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page. Note I referenced the wrong order earlier on, the correct reference is in the draft above. The relevant order is here.

Any advice?

I feel a little bit awkward about posting a comment as I've just been a lurker whilst waiting for my own case to go through. But whilst doing that (as something of a displacement activity, I suppose) I have tried to learn as much as I possibly can about Traffic Orders, the Tribunals etc, and felt I might be able to share my tuppence worth here.

Surely a key factor here is that the relevant articles of the Traffic Order "do not apply" where the "person in control of the vehicle" is "prevented from proceeding by circumstances outside their control".

This would seem to me to have not much to do with the Council's talk of an "exemption to leave an alleged broken-down vehicle unattended on a yellow line restricted area". The 'exemption', per the Traffic Order, would seem instead to hinge on whether the reason the vehicle was stopped was circumstances within, or outside of, the control of the person 'controlling' the vehicle. And, unless it is supported by precedent, I am unclear how the Council can claim that walking away from the vehicle during the period that recovery is being awaited kills that 'defence' and is not prima facie "allowed" (surely a matter of statutory interpretation, and not council policy).  A reasonable interpretation of the Traffic Order to me (perhaps the Tribunal feels differently), would be that if a driver was reasonably awaiting recovery, there would be no reason under this Traffic Order they could not take a refreshment break, or even go inside their house, provided that the facts preventing their vehicle from proceeding had not changed in that time. Indeed that might be a sensible thing for a person legally in charge of a vehicle to do.

Unless there is tribunal or legal precedent on this matter, it seems to me that if the Council wanted to ensure that drivers remained with a broken down vehicle at all times, they should have sought to carve that out within the Traffic Order (if allowed under the enabling Acts)?

If the Council doubt the evidence and suspect that the receipt provided is irrelevant, or fraudulent, then presumably that is an argument they might develop at Tribunal stage and HC Andersen's suggestions, if followed, above would I am sure go some way to finding evidence that may disprove that. It's a shame there is no time on the recovery receipt. Regardless, (and again, it may be there is Tribunal precedent on this), I am unclear that the Google status of a particular recovery company is relevant here as opposed to the time that it was called, the time it arrived, and whether it seemed a reasonable option (e.g. calling a recovery company from Scotland might not be reasonable, but asking a friend to come from the next Borough with a tow-rope might be reasonable, especially given the response times of major recovery companies such as the AA/RAC etc).

The above is based on zero experience of Traffic Tribunals or parking cases, and there will undoubtedly be evidential and tactical things to consider, so I'll now pipe down and cede to the masters who know so much and help us for so little!

I stopped as I awaited recovery I got a ticket

But the council's evidence is that you were not with the vehicle.

Which is correct?

Being broken down is a legitimate defence, but it has limits as you can imagine i.e. you cannot wait for days just because you're broken down, you must try to get out of contravention as soon as you can.

So, you must deal with your appeal to the adjudicator in a measured way. To do which, I suggest you need to provide the following:

How far from where you were parked legitimately were you when you broke down;
At what time;
What did you do;
Why were you not at the car when the CEO arrived;
When were you towed;
What repairs were undertaken at the garage?
Proof from your or someone's bank account/credit card that the invoiced sums were actually paid*

A basic trail of evidence.

*- I suspect that the authority have had to deal with 'I broke down but got recovered' claims before and are sceptical. There might be a lucrative market in selling dodgy invoices for all I know. But your evidence trail would deal with this.

Whatever you do, IMO do not go into this just with an 'I told you I broke down'  story.

I was not in the vehicle that is why I got a ticket. The argument they make doesn’t make sense as IF I was in the vehicle why would a CEO issue a ticket seeing as I had broken down.

Anyway, I was not far from my house, so I went back to get a jumper pack and also pen and paper to put a message on the windscreen stating I’d broken down. My house was like 2 minutes walk from the vehicle.

In that time I got the ticket.

I’d say I was towed about 1330.

Also, I paid cash. If anyone has ever used these small local/independant recovery companies, you’d know they almost always only accept cash.

Bottom line. IMO of course:

The car was in contravention unless an exemption applied;
You claim the car had broken down en route and you stopped where a restriction applied because you had no alternative;
You also claim that you could not remedy the fault yourself, hence why the car remained in contravention until towed under your direction;

Prior to being towed, you say that 'I went back to get a jumper pack and also pen and paper to put a message on the windscreen stating I’d broken down.' but don't explain why or what transpired.

Previously you were asked: So do you have some paperwork about that repair, such as a diagnostic report or an invoice for parts and labour?

You replied that you did.

We still haven't seen this crucial piece of evidence.

Currently, I think you'd struggle at adjudication.

Firstly, I don’t understand how this has now become an inquest into whether I’m lying and making fake invoices etc merely by TH (incorrectly) saying that the recovery company doesn’t exist.

The exemption applies if you break down. I’ve provided proof that I used a recovery service as I did breakdown. Now the onus is on TH to prove that the invoice/company does not exist as they’ve made the claim. This is why I added a link to show the recovery service I used actually exists. I didn’t know that it’ll turn into a post where every one of my posts is critiqued to “catch me out”.

I was asked if I had an invoice showing repairs works that had taken place. That is all. At no point did anyone ask me to upload that. In any case, I have uploaded it here.

I went home to get the jumper as I suspected the battery was low as it wasn’t starting up. Before I started calling recovery service, I wanted to see if I could fix the issue temporarily myself so I could park legally.

At the time of the incident I had no clue that a simple PCN would require forensic analysis and so much documentation. I got an invoice from the recovery guy thinking that would suffice. Maybe that was my mistake.

I may have misinterpreted the posts or your intentions and I apologise if I come across as rude or upset. But it felt to me that I'm being questioned over the legitimacy of what transpired here as soon as TH incorrectly and foolishly say the recovery company doesn’t exist.

@H C Andersen you need to drop the Spanish inquisition, we operate on the assumption that those who seek our assistance are telling us the truth unless there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary (if nothing else because if they don't tell us the truth and their case falls flat on its face at the tribunal, it's all on them). While seeing documents on the forum can be useful, nobody is actually required to show you anything.

@Jamran I think you should carry on, I'm going to drop you a PM.

I am trying to ensure that the OP presents evidence which supports their argument. I am not doubting their view, but we are not their final arbiters although we can apply the same standards in order to prepare them for the hurdles which they face.

There's a way of highlighting the evidential issues without coming across as one would during cross-examination. End of debate.