Free Traffic Legal Advice

post Sun, 19 Mar 2023 - 22:30
Post #1

I parked in a loading bay thinking it was a regular parking spot adjacent to a loading bay, partly because it is so badly marked, partly because the loading bay has relatively recently undergone re-tarmacking and painting and they did not re-paint all the bay giving the impression that it is a separate bay, partly because there is a gap between the brightly painted loading bay and what I thought was a parking bay, partly because the loading bay and what I thought was the parking bay are not in a straight line, but the pavement of the bit I parked in tapers in and finally partly because I see cars parked there all the time and I myself have previously parked there once and I do not believe all of the cars I see there are loading. Also as I moved away from the space another car took my place and I had to stop and tell them it was not a good idea. Obviously, if I had, had any idea it was not a bona fide parking space I would never have parked there. Yesterday I noted a red car parked there and today a black one.

Perhaps I am missing the obvious, but I don't believe I am the only person to and I cannot understand why they did not re-paint all the bay to make it very clear. I feel it is very misleading and I would love to know how many tickets have been issued here, but sadly, wouldn't get the answer in time.

Here is my PCN and the photos I took of my parked car.


https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3878907,-2....6384!8i8192
https://imageshack.com/i/pnXcssW2j
PCN front.
https://imageshack.com/i/po0VnhHHj
PCN back.
https://imageshack.com/i/pn43Rtkij
Picture of the front of my car parked in the bay.
https://imageshack.com/i/pnKCdjsvj
Picture of the back of my car, parked in the bay, showing a lack of road markings indicating a loading bay. Also highlighting the gap between the recently re-painted bay and where I have parked.
https://imageshack.com/i/poBl5GG2j
Another picture of the back of my car taken further back down the road, showing the re-tarmacked road (which has the words loading bay in bright paint, but just cut off from this picture).
https://imageshack.com/i/pm0SyTFXj
Picture taken from the front of the car showing the gap between where I was parked and the re-tarmacked and re-painted loading bay, it also shows the misalignment between the two areas.
https://imageshack.com/i/pmMXp0qRj
Sign indicating loading bay. I am parked to the left of this sign further down the road,.
https://imageshack.com/i/poURdTixj
This picture shows more of the loading bay to the right of my parked car.
https://imageshack.com/i/po6uYBx6j
Another picture showing the abrupt cut off between the marked loading bay and my car to the right of it.
https://imageshack.com/i/pnkuZZY0j
My car is to the left of this picture and behind the marked bay.

COUNCIL PICS.

https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...w7WzqOwzUc9MSo=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...vS+jVMk4DIJxEA=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...u/fswSKyElpB1A=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...FrFS+5M16moePw=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...mEcFvL0C+q6KW0=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...bAY7qV/WeMYx/A=
https://parking.trafford.gov.uk/fines/viewi...DIMArVoEDibM9g=


https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3878907,-2....6384!8i8192
____________________________________________________________________________________________

stamfordman
post Mon, 20 Mar 2023 - 09:45
Post #6


It is supposed to be one bay and there is only one parking sign thereabout maybe you can make the case that the odd bit you were in doesn't see part of the much larger loading bay.

What it is supposed to look like from Maps


Reduced: 63% of original size [ 1005 x 435 ] - Click to view full image


Council pic selection

Reduced: 55% of original size [ 1152 x 2048 ] - Click to view full image

Reduced: 55% of original size [ 1152 x 2048 ] - Click to view full image

Reduced: 55% of original size [ 1152 x 2048 ] - Click to view full image

Reduced: 55% of original size [ 1152 x 2048 ] - Click to view full image

Reduced: 55% of original size [ 1152 x 2048 ] - Click to view full image
_________________________________________________________________________________________

post Mon, 20 Mar 2023 - 09:55
Post #7
Tillybud

Is there not a responsibility for the council to clearly mark out bays and parking etc and did I read once that the lines were supposed to be unbroken? I haven't done anything yet with this ticket, just wanted to know if there was any reasonable argument against it first?

As I said though, what I really don't understand is that they have obviously repaired the road and re-painted the repaired bit (the rest of it) but did not re-paint the whole bay? Why?
________________________________________________________________________________________

Incandescent
post Mon, 20 Mar 2023 - 11:49
Post #8

Well, now having looked at the additional photos and a GSV view, I think you have a good case.

The contractors that relaid the tarmac obviously were probably also contracted to reinstate the bay markings, but only for the area relaid so they did this. But there is no bay marking to where you parked, indeed where you parked, the bay markings are almost worn away. with no link to the bay where the tarmac has been relaid.
Are motorists meant to guess that the worn out markings are part of the loading bay ? Of course not, the council are under an obligation to maintain signs and lines so they clearly convey the restriction. Here they don't. The council should really instruct their CEOs on places like this and not enforce, but the penalty money is too attractive.

I would submit representations on the basis of "the contravention did not occur" as the bay markings are not clear. However, such is the greed for money in councils these days, they will, in all likelihood send you the usual Fob-Off letter. To take matters further you will probably have to wait for the Notice to Owner, send the reps again, plus updates based on their Fob-Off letter, and if rejected again, take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The only downside, is the discount option is lost if you wait for the NtO, so there is the risk of having to pay an additional £35 if you lose, but for me, the odds look good.

Councils game the system ruthlessly to get the money in, and almost all informal challenges are rejected, because they know most people then cough-up, being ignorant of the law, and also nervous about taking matters further.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Fri, 24 Mar 2023 - 15:41
Post #10

tilybud have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022), Trafford's PCN has the same issue.

Have you sent a representations already?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Fri, 31 Mar 2023 - 17:35
Post #11

Hi cp8749. Thank you and very well spotted. However, I have already sent reps by email (copied below). Does this mean I am now tied to my original defence and not able to use this augment?


REPS TO COUNCIL BY EMAIL 21/3/2023

I have received the above PCN for parking in a loading bay, contravention 25. I am disputing the PCN as I believe no contravention took place.

The area that I parked on the road looked like a parking space and I think it would be very hard for most people to realise that the little space actually belongs to the much bigger Loading Bay, Not just the fact that there is no clear signage (the only sign being the one further up the Loading Bay) or road markings indicating that it was part of the Loading Bay, but also the fact that in the recent past, the Loading Bay area has been repaired and repainted but for some obscure reason the markings were not carried through to the area that I parked in, leaving a substantial gap between the obvious Loading Bay and what I thought was a parking bay. A further misleading feature is that the pavement tapers in and the bit that I parked in is actually not in alignment with the Loading Bay. Had I known that it was part of the Loading Bay I would never have parked there.

I hope you will give due consideration to my explanation and cancel the PCN on this occasion. Thank you.

Regards
___________________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Sat, 1 Apr 2023 - 14:29
Post #14

You can raise new issues at any time. The sensible approach would be to raise the 0845 issue at the Notice to Owner stage, so let us know when it's been received and I'll draft something for you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Sat, 1 Apr 2023 - 17:46
Post #15

Thanks cp8759.
________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Wed, 26 Apr 2023 - 21:25
Post #16


REPLY TO MY INITIAL REPS FROM THE COUNCIL.


Date: 26 April 2023



PCN No: TR08595340
VRM: WK63OLM
Issued on: 16/03/2023
Location: High Street


Dear Ms


This is a response to your appeal against Penalty Charge Notice TR08595340.


The vehicle was parked in a loading bay and no evidence of loading was observed by the Civil Enforcement Officer before the Penalty was issued. A loading bay is only to be used for the continuous loading or unloading of items for which use of the vehicle is specifically required such as heavy or bulky items that could not otherwise be carried. Your reasons are not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the Charge.


Payment of the discounted charge of £35.00 will be accepted if received no later than 14 days from the date of this decision, after which the full charge of £70.00 will apply. Payment can be made by the following methods:

Online at www.trafford.gov.uk

By telephone on 0845 371 9901

By post to Parking Services, Trafford Town Hall, Talbot Road, Stretford, M32 0TH


If you are not satisfied with this decision and want to appeal further, you must wait to receive a Notice to Owner to make a formal Representation. A Notice to Owner is sent at the full charge to the registered keeper if the Penalty Charge is still unpaid after 28 days.


If your Formal Representation is not accepted, you will then be able to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.


Yours sincerely,


Parking Services
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Incandescent
post Wed, 26 Apr 2023 - 22:57
Post #17

It's the usual Fob-Off letter we see so often, totally ignoring your reps. So if you're prepared to take them to adjudication, wait for the NtO.
________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Sat, 20 May 2023 - 22:55
Post #19


The NtO has now arrived. Posted below and hoping somebody can help me with the next bit.

cp8759 previously mentioned a case that was won on the basis of a premium no. being used for payment, however, research suggests that this is dependant upon the particular tribunal.

As you say Incandescent, they totally ignored what I had written in my initial reps so do I just repeat this?

I also clicked on the council photos I originally uploaded, but they don't seem to be there anymore?

FRONT OF NtO.
https://flic.kr/p/2oBHaN6

BACK OF NtO.
https://flic.kr/p/2oBDqn5

FRONT OF REPS
https://flic.kr/p/2oBHa3r

BACK OF REPS
https://flic.kr/p/2oBGnsv
____________________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Sun, 21 May 2023 - 14:25
Post #20


Draft reps:
Dear Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council,

I challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. (insert stuff about the contravention here)

Further to this, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, for the reasons explained in Andrew Young v London Borough of Croydon (2190531198, 27 January 2020) http://bit.ly/2RTSxEP and followed in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) http://bit.ly/3UsoSjR

The council is reminded of the binding findings made by the High Court in London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) http://bit.ly/2FISdDr

Yours faithfully,


If you get a Notice of Rejection I'd be happy to represent you at the tribunal.
________________________________________________________________________________________

post Wed, 24 May 2023 - 20:14
Post #21
Tillybud


Thank you cp8759. I will write up the reps repeating what I put in the initial reps and adding your bit on.
________________________________________________________________________________________

hcandersen
post Thu, 25 May 2023 - 08:03
Post #23


OP, your reps state that you knew it was a parking place. As such, you were obliged to look for a sign. Your search seems to have stopped short of the sign but for no good reason i.e. you did not see end-bay markings indicating that you were leaving one restricted area and entering another. In fact the only objective evidence in the form of photos shows clear end-bay markings immediately in front of your car.

A different coloured road road surface could in theory represent the limits of a parking place, but IMO not here because the use of contra-coloured surfaces does not allow mixed use with lines.

In law, I cannot see any defence as regards the contravention based upon your account which would be upheld by an adjudicator. I say 'your account' because the council's assertion regarding continuous loading etc. is nonsense, but this isn't germane because you are not claiming that you were.

If you're going to run with 'contravention did not occur' then I suggest you reword and remove or mask any references to your prior knowledge of the bay - unless you're saying that it was not previously a loading bay.

cp's point regarding the 0845 number seems far stronger.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Thu, 25 May 2023 - 20:37
Post #24


Hi hcanderson. Thank you for your imput,

I am a little confused now and not as confident. I am not really sure what you are saying? I did not 'know' it was a parking space, I guess I assumed so because I had seen other cars parked there. I did look for a sign and the only sign I saw was the small loading bay sign, along the length of what I did see to be a loading bay? Because where I parked was offset to the loading bay and the loading bay markings did not continue to where I parked, I thought it was a singular parking bay.. I actually thought they had covered the end lines to the loading bay and not included them when re-marking the road.

Again, I did not have any prior knowledge of this bay and as a person with not a lot of knowledge of road markings I would not know the nuances involved with them.

I was also going to include cp8759 as an additional reason, although when I looked into it, it seems it is subject to the whims of the particular tribunal, which is why I thought I would include both reasons. But as I say I am confused now as you seem to be suggesting the original reps should not be cited?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Sun, 28 May 2023 - 12:55
Post #25


In all honesty the signage issue is not so strong because one is not meant to make assumptions about parking bays, one is required to look for signs. Some adjudicators might find the signage overall inadequate, but you'd have to be lucky.

To be honest I suspect your best bet is not to mention the signage in any way shape or form, and just put forward the premium rate telephone number point. If you're lucky and they just write a response that drones on and on about the loading bay and doesn't address the point you're raised, you'll have them fair and square for a failure to consider (which can win regardless of anything else).
____________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Fri, 4 Aug 2023 - 23:09
Post #26


Update...

I sent the reps in by email as suggested by cp8759, referring only to the payable phone no. on the paperwork.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/193499554@N03...eposted-public/ (EMAIL SENT TO TRAFFORD COUNCIL).

I received the following letter from them last week

https://www.flickr.com/photos/193499554@N03/53109303942/in/dateposted-public/ (NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS.


Initially, I was quite pleased because they seemed to have completely ignored my last representations, referring only to my 'first' representations sent by email. However, reading it through again, I am confused. it seems to be suggesting that they have not received my further representations sent by email, saying only that the time for the reduced payment has expired? The email was not returned to me as undelivered? I was wondering why it had taken virtually the whole of the allowable period to reply to my email?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Incandescent
post Fri, 4 Aug 2023 - 23:22
Post #27


Well the main point is that by not re-offering the discount, it is a total no-brainer to take them to adjudication, as the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs.

The second point is that if they have ignored points made in your reps, they have "failed to consider" which is a procedural impropriety.

At adjudication, you normally fire all your ammunition, so that the adjudicator has a selection from which to choose a bit like shopping ! Seriously though, you have enough to win, but you need to take great care with your appeal document.

One thing more to say is that you last posted in late May. Since then, Pepipoo has suffered a serious incident, (lengthy downtime), and it has been found the life of the site is short, and there are no administrators. As a result, a new forum has been set up, and as it is likely you will be taking the council to the TPT, it would be prudent if you start a thread in this new site: -

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-no...tfl-and-so-on)/

All the advisers are the same friendly people as are in Pepipoo, me included ! Sorry for the inconvenience, but if Pepipoo goes Phut just before your hearing at TPT, it could impact your appeal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Fri, 4 Aug 2023 - 23:46
Post #28


Thank you Incandescent, I have noted and stored the new forum information. If I start a thread in the new site, do I need to repost everything from the beginning?

ps. Why should they offer the full discount again? Is this not lost if they are saying they did not receive my formal reps?
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Incandescent
post Sat, 5 Aug 2023 - 00:05
Post #29


Tilly, AIUI, you need to cut-and-past everything you added on Pepipoo, but not other contributions. Can you PM CP8759, as he is the site adminstrator of the new site, for advice on this, please.

As for the discount being re-offered, it is your right to it if your informal reps were received within the discount period. If not, it is not your legal right, but most London councils are now re-offering it to "persuade" people to cough up, as they are also doing when rejecting formal reps against a Notice to Owner. It works, too, and saves them the effort of preparing an evidence pack, which is quite a task since we got going on Pepipoo as we tend to spot errors they have never even been aware of before !
Hope you win, BTW !
___________________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Sat, 5 Aug 2023 - 09:02
Post #30


I suggest you post just a brief summary of events to date, and all the key documents onto ftla, just so that we have a permanent record once pepipoo goes offline.

In the meantime, would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Sun, 6 Aug 2023 - 09:16
Post #31


Thank you cp, but I am still trying to understand where I am at the moment, do you agree that their letter suggests they did not receive my formal reps and if so where does that leave my formal reps based on the chargeable telephone no.(as you suggested) if they did not receive it? Especially as you have previously said that my informal reps were weak. Should I contact them to check? Really need to understand what basis I am going forward on.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

cp8759
post Sun, 6 Aug 2023 - 13:23
Post #32


They must have received your formal representations as you sent them by email, if an email is undelivered you'd get a notification come back to you. More importantly, if they hadn't received your representations they would not have sent a Notice of Rejection, they would have sent a Charge Certificate. A Notice of Rejection is only sent in response to formal representations, so they must have received something.

So you have at least two grounds to appeal: the original premium rate number issue, plus failure to consider.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

tillybud
post Wed, 9 Aug 2023 - 22:08
Post #33


Thanks cp, that makes perfect sense.

Would we not also include the original defence? I know it was weak but presumably at this point, I have nothing to lose?
____________________________________________________________________________________________

hcandersen
post Yesterday, 13:09
Post #34


IMO, the lack of specificity in your reps as regards the actual grounds might in some adjudicators' eyes excuse their clear lack of consideration because in effect you were asking them to not only look at the cited cases to support your stated grounds but also to find their substance. 'Penalty exceeded..' most often refers to a NTO being served while an extended discount is still on offer and not the very rare cases of premium phone charges.

But if the grounds(of penalty exceeded), with the necessary development, are going to be successful then procedural impropriety (for not considering) won't matter.

I have reposted from Pepipoo including all documents/pics etc posted. I have also included some conversations for continuity.

Stick with CP on this, I would advise asking him to represent you, he is very good and if you read his posts he clearly states he does not require a fee

@tillybud so would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?

I cannot guarantee the outcome, but on average I seem to win 9 cases out of 10.

What I can definitely tell you is that a technical appeal like this one is not suitable for a DIY approach.

I am also totally bemused that the council said in their Notice of Rejection that 'the lines are clearly marked on the road surface'....really?  What am I missing?

It's all part of their gaming of the system. Who gets the money from payment of a PCN ?  The council, of course ! Hardly a set-up for delivery of unbiased consideration of representations, is it ?

Thank you cp, I have replied.

Somewhat underwhelming outcome.

Thank you cp and Incandescent. Yes I guess a win is a win but I also would agree that it is somewhat underwhelming.  It actually seems somewhat vexatious to not follow through.  It seems that there is nothing to concentrate the minds of the people in the councils that pursue PCNs.   Maybe if 'they' received a penalty for disregarding representations and not following through, they might apply more thought. 

Thank you cp for putting yourself forward to represent me.