Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on 1st February 2024 for a code 21u.

When I parked I mistakenly parked in a Suspended Bay that had been suspended for use by Diplomatic Vehicles. The bay is normally a Pay by Phone bay. I have previously been informed by a CEO that if I am less than 5 mins, I can leave the vehicle. As I do meter reading, I was very confident that I would have been in and out in 5 mins and I was.

However, I did not realise that there was a suspension in force and the CEO had already issued the PCN as I was walking back to the vehicle.

Not one for giving out £65 willingly, I like to ensure that the council is upholding their part of the bargain and are compliant with the relevant laws when they are issuing their tickets. Therefore, I appealed the PCN on the following grounds:

1. Suspension sign is not approved by DfT

2. No reference on the PCN to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, as they are enforcing the PCN under these regulations not the TMA 2004 (I presume)?

3. Under Schedule 2 (d) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, a PCN must contain the following wording: "that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred", however, the PCN I received states "that the penalty charge must be paid within a period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred" - this wording is not compliant with the regulations, as the PCN issued by the council states "...within a period of 28 days...", whereas the PCN needs to state, "...within the period of 28 days".

4.The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 state that a Regulation 9 PCN MUST include the following information: "that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator"

The PCN issued states "A person on whom a Notice to Owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea against the Penalty Charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected"

The PCN issued therefore has not complied with the regulations, to which it MUST comply. This wording on the PCN does not state as to which regulations appeals can be made anywhere on the PCN and more crucially, within the wording that it must state and make reference to these regulations.

Predictably, I have received a very vague "Challenge Refused" letter, which only references one of my challenges (the suspension sign).

Is anyone able to give me some further advice to see if I have a chance to successfully appeal this PCN?


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

WE need council photos and a copy of the response

I'm just a bit suspicious that they have used suspension of parking, but haven't actually suspended it, because parking is still allowed for diplomatic vehicles. To alter the use of the bay, they need a TTRO. (Temporary Traffic Regulation Order). I'm not up-to-speed on this aspect but suspect this is the case, but we'd need to see what the sign says.

It is a public document, so you can ask for it.

I have sent the Parking Services team this email tonight:

"I have received your refusal letter.

As part of my process to further appeal this PCN, I am making a formal request for the paperwork relating to Traffic Regulation Order and Temporary Traffic Regulation Order for Scarsdale Place.

Therefore, please can I request the following:

1. The Traffic Regulation Order for the Pay By Phone bay in Scarsdale Place (located outside Holiday Inn Hotel).
2. The Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) that regulates the suspension of the parking at the bay aforementioned in point 1 for the date covering when the PCN was issued.
3. The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's official policy on Parking Suspensions and how they are implemented."

@The_Hock the five minute thing you've heard from a CEO is not a thing, certainly not when it comes to suspended bays. However as pointed out by Incandescent, a suspension that allows parking is not a suspension, see Jessica Cole v London Borough of Camden (2190083960, 28 March 2019)

Please give us the PCN without any redactions, as per the guidance here. I'd like to get the parking suspension logs but I can't really do that without this information.

Also please can you confirm whether you're the registered keeper and if so, is the address on the V5C up to date?

Hello cp8759,

Thank you for your reply and thank you for citing the case from Jessica Cole, that appears to be useful in my instance.

I will post the PCN on here below. I am not the registered keeper as the vehicle is owned by my company, but, I have made them aware that I want to challenge the PCN and to pass any correspondence on to me.

The traffic order for this location would appear to be The Kensington and Chelsea (Charged-For Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2023, the only limb that allows parking to be suspended in order to provide parking to some other vehicle is at article 13(f):

for the purpose of providing temporary parking space for a goods carrying vehicle, where that vehicle is required for the transportation of equipment that is necessary for work that is being carried out to a property in the vicinity of that parking place;

That is obviously intended for construction vehicles and cannot possibly apply to diplomatic vehicles, so the suspension is ultra-vires. If the suspension is ultra-vires, the bay was not suspended at all so the contravention cannot possibly have occurred.

I have made some further enquiries to rule out a TTRO but odds are that the council simply don't know what they're doing, which is surprisingly common.

Hi CP,

I guess that I am waiting for the NtO to come through and raise this as the main reason that the contravention did not occur.

I am always happy to admit to a mistake, however, I have a strong belief that the authorities should adhere to their legal obligations. Otherwise, we operate in a society where the authorities can operate without adherence to the legal processes and as a lay person we have to abide to all of the laws.

Then surely the PCN should be issued for code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle or 41 - Stopped in a parking place designated for diplomatic vehicles.

One problem with 23 is that if you look at the contravention codes here, the suffix wording is mandatory and there is no suffix wording for diplomatic vehicles, so really they should have used code 41, which again I think would require a TTRO.