Free Traffic Legal Advice

But until your initial reps and their response - including rationale- are in play we don't know what ground has been given by either side.

Please see attached PCN and Initial resp to my appeal, which I posted on this thread May 07, 2024, 03:52:44.

PCN/Resp: https://imgur.com/a/7TWX3Kw

From what I can tell it seems the most solid case would be around the wrong contravention code but how would I make it a solid and backed up case, happy to add anything else

I'm looking to respond by 8th, as I asked the council about the +2 days in respect to the 28 days, they were like no, so guess rather play it safe then sorry.

My rep was as follows:

1. The warden had said to me there was a 2 minute observation period before issuing a PCN, however it can be seen he had only observed for less then 1 minute, with the PCN itself only showing 1 minute start and end observation.

2. The ticket has been issued with an incorrect contravention code, as a vehicle cannot be "parked without payment of the parking charge" when no charge is applicable (as the first hour is free), therefore the PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being "parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket". The borough of Redbridge is familar with this has I have seen pervious cases with similar scenario that have reached an independant adjudicator who accepted the wrong code was used resulting in cancellation of the PCN and appeal being accepted. Therefore I will be taking this further to the independant appeal process if this is rejected, with reference to such cases to aid the appeal."


There are no parking machines near the bays on the road (have been removed), although there is one at the beginning of the side road, just a tad bit further up. See https://imgur.com/a/1nzl6xB, shows where I was parked and x is where the machine is - Although it has a different pay and display number/code, so not sure what the parking rules are around this, ie can you pay at a different machine/code that is associated to a different road?

The evidence shows a traffic sign giving optional means to pay. Each is therefore valid. There is an arrow indicating the direction of the machine.

This is hard evidence.

You now say that there isn't a machine within the parking place in the direction indicated, but haven't posted evidence in support. GSV and other map sources are not contemporaneous evidence.

So if you can prove this point then you're starting in the wrong place with your argument.

You have until 10 July to make formal reps. If you don't want this to drag out into an appeal then you need to have a clear argument supported by evidence.

And pl get away from the focus on obs period unless you saw the CEO the first moment they arrived at your car because an obs time isn't required on a PCN and their notes are likely to show that they did observe as required. You could add to reps that the obs time on the PCN suggests that council policy wasn't followed, but don't make it the main plank of your defence pl.

Read this case 2210237357

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Gaysham Avenue at 11.32am on 5 March 2021 without payment of the parking charge.

The CEO's images show that Mr Carmody's vehicle was parked with a pay and display ticket displayed in the windscreen. The ticket was valid from 11.27am to 12.27pm. The vehicle registration had not been completed. It is not in dispute that there was an hour's free parking at this location with the display of a pay and display ticket.

I allow the appeal because the PCN was issued for the wrong contravention. A vehicle cannot be parked without payment of the parking charge when no charge is payable. The PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.


The circumstances are not identical, but the reason for allowing the appeal are. You did not fail to pay as there was nothing to pay, you failed to display or register but that is a different contravention

HCAnderson - Would referring to this case also as a second defence be a strong case? or should I avoid and stick to the sign and no pay adn display machine?

Understood let me draft up my rep based on the above and post it today for review..

Only issue is I am unable to find the case ref mentioned on the London Tribunal :/ maybe searching incorrectly

It's there: go to

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

Click on 'Access Statutory Registers'

scroll down to
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA)


and on down to and click on 'Search'
Enter case number in first box, scroll down and hit search, and voila



   

1 Case(s) found

Case Reference   Date Registered   Surname   Forename   Company   Enforcing Authority   PCN   PCN Location   Latest Outcome Date   Outcome
2210237357   10/05/2021   Carmody   John   -    London Borough of Redbridge   AF87600097   Gaysham Avenue   24/06/2021   Appeal allowed

Hit the case reference.

You are making formal reps, so start with:

I am making formal representations against PCN ****** on the following grounds:

The alleged contravention did not occur;

Procedural impropriety.

Contravention
As is shown in the council's photos, the traffic sign which conveys the restriction gives the following information:

Pay by phone or
'Pay at machine'; an arrow conveying that the machine to be used is to the left; Display ticket;

Presumably this machine would have conveyed the detailed terms and conditions which, according to the council, included a requirement to obtain a free ticket. However, as the council will know there isn't a machine which can be consulted by a driver. In my case, my search for a machine took me considerably outside the parking place, **including crossing the road. I did locate a machine at **** but I could not be confident that this and its conditions applied to where I was parked. Please see my recent photos** attached to prove the above.[ I even enquired in adjacent shops [I don't know whether to include this, did the CEO see you coming out of the shop]

It follows that the council has not conveyed the restriction as is their duty under the applicable regulations(s18 applies: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made) and therefore there was no contravention of the restriction.

In order to pre-empt any attempt by the council to deny their duty under the regulations, the fact that there was a phone option, which presumably carried the Ts and Cs on which the council rely, is not a defence available to them because paying at the machine was a lawful alternative. It could never be the duty of the driver to search for a machine - effectively to 'traipse the streets' (which is an expression used by adjudicators on this point)- and then, in its absence, to use a phone(even assuming one was held) to discover these terms. The duty lies with the council who, having placed this traffic sign, were obligated to ensure that a machine was placed accordingly.

As a base for discussion. But I cannot put words into your mouth or invent things which did not happen, therefore unless 'I' applies, you should refer to matters in the third person as in 'a driver cannot be expected' etc.

In order to pre-empt any attempt by the council to deny their duty under the regulations, the fact that there was a phone option, which presumably carried the Ts and Cs on which the council rely, is not a defence available to them because paying at the machine was a lawful alternative. It could never be the duty of the driver to search for a machine - effectively to 'traipse the streets' (which is an expression used by adjudicators on this point)- and then, in its absence, to use a phone(even assuming one was held) to discover these terms. The duty lies with the council who, having placed this traffic sign, were obligated to ensure that a machine was placed accordingly.

This bit was more for the forum response correct, ie I would not be including this?