Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

Hoping for some advice on all this.

My partner parked in Colchester recently, at St Johns Green. Whereby there is a number of bays for free parking, just no return within 2 hours. When she returned the second time there was a ticket (attached)

Before the 2 hour period was up my partner returned to the car and moved it from Point A to Point B, as shown in the image. Also the YouTube video here of dashcam footage here:



I put all this information on the appeal. Along with noting that the two locations whilst both St Johns Green, are listed seperately in the TRO (attached image of that too).

It just seems a bit mad that it's been denied on the valves apparently being in the same location on the wheel. When the car was moved 1 minute up the road to another location.

I guess just wait now for 28 days and the a formal appeal? Seems to a whole lot of waste time and energy all round.

Edit: Attached rejection of informal appeal.

Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for your reply.

Yes it does seem that it would be almost impossible for the tyre vales to have been in the same position, given the length the car was moved as shown in the video.

I had assumed (maybe wrongly) that the as the locations are listed seperately in the TRO, that these would be counted as different locations.
i.e. parked initially in St John's Green and then subsequently moved to St John's Green (central Section) - Page 205 of the TRO here: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Colchester/CH071.pdf

I have also uploaded the PCN below (both sides)

Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

TRO lists the relevant bays under one single location, so the contravention is, in theory, made out.

It's not IMO. The contravention of returning within the 2-hour period might be made out, but the TRO lists 3 distinct areas under the St. John's Green heading:
St. John's Green;
SJG (Central);
SJG (north-eastern).

The bays themselves are separated by areas of waiting and other restrictions.

IMO, it is NOT the case that a vehicle which moves bay* is subject to anything other than that bay's primary restriction. I've read cases where the 'no return' aspect has been considered as a 'zonal' restriction but only where the same restrictions apply throughout. In any event, this is not the alleged contravention.

*- this is the most worrying part of their reply for me. It suggests that the authority do NOT accept that the car moved because it is totally irrelevant whether the valves were in the same place or not if their argument is that all bays are covered.

I would focus on this point at formal reps.

From ** to *** my car was parked o/s *** in a 2-hr bay situated between nos. *** and *** on the *** side of St. John's Green(this is listed as being the *** area in the TRO). At approx.*** the car left this bay and was re-positioned o/s no. *** in the bay which runs between nos. *** and *** SJG(listed under *** area in the TRO).

The car was not parked for more than the prescribed period in either of these distinct bays and therefore the contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

I would draw the authority's attention to the following statement in their letter dated **** rejecting my initial representations:

************

Before considering these reps, the authority must satisfy themselves as to whether the car did or did not move between the CEO's two observations at ** and ***. If they agree, then the issue of valve positions is at best redundant and at worst indicative of unsound reasoning. If they disagree and believe that the car remained stationary, then they should issue a Notice of Rejection and I would be content to let the adjudicator decide the matter.

Just some thoughts for later.

if it counts as one single area anyway?

And where did you get this idea?

if it counts as one single area anyway?

And where did you get this idea?

Apologies, I misread your reply. I thought the first line was you saying that the contravention was made out.

Also previous the reply from Incandescent who said they treat all bays at St Johns Green as one area. So has led to a bit of confusion on my part as to which is correct.

Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to another does not trump the 2 hour limit.

That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic order supports what the council is doing, the signs are inadequate.

IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard to see how you could lose.

Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is right on this occasion.

@volavola if you let us know once you've got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.

Quote from: Incandescent on February 08, 2024, 12:11:27 am

Looks like some mendacity on the part of the CEO re tyre valve positions ! However it does look as if they treat all the separate bays that come under St John's Green as one area for parking, with identical restrictions, so moving from one bay to another does not trump the 2 hour limit.

That's not how it works, if they want to create a "no return to the zone" restriction they need signs to indicate that. The signs do not create a zone restriction so even if the traffic order supports what the council is doing, the signs are inadequate.

IMO if this case is argued properly at the tribunal, it's hard to see how you could lose.

Long story short: Incandescent is wrong and H C Andersen is right on this occasion.

@volavola if you let us know once you've got the NTO I will draft a formal representation for you.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and your offer of the draft for formal representation, much appreciated. I'll update once we get the NTO.

One other thing, should the location on the PCN be identical to the TRO, or is that just academic? For example the PCN says St.John's Green, but the name for the bay on the TRO is St.John's Green (central Section)?

Quote from: Incandescent on February 13, 2024, 01:04:47 am

Quote

Long story short: Incandescent is wrong

Er, No ! 
I merely pointed out how the council were treating the various bays in the St. John's Green parking bays.  I didn't say whether this was correct or not.

My apologies, I must have misread but I think we agree what they're doing is wrong.

Indeed, yes !  A long time ago, when it was the old 1991 legislation, I remember a case in Alresford on this issue but can't remember the outcome. It was on this street.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AgpNuYYd5eKFhaeG6
If you look at the sign for the bay on the left, it has a "no return in 2 hours" condition. OP moved up about two bays and reeparked and got a PCN.
Lovely town, BTW