Author Topic: PCN TR10516584 - Trafford Council - Parked in a permit space without valid permit - Code 16 - Brook Close  (Read 97 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi all,

I've successfully used Pepipoo in the past and pleased to have found this site for some help.

I parked near Navigation Road metro stop yesterday in Brook Close next to a road that allows parking on kerbs. The other roads around the area appear to have permit holder marked bays and signs - see here for example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3945089,-2.3438924,3a,75y,295.55h,76.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPBN_swZl4kT4R1IUUTuWdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

I'd noticed on Brook Close this little area between the white line in front of the gates and the double yellows, but as per street view there's normally cars already parked there:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3951902,-2.3425416,3a,75y,60.77h,80.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRFd-E5UKXkZNTDeTDiIB5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

Yesterday there was only one car parked there and so I managed to get a space in front. I came back to a PCN notice stating: "Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit" - confused I went looking for the signs of which I admit, there is -ONE- which is on the opposite side of the road as you enter Brook Close and usually obscured by a tall van which is parked next to it, see below (the van is usually parked where the blue Honda is):

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3956963,-2.3421424,3a,75y,215.64h,79.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sprqIHg6lcPJsyWBuzKj7EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

I admit I parked there, and I admit the sign is there and it was my fault for not inspecting the area properly - but surely there should be more than one sign AND a marked bay, not just what appears to be a normal road parking space in between the white and yellow lines? If not, why is there marked bays on the roads around the area?

I have 14 days to pay the reduced charge of 35 down from 70 - I know you guys are the experts so if you say this is all legit then I'll simply pay for my mistake - I was just amazed that in all the other streets there's lots of signs and marked bays, and in this one there's one sign on the opposite side of the road which can be obscured by the free non bay marked parking, and no marked bays after.

More images at (if this works)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xztgi65qfz27f8g7th3i3/AERCXKV02Inph0yTZJyWn8g?rlkey=8vm0lmcupn174jjh64vxky7vc&st=nyywh7eu&dl=0

Thanks all

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
A "Permits Only" zone doesn't need bays or anything, you either have a permit displayed or you don't. Visitors to residents must obtain a visitor permit. Commonly scratch-off cards, they are now going virtual. One sign is normally sufficient.  Yes, they are the invention of the Devil, but you've just got to accept them, because they ain't going to disappear.

The other places nearby are not Permits Only zones, so do need bays and signs, if permit holders are to have their own parking bays.

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks for the reply and confirmation - I've since found this on the gov website too so guess I'll just have to suck it up and pay the fine and chalk this one up to experience!

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Don't rush to pay yet !

Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists.  It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them.  As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.

So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

Post up their response when you get it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Don't rush to pay yet !

Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists.  It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them.  As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.

So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

Post up their response when you get it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made

Thanks for the info - is there a "representations" template at all?

and are you referring to this section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
« Last Edit: May 09, 2024, 12:24:54 pm by ATB »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Don't rush to pay yet !

Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists.  It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them.  As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.

So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

Post up their response when you get it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made

Thanks for the info - is there a "representations" template at all?

and are you referring to this section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made

Yes. Regulation 18 (1)(a)

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Yes. Regulation 18 (1)(a)

How does this read?

Appeal

Trafford Council
Ref: Appeal PCN TR10516584

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY

Request for discretion
I would invite the council to show discretion in enforcing this PCN.

Based on the above I kindly request the council to use its power of discretion to cancel the Penalty Charge on the basis councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. I invite you to review The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, and specifically 1996 No. 2489, Part III, Regulation 18 (1)(a) which specifies:

---
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
---

It is quite clear here that in this case Trafford Council have failed to do this, as a single sign mounted on the opposite side of the road to entry can be and was easily obscured by parked vans due to the mounting height of the sign. If two signs had been erected and mounted higher, then it is almost certain at least one would have been seen. As I've confirmed, I did not see the sign, because it was obscured by a parked van in the immediate non permit requiring space in front of the sign.

Brook Lane (off Brook Close) has no such permit restrictions and cars are able to park anywhere along the road where there are no yellow lines, white lines or blocking entry to driveways. There are also no marked bays such as those in Grosvernor Road where there are marked parking bays and many, many permit signs. I would argue therefore that it was safe to assume Brook Close, like Brook Lane (and in non marked, none yellow lined spaces up to the permit sign) was a location where a non permit vehicle was eligible to park as I saw no sign when driving into Brook Close, and it was only when I received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that I came across the single sign mounted low down and previously not visible due to the parked van in a non permit space. Under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here I believe Trafford Council have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

I request therefore the PCN be cancelled.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 12:02:47 pm by ATB »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
You need to rewrite the part asking for discretion. The plain fact is the offence did not occurm because their poor signing of the restriction meant you were unaware of it.

Also note that this is an informal challenge, to which most councils just send a Fob-Off letter, so don't be disappointed with there reponse, (unless it is to cancel the PCN, you never know !!)

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY
Are you sure about that? The PCN was only issued last week, so I don't see how you could have a notice to owner already? I think you're making an informal representation.

You don't need to give links to the legislation, it's up to the council to know the laws that it is enforcing. I would also remove the bit about discretion, if the signage is inadequate then discretion doesn't come into it, discretion only applies if a contravention did occur and you're asking them to cancel a penalty notwithstanding the fact that the contravention occurred.

Lastly the PCN has a premium rate 0845 number, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) as that will explain the significance of this.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

ATB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Only just saw this reply...

Are you sure about that? The PCN was only issued last week, so I don't see how you could have a notice to owner already? I think you're making an informal representation.

Mistake on my part, I meant Penalty Charge Notice but have submitted the above with some small changes, will it many any difference that I put Notice to Owner?

You don't need to give links to the legislation, it's up to the council to know the laws that it is enforcing.

Ahhh I did put that in...

I would also remove the bit about discretion, if the signage is inadequate then discretion doesn't come into it, discretion only applies if a contravention did occur and you're asking them to cancel a penalty notwithstanding the fact that the contravention occurred.

Yes removed amy references to discretion :)

Lastly the PCN has a premium rate 0845 number, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) as that will explain the significance of this.

That's interesting and a lot of info to take in ha - I notice it mentioned in some other cases that wasn't taken into account though? Is it worth me sending in a further appeal referencing the 0845 number or can I only appeal once?

The final day for the 35 payment within 14 days is today - I called yesterday to confirm they had in fact received my appeal as when submitted the form online you do not receive any email to confirm it's been received, and I've had nothing back and so didnt want to lose out. The only info I gave was the PCN number and asked if the appeal had been received, of which the lady said yes but they are running about 4 weeks behind right now and they'll get to it when they can - and for this reason the PCN is on hold along with the half price offer and for me to keep an eye out on my email/spam mail over the weeks to see a reply... any thoughts on this?

Pastmybest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
No dodn't send anything else yet leave the payment reason for the NTO stage