Free Traffic Legal Advice

I need some help please with regards to an appeal for an off-street car park which seems to be regulated under the
Pictures at: https://imgur.com/a/rIohw7K
Evidence from Local Authority is not available since it seems not to be updated on the website. I hope to share this at a later date.

The PCN seems to have been issued under TMA 2004. As far as I know, the relevant order is WOKING BOROUGH COUNCIL (OFF-STREET PARKING PLACES) (PAY AND DISPLAY AND PAY ON FOOT ON EXIT) ORDER 2005 (hereafter referred to as the 'Relevant Order' or 'TRO').
I cannot locate Schedule 1 of this order to confirm the covered parking locations .

CONTEXT

The driver entered "Victoria Place Car Park" in Woking and entered the 'Red ' parking zone by entering a barrier.

Upon entering the building, a blue sign (with a lot of small fine print) stated parking charges without details of legislation or penalties.
No further signs regarding restrictions were displayed before entering the 'Red zone,' upon reaching the barrier, the CCTV read the vehicle's registration mark and opened the barrier.

The driver drove up to the second floor (after entering the Red zone with a barrier) and saw a shared-use bay for Electric Vehicle charging and Disabled users.

The vehicle was an EV, so the driver parked in the bay and noticed that the charge point was not working (it failed to charge the vehicle and did not have a solid green light compared to the EV chargers on other floors).
The EV charger had a sign on it that said, "EV charges apply from 04 March 2024" (irrelevant, I think, but I included this fact for completeness).

Since the charger was not working, the driver gave up and went to the mall security staff. They inquired about the need to move the car but were told the vehicle needed not to be moved as it was an EV, and charging was not possible.

However, I believe the same agent went straight up to the car and issued a PCN code 87 (parking in a designated disabled bay without displaying a permit).

The driver paid the parking charge before walking to the car and seeing the PCN on the windshield.

Any thoughts on this PCN please. What could be grounds for appeal, please?

FEEDBACK REQUESTED - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

I believe it should not be enforceable because of the following,

1. No marking for EV bay in the Relevant Order - deception/entrapment of driver?
2. PCN code issued incorrectly, should be code 71, EV not charging.
3. PCN not valid Shared use bay for EV charging and Disabled bay but driver could not charge as bay not operational (proof of no light on device demonstrates this as compared to EV chargers on other floors)
4. Condition to charge EV when using bay not enforceable as this condition was not agreed or shown to the driver before they entered the mall (blue sign at the entrance does not state this condition, it is only shown by a Red sign at the bay)
5. Signs are not compliant with TSRG 2016
6. Driver was misled by mall service staff (I will try to get CCTV proof of this through SAR)

The driver used provisions allowed to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the TRO which indicates the vehicle was reserved for a vehicle of their class (Electric Vehicle). The paragraph is quoted below for convenience,

"(g) The driver of a vehicle shall not permit it to wait in a reserved bay within a
parking place unless the bay has been specifically reserved (as indicated
by a sign or other writing) for his or her particular class of vehicle or
person."


Other information I believe is relevant,

• Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is stationary in circumstances in which any of the offences specified under "Traffic Management Act 2004 c. > SCHEDULE 7 > Part 1 > Parking contraventions outside Greater London > Paragraph 4"; this requires compliance with TSGRD 2016.
• Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances may make the order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal.
  
• Since this was a dual-use bay for EV charging, an observation period should have been maintained but not performed on this occasion. This was a procedural impropriety.

PCN FRONT


PCN REAR


SIGN AT ENTRANCE


PARKING LOCATION UNDER DISCUSSION

By way of information, TSRGD has no legal effect off-street.

It looks like Woking council refrains from giving evidence of PCNs issued as there is no legal requirement to do so (this is just like the City of Westminster who has confirmed this to me in writing).

Any council pics?

What signage also makes it a disabled bay - this looks unusual.

A dual-use charging-disabled bay features the orange disabled logo painted on it.

What are the legal grounds to dispute that? The council could argue that the requirement for charging while parking is shown on the sign board.

The actual bay as seen on other floors is a diagonal line running through it which shows a green shaded EV sign on the top left corner and a Blue shaded disabled bay parking in the bottom right.

Where is the requirement for an orange disabled bay stated as a requirement please?

Contact Woking and ask for the CEO's pictures.

Picture of the empty bay

I think the dual bays are supposed to be restricted to disabled drivers also charging EVs but could be wrong and the signage is not adequate if so.
You certainly have several points to challenge on. 

---------
By the way, pics are not needed to enforce contraventions but if they took pics there is no reason not to send them. Westminster puts its pics online like many councils.

+1
The signs are totally inadequate.

Thanks everyone.  I will draft a letter of representation and come back to all of you.

Put the draft here for comment before sending.