Free Traffic Legal Advice

Newham is at it again, similar to this case here (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152145&hl=newham)

Context:
I parked on this road and saw that the time plates on both sides of the road had been defaced. I assumed that I can legally park there as I did not know the hours of restriction and believed that it to be unenforceable.

I received a PCN on my windscreen:


The car was parked directly infront of the sign that was defaced as you can see from the photo that the CEO took:


All of the signs that I could see on both sides of the road within the vicinity of where the car was parked were defaced. I have marked all of the timeplates below in green. The CEO took a photograph of the only timeplate that was not defaced at the furthest end of the road (highlighted in red) instead of showing the timeplate that was directly in front of the car:



I submitted an informal representation immediately, although I did not keep a copy of this. But my main point argued that signs should be clear and legible citing both the DfT Traffic signs regulations and London Councils Code of Practice on
Civil Parking Enforcement.

I received a response:
Thank you for your correspondence received on 04 October 2023 regarding the
above penalty charge notice (PCN). Your comments and the notes of the Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) have been considered.
Your vehicle was observed at 11:49 Parked in a residents' or shared use parking
place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical
permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or
without payment of the parking charge in Manor Park Road.
You have stated the sign had been defaced where you parked.
We noted that you have provided evidence that one of the nearest time plates was
vandalised.
However, CEOs records and images taken indicate that a time plate was available
nearby.
Furthermore, your vehicle was parked in a CPZ, an area in which every part of the
road is controlled, the operational hours of the CPZ are advised on entry signs and
there is no subsequent obligation for signs to place at individual parking locations.
Motorists are expected to check what restrictions are in force before leaving their
vehicles unattended.
Failure to meet that obligation lies with the motorist and does not provide adequate
defence. If the nearest sign has been obviously vandalised the next sign should be
sought.
It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked correctly and all
restrictions are observed and adhered to at all time
Is it true that a CPZ does not require timeplates infront of the bays, and only an entry sign is sufficient? Is the entry sign situation on the entry of every road within that zone? If so, this road did not have any signs on entry stating the operation hours.

Is one decision in a sea of varied opinion - I had a TPT adjudicator take the opposite view recently. In addition, councils don't give much if any credence to such decisions: if they thought they were wrong they'd use a different code. So it's not a mistake on their part, it's intentional and they would not cancel the PCN solely on the basis of this decision IMO.

OP, this is not case law and no precedent is set by this decision. In addition, as you weren't displaying any permit then it is anything but certain that an adjudicator would not give this argument short shrift.

But you're not there yet.

As I always recommend with this approach, IMO you need to tease out their reason for using this code and not just say it's wrong e.g. the CEO's Handbook published by London Councils which sets common standards of enforcement and use of codes (because they in conjunction with the Mayor of London set the schedule of contravention codes and grounds which are to be used by councils, including Newham) states that the correct contravention code is 16 - ******** and not 12 ******** as used in this case. The authority have therefore not given the authorised grounds in the PCN which must therefore be cancelled. If the authority believe that code 12 is permissible despite being at variance with London Councils' published codes then they are required to explain why.

1.The PCN itself contains a procedural error that invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)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 payment is due within 28 days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further supported by the attached allowed appeal which refers to the law provided at

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2

2. Multiple choice issue.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145

First proposed by Bogsy and then subsequently used by Mr Mustard.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145&pid=1097614&mode=threaded&start=100#entry1097614