I've drafted th einformal challenge.
Any suggestions or recommendations before I submit this tomorrow?
This informal challenge is made on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur. However, it is expected that the council will give full consideration to all points raised regardless of Statutory Grounds, as directed by the Local Government Ombudsman. The Telford and Wrekin Parking Enforcement Operation Guidance states that representations can be accepted where markings are missing or unclear. This is the exact situation that occurred on the day.
The alleged contravention:
Snow had fallen overnight 5-6 January and, at the time of parking the vehicle, bay markings were not visible to the driver due to slushy snow and ice on the car park surface covering the bay markings. Although this has mostly melted at the time the PCN was issued, the remnants of this are evidenced in photos taken of the vehicle by the CEO.
Despite the Council failing in its responsibility to ensure the adequacy of the car park markings in adverse weather, it proceeded to carry out enforcement at a time when the snow and ice had melted, unfairly penalising the driver who had parked earlier in the day when the markings were not visible. This is contrary to the council’s own guidance which states at section 1.2:
“Telford & Wrekin Council will:
• enforce regulations fairly, lawfully and without discrimination
• deliver the service in a manner that is proportionate to the problems caused by the parking”
Had the council ensured that markings were visible at the time the vehicle was parked, the driver would have been able to park in a different manner. Therefore it is neither fair nor proportionate for the Council to have issued a PCN once snow and ice had melted, when clearly the ability of the driver to park within marked bays when they arrived at the car park was severely hampered.
You will note from the CEO’s photos that the driver parked close to the bollards (which were causing an obstruction) so that, in the absence of visible bay markings, there were parked as responsibly as possible. In any event, as is also evidenced in the photos, there were several empty spaces and no other driver was affected by the manner in which the vehicle was parked which. While by itself this is not a mitigating factor, combined with the absence of visible markings at the time of parking, this again reinforces the disproportionality of issuing the PCN in this specific circumstance.
Section 1.2 also states:
“In determining the above enforcement activities, due account has been taken of:
… • The adequacy, accuracy and quality of signing and lining”
In issuing the PCN neither the CEO or the Council has taken account of the adequacy of lining at the time the vehicle was parked, otherwise the PCN would not have been issued. The inadequacy of the markings due to snow and ice should have been obvious given the overnight snowfall and remaining slush and ice on the ground at the time the PCN was issued.
Grounds for the Council to cancel the PCN
Appendix D of the guidance provides for mitigation where a motorist has parked with one or more wheel outside of a marked bay in a car park “in most exceptional of circumstance that were outside of the motorists control supported by incontrovertible evidence”
The fact that snow had fallen overnight is both incontrovertible and was outside of the driver’s control. If the council believes that the markings around the bay were visible at the time the vehicle was parked, it should itself provide incontrovertible evidence. It will be unable to do this as the markings were not visible.
Appendix D provides for a further reason of mitigation:
“Where the motorist claims that snow, foliage, fallen leaves or flooding covered the signs or markings
• If it can be established that such conditions prevailed and it is likely that signs and markings were obscured as claimed and there was no alternative indication of the restriction”
The council should be aware of the weather conditions on the day but, for the avoidance of doubt, here is a local news report:
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2025/01/06/snow-closes-school-while-others-delay-start-due-to-bad-weather/The above mitigations, by themselves, afford the council opportunities to cancel the PCN. This would be supported by the Government Statutory Guidance on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions which states:
“An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
“Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest.”
It is neither proportionate nor in the public interest for the Council to proceed with the PCN in order to penalise a driver when the sole cause was adverse weather conditions beyond their control. You will note from my address that no parking infringements have ever been recorded against anyone living here since we moved in 2012 – this is because as borough residents we appreciate the role of the council in managing car parking and we always park responsibly and considerately for the sake of others, and will continue to do so in the future.
In light of the above points, it therefore possible, proportionate and appropriate for the Council to cancel the PCN.
