Author Topic: Trafford, code 16 Parked in a permit space without valid permit, Emmeline Pankhurst Drive  (Read 68 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

talltree54

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi


Just wanted to get some advice on a PCN for parking in permit only zone during a planned parking restriction, like those advertised on this website: https://www.trafford.gov.uk/residents/transport-and-streets/parking/Parking-calendar.aspx

These restrictions are usually because of events at the nearby Old Trafford stadium.

PCN images:





The signs were definitely clear, I have no issue with that. My argument rests on the following:

1. The bay in which I was parked is marked as visitor parking for the building it sits next to on a site plan issued by the building developer (Miller Homes)

2. The developer told my friend (who lives in the building) that the bay was exempt from parking restrictions

3. My friend had been refused the chance to buy visitor parking permits because of the existence of these visitor spaces (no other visitor spots exist for this building elsewhere). 

I started by making an informal appeal, in which all I wrote was that I believed that I was parked in a visitor's spot exempt from the parking restrictions (assuming that the council had made a mistake.)

Here is the informal rejection that I received:



I replied:



with the following site plan attached (on which I've circled in red where I was parked):

.

My friend lives in the top left building, for which there are no visitor spaces in the gated parks (yet the other 3 buildings all have spots inside the gated parks). The visitor spots for my friend's building are on the public highway (Emmeline Pankhurst Drive - street view Google maps link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vjWCARrZdUdphAcCA (parked in the 3-car alcove that can be seen))

The council replied with a document saying that the spots were not exempt from the restrictions:

 

The link to the document: https://www.trafford.gov.uk/residents/transport-and-streets/roads-highways-and-pavements/tro-docs/2023/AmendmentNo237-Itron-NoticeStatementPlan-Order.pdf

We then had a back and forth shown in the following:











In the meantime, my friend had been trying to get a straight answer from the developer, who'd been not returning calls, and replying very slowly to email with incomplete information. They did provide us with the following: the evidence that my friend cannot buy visitor permits from the council. See the following email:



I did not provide the council with that email, saving it for my representation (after receiving a notice to owner). My representation is below:


I received a PCN for parking on Emmeline Pankhurst Drive on the afternoon of the 14th of January whilst visiting a friend living in the adjacent Libertas House. I accept that there was an advertised parking restriction that afternoon; I am appealing because I believe that I tried to respect the restriction by following the advice I was given to the best of my ability, and that the current situation does not seem fair on the residents of Libertas House.


When my friend moved to Libertas House, he was told by the developer (Miller Homes) that there would be spots reserved for visitors which would be exempt from any parking restrictions. The visitor spots were shown to residents on the site plan (please see attached – Libertas House is the building on the top left, and the visitor spots on Emmeline Pankhurst Drive are shaded in green). Since I knew I’d be visiting during an event day, I specifically planned to park in these visitor spots, acting on this advice from Miller Homes. Having seen the documents from the council, I accept that Miller Homes were wrong, but I was genuinely trying to respect the parking restriction by using the visitor spots. Contacting the council to verify the information given by the developer of the building seemed excessive; I feel that it was natural to trust the developer’s advice.


We had further reason to believe Miller Homes’ information was correct, since my friend was told in the past that residents of Libertas House were not eligible to buy visitor permits. We recently checked this information with Miller Homes; please see the attached email. Since Libertas House residents were denied visitor permits because of the existence of the visitor spaces, we naturally expected them to be exempt from parking restrictions (just like Miller Homes had told us). As it stands, the residents of Libertas House have neither spaces for visitors during parking restrictions, nor the ability to purchase visitor permits to provide exemption from the restrictions. Therefore, there is currently no capacity for Libertas House to welcome visitors during a parking restriction, which doesn’t seem particularly fair.


Despite this perceived injustice, I will certainly respect the fact that the visitor spaces are not exempt from parking restrictions in the future. However, I think it is understandable that any law-respecting citizen would’ve taken the same action if they had been in my place back on the 14th of January.


Thank you for your consideration.


I received the following notice of rejection of representations:



I noticed that the council had ignored the point about the availability of visitor permits, and had made an incorrect statement about the location of the visitor spots, so I emailed them about it:



I received a generic reply saying that a decision had been made and that I could appeal to the independent adjudicator.

This is where I am at now. I will certainly appeal to the independent adjudicator, since I have nothing to lose. My questions are:

A.Should I try to get more evidence from the building developer (Miller Homes) that they told us that the spaces are exempt from planned parking restrictions? The site plan does only show that they are marked "visitor".

B. Do you think I have a good chance of winning?

C. Do you think I should be pushing the developer harder to accept responsibility and pay the fine? Getting hold of them is hard work, but if I insist enough I might be able to get through to someone?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
@talltree54 firstly please shows us all pages of the NTO, your representation in full, and all pages of the notice of rejection (not the appeal form).

Second, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022), your PCN is affected by the same issue.

Realistically your original ground of appeal would not succeed because under the parking regulations it appears a contravention occurred, and the fact that the housing developer might have misled you or misrepresented the position does not affect that.

However the 0845 ground has a good chance, but if you show us all the paperwork we might find additional grounds.
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. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

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

talltree54

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi cp8759. Thanks a lot for your reply and looking into this. I appreciate that the council can say that the developer's mistake has nothing to do with them, and the adjudicator can't really overturn that. The extra information you requested is below. It does appear that the 0845 number is quoted on each.

The full 4 pages of my NTO are below (the last two do appear to be the appeal form, but I included them just in case).











My representation in full is below





And the two pages of the notice of rejection are below





Thanks again

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
Well as the discount is not on offer there's no point in giving up now, as you have nothing to lose if you carry on.

The notice of rejection is also ambiguous because there are two different dates give for the notice: at the top of the notice it says the date of the notice and the date of posting is 11 April, but on the final page it says 10 April, so that creates an ambiguity as to when the 28 day period starts and ends. Crucially, the first two digits of the appeal code are calculated as 100 - date of the notice, and that is the code the tribunal uses to calculate if your appeal is in time or not.

While the regulations do not actually say that a notice of rejection must be dated at all, they do say that the notice "may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate" and I would argue that Parliament cannot have intended information that is contradictory or prejudicial to be "appropriate" within the meaning of the regulations, such that there is a further procedural impropriety.

Lastly the CEO has taken this photo:



This assumes you entered the zone here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aiT2QwHFoKCBXGsQA

Is that the route you actually took, or did you come some other way?

I'm going to drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented at the tribunal.
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. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

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

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
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. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

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