Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: elucidate on April 13, 2024, 05:07:53 pm
-
@H C Andersen you'd forgotten to tick the "Don't use smileys" box so I've fixed that for you.
-
..from the decision:
If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition.
Which is nonsense because there isn't a sign or road marking which informs a motorist!
And no restriction 'CATEGORICALLY PERMITS' anything because that's not what they do. Restrictions restrict, they don't permit. Being allowed to do something is a deduction i.e. if one cannot wait then one may do anything else that is not otherwise prohibited or restricted.
I think the appeal is wrongly argued. Instead, I think it should follow a driver's approach which is that they parked outside the restricted waiting period indicated by the SYL and indeed waiting is not the alleged contravention. Instead it is '******' which means that the authority are relying upon a different restriction which they claim was also in place at the location. I have looked at this and found that the restriction is in fact a 24/7 statutory prohibition imposed by the Traffic Management Act. The council's action in placing a SYL at this location is therefore misleading at best and arguably unlawful because there is no legal basis to impose a part-time waiting restriction on a length of street which already has a more onerous prohibition placed upon it.
In this regard, I refer the authority to s86(8) of the TMA which states as follows:
(8)References in this section [Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.] to parking include waiting....
Therefore there is already a 24/7 statutory waiting restriction at this location which prohibits the council from applying any lesser restriction in a traffic order or marking in a different manner.
-
Not necessarily. Did you send your challenge precisely as in your draft?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n
No. The PDF in that link is the formal appeal I had sent prematurely. I got an email response a few days ago telling me they won't consider it because I am in the post-informal challenge, pre-NTK limbo period. They said I need to wait for the NTK.
If not please post what you did send.
I challenge this Penalty Charge on the basis that the alleged contravention has occurred on the basis of misleading road markings. The entire length of the raised portion of the carriageway has single yellow lines on both sides of the carriageway, and those lines continue into the non-raised portion of the carriageway without any transverse mark or additional signage at the changeover point, as required by paragraph 13.4.15 of the government’s "Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs".
The lack of such markings and signage indicates that the same parking restrictions apply to both the raised and non-raised portion of the carriageway. In the absence of any yellow timeplate to say otherwise, as per the wording of your website ( https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx (https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx) , also attached): "You can park on a single yellow line in a CPZ outside of the restricted hours, or the hours stated on any supplementary plates." In this case, with the yellow line being located in Tower Hamlets's CPZ Zone "C", it is CATEGORICALLY PERMITTED for anyone to park their vehicle there except between the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm during the weekdays. With my having parked there on a Sunday, I knew I was outside the operational hours of the CPZ and thus parked at the location in question with the certainty that I was permitted to do so. Had that not been the case, your website has inaccurate information for which I cannot be held responsible.
You cannot defend your position by stating that the fact that the carriageway is raised negates the permissibility of parking there, firstly because of the absolutely unambiguous website wording quoted above, and secondly because it is commonplace in "Shared Spaces" within the United Kingdom to for legally parked cars to be on the same level as pedestrians. The fact that the carriageway is raised does not automatically mean cars cannot park there. Had that been the case, you should have placed a sign to indicate no waiting at any time, or by using double yellow lines instead of single yellow lines. The fact that you used single yellow lines indicates that there are some times when parking is permitted. If parking is not permitted at all, the use of single yellow lines is misleading.
This is not merely my own assertion; rather, this notion is backed by the Allowed London Tribunals appeal submitted by Patricia Abd - Almseh (case reference 2110067442), with regards to which the adjudicator wrote, "However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal."
I understand that that that appeal was in relation to a code 27 offence rather than code 28, but the underlying argument is absolutely identical. Any reasonable person cannot look at that judgement and say it is irrelevant simply because of such a technicality.
I thus look forward to hearing of the cancellation of this PCN, instead of having the case protracted to the Tribunals service who have already judged in favour of my argument.
Please post the rejection so we can see how well or otherwise the Council considered your Challenge.
The rejection can be found at Post #5 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tower-hamlets-code-28-parked-on-road-raised-to-pavement-level-ashfield-street/msg22958/#msg22958) in this thread.
Then, as soon as you receive the NtO (Notice to Owner),as CP says, please post here, redacting only name & address.
OK.
-
Not necessarily. Did you send your challenge precisely as in your draft?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n
If not please post what you did send.
Please post the rejection so we can see how well or otherwise the Council considered your Challenge.
Then, as soon as you receive the NtO (Notice to Owner),as CP says, please post here, redacting only name & address.
-
I thought I did receive the NtK but it turns out to just be a hard copy of the informal rejection letter that I had already prior received via email.
What are the implications? That the appeal I sent post-informal rejection, but before the NtK, is meaningless?
-
@elucidate have you received the notice to owner?
-
Here's my draft: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n (https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n)
-
Thanks @cp8759.
I'm gonna send an appeal off tonight, God willing. I've found a street in London (Strutton Ground) where there is a single yellow line on a raised carriageway and there is a yellow sign saying no waiting only at CERTAIN TIMES of the day, which I would argue definitely proves that the presence of a raised carriageway in and of itself does not automatically mean you are never allowed to park on it.
-
Thank you for that input. Just for my own peace of mind, you're aware of cases where they've threatened to remove the discount if a formal challenge is made, yet they've re-offered it anyway?
Yes, that happens in pretty much every case. The only councils that actually don't reoffer the discounts are:
1) Nottingham, and
2) For Clean Air Zone PCNs only, Birmingham.
The only other exception is where someone's sent something confrontational or outright rude, but that's fair enough.
Of course nothing is 100% guaranteed, it could be that yours is the first case where Tower Hamlets decides to change it policy and become intransigent like Nottingham, but you'd have to be exceptionally unlucky.
-
Thank you for that input. Just for my own peace of mind, you're aware of cases where they've threatened to remove the discount if a formal challenge is made, yet they've re-offered it anyway?
-
No need to be so incandescent! :D I was referring to the bit where it says "I must advise you that if you make a representation and we reject it you will be liable for the full charge ..."
@elucidate that is nothing short of a lie, if you challenge the notice to owner within 14 days of the date of issue, they almost invariably reoffer the discount to discourage you from appealing to the tribunal. That's why I said from the start that it's worth taking this at least to the notice to owner stage.
-
That wasn't clear from your post.
Looking at the GSV posted and those from previous years, it seems clear that the carriageway forms a natural bridge across the carriageway. It also includes within its length blister paving which marks a crossing point.
-
I haven't looked at the map because that report was produced by the City of Westminster whereas the alleged contravention occured in Tower Hamlets. I only linked to that report because it was interesting to know a local authority did such a big review based the argument I am making.
It looks like I have to just suck it up and pay the penalty?
-
OP, have you looked at the council report which you posted, in particular Appendix 2, Raised Carriageway Locations?
Is your location on this plan?
If so, then IMO an adjudicator would accept that the purpose of the raised carriageway is for one or more of the statutory purposes because this is what's stated in the report.
-
No need to be so incandescent! :D I was referring to the bit where it says "I must advise you that if you make a representation and we reject it you will be liable for the full charge ..."
OK, but it wasn't clear. They are correct, in that if you wait for the Notice to Owner and submit formal representations, you would be liable for the full PCN penalty if they refuse such reps. Of course they can re-offer the discount despite their statement, because if they don't, it becomes a total no-brainer for the appellant to appeal to the adjudicators, because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs. So they may re-offer the discount if you decide to go to Notice to Owner stage. I have my doubts that you would win, though. Others on here may disagree so wait and see what they say. At the moment you are liable to pay £65. If you don't take up their offer it will be £130
-
No need to be so incandescent! :D I was referring to the bit where it says "I must advise you that if you make a representation and we reject it you will be liable for the full charge ..."
-
Have you read the letter, or just skimmed it ? They have re-offered the discount (£65) for 14 days from date of service of letter. In addition this is a rejection of informal representation, because it is a response to reps made against the PCN. Formal reps are submitted against a Notice to Owner which is the next step in the process.
-
Hi everyone,
So I've just received the rejection letter from TH, attached to this post.
I never knew they can instantly remove the discount if your formal challenge is rejected!
I've also just come across these interesting documents:
https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55339
(https://i.imgur.com/RL0I9Ob.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v6tcnwO.png)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes, I made a representation on the day I started this topic, so that I can preserve the discount at the informal stage. I argued on the basis of the case I mentioned in the OP.
I genuinely thought the raised carriageway was for aesthetic reasons. When I came back to the car I saw a gaggle of cars queuing up to leave the private grounds on the southern side of the carriageway but they were blocked by the cars who parked up behind me. They were blocked also by me to a certain extent but I did have bollards next to me unlike the other motorists.
Turns out they designed the grounds to look like it's for pedestrians only but vehicles can and do enter it via the raised carriageway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DEYtvFwASaeDMp6q9
-
I agree there is an arguable case on the purpose for which the kerb has been raised, though it could be argued that's it served a dual-purpose. It's definitely worth taking it at least to the notice to owner stage, though the notice to owner must be challenged within 14 days to preserve the discount.
@elucidate have you made a representation?
-
Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
The law. I would say rather than one of the designated reasons the road has been raised as a traffic calming measure
So somebody in the Highways Dept had the gumption to realise that the raised section was not for the statutory purpose so had yellow lines put in. It seems clear the raised section does not match any of the statutory reasons.
-
Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
The law. I would say rather than one of the designated reasons the road has been raised as a traffic calming measure
-
(Original Pepipoo thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153925 )
Hello everyone,
I got done on a code 28 "Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" contravention in Tower Hamlets. The entire length of the raised carriageway has single yellow lines on both sides, and those lines continue into the non-raised portion of the road. In the absence of a yellow timeplate, I assumed I can park there outside of the CPZ's enforcement period of Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm, as long as I left enough space for cars to overtake me on the carriageway. I thought to myself, "If you're not allowed to park here at all, they'd either have put no lines, or used double yellow." I made sure I parked well away from the tactile tiles, and I happened to have a bollard adjacent to the mid-point of my car.
So I was very surprised to find myself issued a PCN when I arrived back to my car.
Having perused the forum, I guess my best defence is to reference Tribunal case 2110067442?
Link to folder containing CEO images and PCN (use Incognito mode if you don't want to log in):
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcVj-xeNopDepVsEOQ?e=2QOh95
Link to GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5167192,-0.059358,3a,75y,110.81h,61.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGwApPZTCz-hbyKrxXCZSJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Today is the final day of discounted price so any advice that can be given today would be appreciated.
(https://i.imgur.com/TB62Hro.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TNuxkmQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/sFsDJhh.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fGtRcky.png)