Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Liffey on April 20, 2024, 02:20:09 pm
-
DNC'ed.
-
@Liffey well at this point there's nothing to be lost in carrying on so you might as well appeal. I'll drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented.
-
Please see reps attached. I also enclosed the email from the operator of the charging point confirming that it was broken
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We need to see what your wrote in order to see how well they have considered your challenge.
-
So unsurprisingly, I have received a notice of rejection.
Is there anything further I
should add in my appeal documents?
(https://i.imgur.com/llfVmJl.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OT9hOHo.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4jA9cln.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/N1PE5xv.jpeg)
-
Could you direct me to a post on this please? I've tried searching but cannot find one.
Have a look at the cases on rows 135 to 140 (excluding 138 and 139) here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?pli=1#gid=642784037&range=A135).
-
We've won this argument where a pay and display machine was kaput, I would argue that it's the same principle.
Could you direct me to a post on this please? I've tried searching but cannot find one.
-
I had to fill in a "contact us" form on their website
The CEO only observed me for a few minutes
-
Thank you for the recent responses. I'm unsure if it's helpful now, but here is the email from the company:
Can we please see your email to the company that they are responding to?
-
In short:
The so-called parking place is on a road, albeit the footway;
The restriction in the parking place applies 24/7;
There is a single yellow line on the carriageway indicating a waiting restriction;
This restriction applies to the footway as it does to the carriageway;
= signs which conflictingly state that you may wait in the road outside of the restricted waiting hours but not in the parking place unless you comply with those parking restrictions.
Nonsense.
And if you want further proof, go to GSV and move along the road to where 24/7 disabled bays have been placed on the carriageway. Here you'll see that the same yellow line stops short of the parking places and commences afterwards, as is right and proper because you cannot have two conflicting restrictions (each with their own exemptions) in place at the same time.
The council for some reason think that it's OK to place your parking place within the scope of the yellow line and pretend it's not there.
In my opinion.
-
Thank you for the recent responses. I'm unsure if it's helpful now, but here is the email from the company:
(https://i.imgur.com/sZCErYv.png)
-
Go for it!
Mike
-
We've won this argument where a pay and display machine was kaput, I would argue that it's the same principle.
-
@cp8759
The point I am making is that the two successful cases I posted were predicated on the vehicle's right to be in the bay:-
1) an electric vehicle, as allowed by the road marking; and
2) the vehicle being attached to the charging point as per the sign.
So it's obvious the OP will find it difficult to use those cases in support of any appeal because the Council will contend that he had no right to be in the bay. One, because his vehicle could not meet the requirement at 2) above and then, because of the charging point being "kaput", he had a duty to move on.
There have been successful cases of unrestricted parking where a meter fails but an EV bay carries it's own rules. I cannot see a default case being successful i.e. "I had a right to park because the bay did not meet it's intended purpose and couldn't be enforced"
Mike
-
The problem with the OP's case is that he appears never to have attached the charging cable.
If the charging point it kaput why would you bother attaching the charging cable?
-
The problem with the OP's case is that he appears never to have attached the charging cable. As the sign says--" recharging point only"
I've attached the Webb V Wandsworth (2210311085) case which he won even though he had finished charging.See also 2240125760.
So, if attachment of a cable becomes the tipping point, the OP is in difficulty.
However, does the signage say anything about attachment or indeed the need to move on once the battery is recharged? Does it say anything about a time limited bay? The PCN certainly indicates "during restricted hours"--are we to presume that relates to " during the permitted hours" The TMO states:-
(d) Electric vehicle charging place may be used for the leaving during the permitted hours of such electric vehicles for so long as necessary to allow that vehicle to be restored to full charge by connecting to a recharging point.
What the hell are the permitted or restricted hours?
This is a clear failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty of LATOR 1996 because a very significant part of the information as to the effect of the Parking Places Order has not been conveyed to road users by the sign in situ.
To emphasise this ground I would reference Harvey Kutner v London Borough of Camden 2230471029.
"There has been a history of High Court and Court of Appeal decisions concerning signs conveying parking restrictions and a traffic authority’s duty under Regulation 18 of LATOR. These establish that a failure to comply with the Regulation 18 duty as to signage is a proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a PCN, on the ground that the alleged contravention of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order did not occur. The key Court of Appeal case is Herron v. The Parking Adjudicator and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 905, and R (London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51] is also instructive".
Forget about the SYL, go for their failure to prove the parking contravention through the signage in place.
Mike
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Council photos:
(https://i.imgur.com/RMQBhOD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TMw5MGN.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/U5IgG59.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gS9RPG7.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HXQ9UyA.jpeg)
Realistically at this point you'll be heading to the tribunal if the council doesn't accept the representations, because the representations will be outside the initial 14 day period, so the discount won't be reoffered, so there will be no risk and nothing further to lose in taking this all the way.
The traffic order is The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Free Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Consolidation Order 2016 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vKi38zVJNDgqqVknEpxKMPKCLDZkJqbd/view) as amended by The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Electric Vehicle Charging Places) Amendment No.39 Order 2019 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1spE_dxWaWMAGrin9NPi1iaOA9vw8CEoW/view).
Map tile: https://store.traffweb.app/barking-dagenham/documents/parkmap/msched/AB11_rv5_1.pdf
Map tile legend: https://store.traffweb.app/barking-dagenham/documents/parkmap/sched/Map%20Schedule%20Legend%20LBBD%20-%20Cons%202016%20v2.pdf
Yes, since receiving the PCN I contacted the company which owns the charging point and they confirmed it via email.
Let's see a copy of this email please.
-
Would anyone be able to help with the formal reps please? Especially the SYL point - is it correct to say there can't be a restriction like the one indicated on the sign, on an SYL?
-
Yes, since receiving the PCN I contacted the company which owns the charging point and they confirmed it via email. I didn't hear back from them in time to include that information with the informal reps.
(https://i.imgur.com/mLcXEn8.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BjeQvdf.jpeg)
-
I parked my hybrid car at a charging point, but the charging point was broken.
Did you get a photo, or do you have any other evidence of this?
Also, please show us both sides of the original PCN without any redactions, see the guidance on this here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/).
-
For me the PCN is an abuse of process. The CEO should have checked the charging point first. How could you have charged your vehicle if the charging point is kaput.
-
More details as requested:
I parked my hybrid car at a charging point, but the charging point was broken. I was given a PCN after the officer observed my vehicle for only a few minutes.
I was advised on Pepipoo to argue procedural impropriety, as the PCN did not include certain mandatory information. There were also comments about a SYL and a time restriction which I didn't really understand. I was asked to provide photos from the original PCN as they showed that the charging point was also on an SYL.
Google street view link https://maps.app.goo.gl/DsyjWS7D7LqFr1dD8
I think that's why I was told to request the full TMO, although to be honest I really can't remember.
-
Please can anyone resist with formal reps?
As it is a fine bright sunny Sunday morning, and I'm in a frivolous mood, I'll play along.
"I resist"
-
Pepipoo has gone phut, so can you fill us in a bit more on the circumstances that gave rise to the PCN, please.
-
I originally posted this topic on Pepipoo.
My informal representations were rejected on the basis that the signage is adequate.
I was advised to obtain the TMO which I have now done.
I have now also received the Notice to Owner
Please can anyone resist with formal reps?
(https://i.imgur.com/Xgxrzog.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CexiOrK.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/PZ2KYZI.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Urxc9bI.jpeg)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_4d4mz0Pa40kx_uaBsNTXIIG6q8QuNS/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VGDROl7JT_2oFzHvTusUBWjhYErd5uqP/view?usp=sharing