Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Redeye on April 22, 2024, 11:46:07 pm
-
I cannot see how the quoted cases, which refer to moving traffic contraventions and therefore different legislation, bear upon your case.
Because the council website has the same problem when it comes to parking contraventions, and the list of adjudicators who agree is extensive: Teresa Brennan, Andrew Harman, Philippa Alderson, Henry Greenslade, Jack Walsh, Gerald Styles. You'd have to be exceptionally unlucky to find a colleague of their who thinks they're all wrong.
-
Can't lose?
OP, despite facing towards the B283, you turned in from there because the road behind you is closed and therefore you couldn't access from this direction.
There is a traffic sign within your vicinity - on the balance of probabilities, GSV shows this (the Dry Riser does rather pin-point its location) which you were obliged to discover and comply with. It's not hidden.
You say the CEO referred to a 'controlled zone', but you're unable to produce independent evidence in support. It is wholly permissible to have stand-alone waiting restrictions within a CPZ, although in this case there isn't evidence that there is a CPZ.
You imply that you spoke to the CEO after the PCN was issued, if so what difference would their comment make to you because you were already in contravention.
I cannot see how the quoted cases, which refer to moving traffic contraventions and therefore different legislation, bear upon your case. CEOs are not David Baileys, if because of the relative positions of the car and sign it's not possible to capture in the same shot other than possibly side-on and therefore unreadable, this would not IMO invalidate the PCN.
But they'll be other views.
-
@Redeye it's 100% worth carrying on, you basically can't lose.
The reasons for this will become clear if you read these cases:
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230464748, 15 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q88oTLrU2jQVfF8GH4_qDIrcjnWr9Ozh/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230487415, 23 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BsSXu-Op8qxCns4Glwd1ojwu5Y4rSsXk/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545861, 26 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BT9woH9WHHUNmWrhFUGn8MGDNnOJePUM/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240138955, 18 May 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13D9t_RFUl68WIrqcDJjgP8HP0q9o_-bi/view)
This point should not be raised prior to the tribunal, I would wait for the notice to owner and then challenge it based on the signage issues. At the tribunal the signage issue can still be pursued, but the issues around the council website should render the appeal unanswerable.
There is a fair chance of getting a costs order against the council.
-
@cp8759 - Here's the reply attached. The only thing is that sign is small, set back from the road, and up the road (by a few metres) from where the vehicle was parked. Not sure if that would be worth another try. Interested to know your thoughts.
Many thanks,
R
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For future reference how did you get those photos?
https://kingston.self-serve.co.uk/Welcome
Please post the response on here when you receive it.
-
That's a good point, I didn't think of that. I guess I'll just have to wait now until I get a reply and see what they say.
For future reference how did you get those photos?
Many thanks,
R
-
Well that wasn't the best challenge because where there's an issue around signage, in my view it is best not to say anything about that at all: the last thing you want to do is give the council a chance to go and get plenty of photos of the signage prior to the tribunal hearing.
Anyway, there are no photos showing your car in relation to the sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/xxDbsIf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bJROvUL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cnGKuSK.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/oU3sQrO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6G30vil.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/068AlOK.jpeg)
From looking at the photos the sign could be a minute's walk away round the corner. Obviously don't point this out in the formal representations, we don't want them to plug any holes in their evidence.
-
That's great info, thanks very much. So it's clear the vehicle wasn't parked in the controlled zone and was parked on a standard single yellow line. Does this make a difference as to whether the CEO should wait 5 minutes before issuing the PCN or not?
I've attached the original PCN without anything blanked out.
The CEO was there taking photos of the vehicle upon arrival at the car. He took photos of the car from a few angles, and the sign that was displayed down the road (see attached)
I did already send the letter (copy of text below) last week as time was running out to get it in before the 14 days.
"Dear Sir/Madam
I write to you in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice issued to my vehicle which was issued for the alleged reason (parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).
I challenge this PCN as follows:
1. The CEO said that this was a 'controlled zone'. Therefore, I put you to strict proof that the said zone was adequately signed as I approached from New Malden High Street and turned left onto Sussex Road.
2. The wording of the PCN in terms of the 28 days period is wrong since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
In light of this procedural impropriety please cancel the PCN."
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@Redeye it's not a controlled parking zone, as we can see from the council map of parking restrictions at https://kingston.statmap.co.uk/map/map.html?login=public&password=&map=%5CMaps%5CKingston%5CGallery%20Maps%5CParking
(https://i.imgur.com/jpK7ZlQ.png)
Please re-post the PCN without any redactions, see the guidance 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/).
If the CEO thinks it's a zone he might not have taken any photos of any signage, in which case the council would not have any evidence of a contravention at all (and if they don't have the evidence you do not want to tell them that in the representations).
-
ok great thanks, I'll give it a go.
-
Yes. It has won and also lost at the Tribunal. But this not the point. It is how they consider that matters.
-
Is it that they've used "this penalty charge was served" instead of "the alleged contravention occurred" ?
-
Thanks Hippocrates, that's really helpful.
Just double-checking point 2 before I write it up - does the front of the ticket not state about the 28 day deadline (see attached)?
Thanks
Compare the 28 day wording on your PCN to the 28 day mandatory wording in Schedule 2 para 2(d) of the regulations referred to by Hippocrates.
Can you see why the wording on the PCN doesn't comply with the regulations?
(Or at least that's what I think Hippocrates is referring to...)
-
Thanks Hippocrates, that's really helpful.
Just double-checking point 2 before I write it up - does the front of the ticket not state about the 28 day deadline (see attached)?
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dear Kingston Council
Ref: PCN VRM
I challenge this PCN as follows:
1. The CEO said to me that this was a controlled zone. Therefore, I put you to strict proof that the said zone was adequately signed as I approached from.....................insert road/route.
2. The wording of the PCN in terms of the 28 days period is wrong since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
In light of this procedural impropriety please cancel the PCN.
-
Thanks for replying.
To be honest only a glance was given in the search for signage, assuming single yellow lines had a grace period was the mistake by the sound of it.
The reason for parking was to collect food so I doubt that comes under the exemptions!? ;D
I've attached the back of the PCN just in case.
Many thanks for the advice,
R
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The sign you have posted is the sign for the yellow line you parked on. So on the face of it, being parked on 16th April, a Tuesday, you were in contravention, hence the PCN.
When you parked on the yellow line, did you look for the controlling sign ? Also what was the purpose for parking there, as there are two exemptions to yellow lines ?
Please also post the back of the PCN, so we can check it for fatal errors of content.
PS: Never, ever, assume anything about parking in London. Streets are patrolled 24x7 and councils make £millions from PCN penalties.
-
Hi,
A PCN was issued on the windscreen last week after the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line. It was assumed that there was a 5-minute grace period on a single yellow line, although the parking attendant gave zero grace time and said something about it being a "controlled zone". there were no signs that said anything about controlled zones.
The only visible sign nearby was a small one further down the road that mentioned "Mon - Sat, 8am - 6:30pm". Attached is a photo of it as well as the parked car and yellow lines.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eAxwiF8yW2TYrsza6
Are there any grounds to appeal?
Thanks in advance
R
[attachment deleted by admin]