Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ATB on May 09, 2024, 09:59:32 am
-
For future reference: The Borough of Trafford (Prohibition of Waiting and Loading and Provision of Parking) Order 2001 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N60OLk69g_lrHPI3wmSHzaJQCjfLGPkv/view)
-
Hi all,
The 14 day deadline to pay the reduced fee ended at midnight last night, and I'm afraid to say I ended up paying :( As much as I really wanted to fight this as, although I accept I parked in a permit area, I really didn't see the single sign due to a van in the way, however given I really don't know when I'll next be in the area to try and take a pic of the common sighting of the van (which may or may not be there next time), and hence then having to rely on the 0845 number and LATOR regs (the latter which they rejected at the appeal) with the risk of then having to pay £70 - I just caved in I'm afraid to get it off my plate and will have to put this one down to experience :(
I really want to thank everyone for your time and input however, it really is hugely appreciated and hope you're not too disappointed in me :( More than happy to pay a donation to the running of the site to thank you all for your knowledge and efforts!
-
For later: The Borough of Trafford (Prohibition of Waiting and Loading and Provision of Parking Order 2001)(Amendment No 151)(Part C) Order 2014 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RLVQol8bKb-UtVF_PVkZ2-dNg3C2mZxn/view)
-
Neither of the 2 GSV shots shows a van and one cannot be seen in the background of the CEO's photos. So why should an adjudicator kick the council's claim to a penalty into the enforcement long grass simply because you assert that on this occasion the sign was obscured?
It's only on the balance of probabilities, we only need to show that on this particular occasion there was a van.
@ATB tribunal hearings are done via video call, and you always have the option of asking one of us to represent you.
-
I admit, there is -ONE- which is on the opposite side of the road as you enter Brook Close and usually obscured by a tall van which is parked next to it, see below
So on the occasions when it's not obstructed the sign is clear and.......
Neither of the 2 GSV shots shows a van and one cannot be seen in the background of the CEO's photos. So why should an adjudicator kick the council's claim to a penalty into the enforcement long grass simply because you assert that on this occasion the sign was obscured? IMO, the Traffic Signs etc. regs, LATOR and the Traffic Signs Manual are in the enemy camp.
-
I'm assuming I'd need to attend in person - where would this likely be?
TPT have given up on in person hearings: choice between personal (telephone) or on papers. We never, ever, recommend a decision on papers - tends to end in disaster, as there is no opportunity to explain or clarify points.
See here
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/
for the process.
-
@ATB but with Trafford we have the 0845 argument as per Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view), and if you take this to the tribunal the case won't be heard for months.
If you can take a photo every time you happen to go there between now and the hearing, you should have plenty of evidence to put in front of the adjudicator.
Ahhh ok, this could change things if you think there's a good chance that could hold up and if I can get some pics of the van/s usually in the way - typically they probably won't be there now when I next go haha!
If it did go to tribunal, I'm assuming I'd need to attend in person - where would this likely be?
-
@ATB but with Trafford we have the 0845 argument as per Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view), and if you take this to the tribunal the case won't be heard for months.
If you can take a photo every time you happen to go there between now and the hearing, you should have plenty of evidence to put in front of the adjudicator.
-
Everytime I go there the same van/s are usually there, however I don't go very often and to go once within the days I've got left would cost probably the same amount in fuel as to just pay the ticket... I fear this may just be the best approach given the reasons I have to try and defend myself and risk the double fine...
-
The issue for me is there's only one sign on entry, and normally where the sign is there's a van normally parked there as he must get there early or stay permanently parked (I often park in the side street and walk up Brook Close and hence see the van parked there often but I'd never noticed the sign as the van blocks it) so assumed under the LATOR rules there should be a sign on the opposite side of the road also, and of course at the point of seeing the exit sign you've mostly likely already committed the offence and leaving...
Are you able to get photos of the van being parked over the course of a number of different days? You only have to prove the facts on the balance of probabilities, and if you can show that there is a van parked there most days over a week or two, that should be enough.
But you must take any photos showing the perspective of an approaching driver, in fact if you can film a video on dashcam that would be best. There's no point in taking photos from a "convenient" angle.
-
I noticed they said "I can confirm that the signs..." and "... the restrictions are defined with entry/exit signs."
If only there were 'signs' rather than a single sign...
But there are:
Entry sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fgFM7QWD8vxZMf8m7
Exit sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qYS87PUMccfPF4sh9
If there happened to be an large van going the other way as you drove in it might be an issue, but if the sign was there to be seen then it would be deemed adequate by most adjudicators.
The issue for me is there's only one sign on entry, and normally where the sign is there's a van normally parked there as he must get there early or stay permanently parked (I often park in the side street and walk up Brook Close and hence see the van parked there often but I'd never noticed the sign as the van blocks it) so assumed under the LATOR rules there should be a sign on the opposite side of the road also, and of course at the point of seeing the exit sign you've mostly likely already committed the offence and leaving...
-
I noticed they said "I can confirm that the signs..." and "... the restrictions are defined with entry/exit signs."
If only there were 'signs' rather than a single sign...
But there are:
Entry sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fgFM7QWD8vxZMf8m7
Exit sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qYS87PUMccfPF4sh9
If there happened to be an large van going the other way as you drove in it might be an issue, but if the sign was there to be seen then it would be deemed adequate by most adjudicators.
The premium rate number plus a failure to consider might be the best arguments.
I've also realised we've not got the traffic order for this location so I'll get hold of it.
-
Deleted
-
Finally got a response, rejected as expected - pics enclosed
Given the issue with the DVLA - would it just be easier to pay? Or tell them to send the NtO to myself and fight?
Edit:
Images in the new post below
I noticed they said "I can confirm that the signs..." and "... the restrictions are defined with entry/exit signs."
If only there were 'signs' rather than a single sign...
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n3l36gd52p48z1449q7xq/Response1.jpg?rlkey=bfqicanyyr22av51fn493bnnz&st=szfgauhs&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hn00wzje3x7sa7wvlu5uh/Response2.jpg?rlkey=cp23fhb07awdm2g3yeavxe80l&st=nu71up4c&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2sv304ub2growvd7vrios/Response3.jpg?rlkey=s5t2p6suumiry4z6z59j5hw5i&st=4rdnynuq&dl=0
-
Please re-post - you've cropped too much - you only need to redact name and address.
What is the all important date of the NtO?
-
Finally got a response, rejected as expected - pics enclosed
Given the issue with the DVLA - would it just be easier to pay? Or tell them to send the NtO to myself and fight?
Edit:
Images in the new post below
-
@ATB your primary concern should be to sort out the V5C issue. Even for a speeding fine, if the address held at DVLA is wrong that's your problem, not that of DVLA or the police. If you don't get a speeding NIP within 14 days because you've failed to get the address updated, you risk 6 points on your licence and the fact that you didn't get the letter at all (let alone within 14 days) would not be a defence.
The council website says the penalty due is £35, this indicates they have issued an informal rejection reoffering the discounted penalty. You therefore need to get the records at DVLA updated urgently, DVLA will record the change of keeper based on the date that you tell them you bought the vehicle, and the council users a system that gives them the RK at the date of the contravention. As long as the DVLA updates their records and backdates the transfer of keepership appropriately, the notice to owner will come directly to you, but you really need to get a wiggle on.
It is also a criminal offence to drive a car on the road if the name and address at DVLA is not correct.
-
As regards contacting DVLA, this is from their website:
If your new log book does not arrive
Contact DVLA if the new log book has not arrived after 4 weeks.
If you have not received your log book after 6 weeks and you have not notified DVLA, you’ll have to pay £25 to get a replacement.
https://www.gov.uk/change-address-v5c?step-by-step-nav=c1f13d41-ed7f-44a3-be11-fd95525ddf40
OP, if you're annoyed at Trafford Council you'll be even more so with DVLA because it is your responsibility to be proactive and check with them.
-
Still nothing from Trafford Council yet... this is getting annoying as of course I'm having to check every day for an email and check Spam folders etc just in case they have finally gotten round to reviewing/replying through fear of missing the response
Can they really just take as long as they want? As at least with a speeding fine they have to make contact within 14 days if I recall correctly?
-
@ATB I suggest you contact DVLA and find out what's going on with your V5C, the last one was issued on 5 August 2022 and really it should have been reissued by now.
I would also contact the previous owner to ask them to name you as the new owner if the NTO goes to them. The last thing you want is for the previous owner to pay the penalty and then start arguing that you owe them the money.
-
It just occurred to me that as I bought the car not long before the offence, I've still not received the updated V5 as yet - what if the NtO gets sent to the previous owner?
It may or may not, depending on DVLA.
However, you can do two things:
1) keep a contant eye on the status/history of the PCN pon the Council website.
2) send an e-mail to the Council along the lines of
Re: PCN TR10516584 and my challenge of [DATE]
Please note that I recently acquired the vehicle and all corespondence should be sent to
[NAME & ADDRESS]
as I am still waiting for the revised V5 from DVLA.
Keep a copy and of any Council receipt/acknowledgement.
EDIT:
Cross-posted with previous.
-
what if the NtO gets sent to the previous owner?
The answer is it can get very messy, so you really need to send another representation to the council to give them your current name and address, and to point out your V5 is in course of update as the car has only recently been purchased.
-
Ok, but can they still enforce this due to their own inability to deal with this in a reasonable amount of time? Or can they just take as long as they want to enforce it?
Also just read this comment on another Code 16 post
"The NtO is sent to the name and address on the V5 Registration Certificated for the car. Is this you and is the address up-to-date ?"
It just occurred to me that as I bought the car not long before the offence, I've still not received the updated V5 as yet - what if the NtO gets sent to the previous owner?
-
No dodn't send anything else yet leave the payment reason for the NTO stage
-
Only just saw this reply...
Are you sure about that? The PCN was only issued last week, so I don't see how you could have a notice to owner already? I think you're making an informal representation.
Mistake on my part, I meant Penalty Charge Notice but have submitted the above with some small changes, will it many any difference that I put Notice to Owner?
You don't need to give links to the legislation, it's up to the council to know the laws that it is enforcing.
Ahhh I did put that in...
I would also remove the bit about discretion, if the signage is inadequate then discretion doesn't come into it, discretion only applies if a contravention did occur and you're asking them to cancel a penalty notwithstanding the fact that the contravention occurred.
Yes removed amy references to discretion :)
Lastly the PCN has a premium rate 0845 number, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view) as that will explain the significance of this.
That's interesting and a lot of info to take in ha - I notice it mentioned in some other cases that wasn't taken into account though? Is it worth me sending in a further appeal referencing the 0845 number or can I only appeal once?
The final day for the £35 payment within 14 days is today - I called yesterday to confirm they had in fact received my appeal as when submitted the form online you do not receive any email to confirm it's been received, and I've had nothing back and so didnt want to lose out. The only info I gave was the PCN number and asked if the appeal had been received, of which the lady said yes but they are running about 4 weeks behind right now and they'll get to it when they can - and for this reason the PCN is on hold along with the half price offer and for me to keep an eye out on my email/spam mail over the weeks to see a reply... any thoughts on this?
-
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY
Are you sure about that? The PCN was only issued last week, so I don't see how you could have a notice to owner already? I think you're making an informal representation.
You don't need to give links to the legislation, it's up to the council to know the laws that it is enforcing. I would also remove the bit about discretion, if the signage is inadequate then discretion doesn't come into it, discretion only applies if a contravention did occur and you're asking them to cancel a penalty notwithstanding the fact that the contravention occurred.
Lastly the PCN has a premium rate 0845 number, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd/view) as that will explain the significance of this.
-
You need to rewrite the part asking for discretion. The plain fact is the offence did not occurm because their poor signing of the restriction meant you were unaware of it.
Also note that this is an informal challenge, to which most councils just send a Fob-Off letter, so don't be disappointed with there reponse, (unless it is to cancel the PCN, you never know !!)
-
Yes. Regulation 18 (1)(a)
How does this read?
Appeal
Trafford Council
Ref: Appeal PCN TR10516584
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY
Request for discretion
I would invite the council to show discretion in enforcing this PCN.
Based on the above I kindly request the council to use its power of discretion to cancel the Penalty Charge on the basis councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. I invite you to review The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, and specifically 1996 No. 2489, Part III, Regulation 18 (1)(a) which specifies:
---
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
---
It is quite clear here that in this case Trafford Council have failed to do this, as a single sign mounted on the opposite side of the road to entry can be and was easily obscured by parked vans due to the mounting height of the sign. If two signs had been erected and mounted higher, then it is almost certain at least one would have been seen. As I've confirmed, I did not see the sign, because it was obscured by a parked van in the immediate non permit requiring space in front of the sign.
Brook Lane (off Brook Close) has no such permit restrictions and cars are able to park anywhere along the road where there are no yellow lines, white lines or blocking entry to driveways. There are also no marked bays such as those in Grosvernor Road where there are marked parking bays and many, many permit signs. I would argue therefore that it was safe to assume Brook Close, like Brook Lane (and in non marked, none yellow lined spaces up to the permit sign) was a location where a non permit vehicle was eligible to park as I saw no sign when driving into Brook Close, and it was only when I received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that I came across the single sign mounted low down and previously not visible due to the parked van in a non permit space. Under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here I believe Trafford Council have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.
I request therefore the PCN be cancelled.
-
Don't rush to pay yet !
Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them. As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.
So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.
Post up their response when you get it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made
Thanks for the info - is there a "representations" template at all?
and are you referring to this section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
Yes. Regulation 18 (1)(a)
-
Don't rush to pay yet !
Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them. As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.
So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.
Post up their response when you get it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made
Thanks for the info - is there a "representations" template at all?
and are you referring to this section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
-
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Don't rush to pay yet !
Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them. As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.
So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.
Post up their response when you get it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made
-
Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.
-
Thanks for the reply and confirmation - I've since found this on the gov website too so guess I'll just have to suck it up and pay the fine and chalk this one up to experience!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A "Permits Only" zone doesn't need bays or anything, you either have a permit displayed or you don't. Visitors to residents must obtain a visitor permit. Commonly scratch-off cards, they are now going virtual. One sign is normally sufficient. Yes, they are the invention of the Devil, but you've just got to accept them, because they ain't going to disappear.
The other places nearby are not Permits Only zones, so do need bays and signs, if permit holders are to have their own parking bays.
-
Hi all,
I've successfully used Pepipoo in the past and pleased to have found this site for some help.
I parked near Navigation Road metro stop yesterday in Brook Close next to a road that allows parking on kerbs. The other roads around the area appear to have permit holder marked bays and signs - see here for example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3945089,-2.3438924,3a,75y,295.55h,76.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPBN_swZl4kT4R1IUUTuWdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
I'd noticed on Brook Close this little area between the white line in front of the gates and the double yellows, but as per street view there's normally cars already parked there:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3951902,-2.3425416,3a,75y,60.77h,80.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRFd-E5UKXkZNTDeTDiIB5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Yesterday there was only one car parked there and so I managed to get a space in front. I came back to a PCN notice stating: "Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit" - confused I went looking for the signs of which I admit, there is -ONE- which is on the opposite side of the road as you enter Brook Close and usually obscured by a tall van which is parked next to it, see below (the van is usually parked where the blue Honda is):
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3956963,-2.3421424,3a,75y,215.64h,79.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sprqIHg6lcPJsyWBuzKj7EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
I admit I parked there, and I admit the sign is there and it was my fault for not inspecting the area properly - but surely there should be more than one sign AND a marked bay, not just what appears to be a normal road parking space in between the white and yellow lines? If not, why is there marked bays on the roads around the area?
I have 14 days to pay the reduced charge of £35 down from £70 - I know you guys are the experts so if you say this is all legit then I'll simply pay for my mistake - I was just amazed that in all the other streets there's lots of signs and marked bays, and in this one there's one sign on the opposite side of the road which can be obscured by the free non bay marked parking, and no marked bays after.
More images at (if this works)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xztgi65qfz27f8g7th3i3/AERCXKV02Inph0yTZJyWn8g?rlkey=8vm0lmcupn174jjh64vxky7vc&st=nyywh7eu&dl=0
Thanks all
[attachment deleted by admin]