Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LondonTraveller84 on May 20, 2024, 05:09:51 pm
-
Hi All,
A quick update, I am glad to say the NTO appeal was successfull :) , theyve accepted it and cancelled the ticket! 1 down 3 more to go..
Couldnt have done it without everyones guidance and input from this forum, which helped me put in points that I otherwise wouldn't have.
-
@Enceladus I've deleted your post 29 as you said it's incorrect.
@LondonTraveller84 there's a bit more to the traffic order than you think, in my TRO library I have:
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1) Order 2005 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Myq8vIU9PlCh_18B6YANHHb2_B27Z03y/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TfMW_JZ-ZVUcpldD2AQTcq5w3RksKqtg/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 11) Order 2017 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1irXoxA5YQo4bni4I3GY6_w6Onqjr4ehZ/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 13) Order 2017 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QHXPiqBaM1xgseUrZZSgQhzVYAEmQbji/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 14) Order 2018 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mHKSszIIELxFRcjQiGYluEzAim9FKhO_/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 22) Order 2021 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Doi564-4tLUgQDH1jisL3i-2eTdbeoWO/view)
The Newham (East Ham) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 24) Order 2022 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PLTi3SOZccTwHI5DKZpiVLheBZkUOFh7/view)
However I can't check anything at all because you've used a website that deletes all the images after a few days. I suggest you put all the documents in a shared google drive or dropbox folder and post the link on here.
The last time I had one of these bays to deal with, it turned out the traffic order did not exist.
-
My apologies to all. Please ignore my post #29 of this morning. Seems I've mixed up your case with somebody else's and I can no longer delete it.
-
We can only await their response.
My reference was to this in your earlier draft:
'...as the CEO had he observed would have noticed and made note of had they followed procedure and enforce the TMO properly.' To the point of issuing the PCN they had enforced the restriction i.e. car without permit AND no exempted activity seen to be taking place. A driver does NOT have 20 minutes free parking, they may engage in the exempted activity for no more than 20 minutes provided it's continuous.
The issue of the driver speaking to the CEO is important. If, as you say, loading was a continuous process, albeit involving tooing and froing, then when alerted by the driver they should have checked in the car to verify this new info. They couldn't cancel the PCN but could make a note to this effect.
But they didn't. Perhaps through ignorance i.e. not considering that loading would make any difference anyway?
-
Are you confusing the act of "loading" with the process of "boarding"?
Hi Enceladus,
There was no boarding, was always loading luggage, my father has only come into the picture as the NtO is in his name and the property the loading was from is his. The rejection letter mentioned loading because I had in my initial appeal stated loading as that is what took place.
I have submitted the above appeal yesterday night, so lets see what they come back with and can hopefully prepare for adjudication.
-
Why so in your face? There was no contravention because loading from an adjacent property is an exemption...would suffice.
Sorry did I say something wrong or was I bit a too full on with my appeal :O, ie shouldnt add the reference and quotes from TMO?
Sorry, not trying to hide anything, thought to add them to the appeal to emphasise actions taken as a way to give my appeal some more umff, but I can see what you mean that it's my word and no proof :(.
As the loading took place, I was in and out of the house with luggage, each time I'd go in, I'd close the back or doors (security consicous some one may pass by and take something). As I returned to load the CEO was walking off and I noticed the PCN, at which point I called him and said we were loading etc but he just said too bad in a way - I can remove this from the reps, if there is no added benefit in it
So to answer your questions
1. At the point of the PCN no one was at the vehicle, as I was in the property getting further luggage.
2. Loading was in progress or half way through.
3. With the PCN issued and the conversation with CEO after, how would it change or impact the reps?
4. Evidence of conversation - I checked my Ring, recording not available going back that far, so only the CEO's bodycam I guess, if it goes that far.
The other point I can see if we're basing it on proof/evidence (fair) is around the parked less then 20 minutes, neither they nor I can now proove that :/
-
Why so in your face? There was no contravention because loading from an adjacent property is an exemption...would suffice.
But now we discover that the driver saw and spoke to the CEO [After placing the PCN the CEO had been informed that the loading was taking place from the adjacent property, yet this was not taken into consideration] who was therefore at the car at the time and aware that loading was taking place.
And your evidence for this conversation is?
And loading hadn't started/was in progress/was complete?
And if the CEO was aware then the focus changes and so should the reps e.g. the driver spoke to the CEO part way through loading but this was ignored and the PCN issued anyway/the CEO had already issued the PCN and said they didn't know at the time/said it doesn't make any difference??
We'll get the full story eventually....
-
Sorry for the constant spam replies all, really getting into this, although a shame I left it so late..
So here's the final revised appeal to NtO.
I am appealing the following PCN on the following grounds and request the PCN is cancelled.
Ground 1. On 16th February 2024, my son was loading the vehicle from the premise XX which is my property and this property is adjacent to the parking place in question, as per the TMO that came into force on 28th November 2015, this is one of the exemptions allowed as stated on point 11.1.h.
11. (1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order, any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and if
- (h) in any other case the vehicle is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'
As it can be noted this (extract from TMO) clearly states parking in a bay in question is allowed if one is loading/unloading at a premise adjacent, which was clearly the case here, as well as the fact the vehicle was parked in the parking place in question for less then 20 minutes, therefore the alleged contravention did not occur, as an exemption was in place and followed accordingly, as the CEO had he observed would have noticed and made note of had they followed procedure and enforce the TMO properly. After placing the PCN the CEO had been informed that the loading was taking place from the adjacent property, yet this was not taken into consideration.
Ground 2. In addition to the above, there was no parking available in the resident and pay and display bays on the entire street or neighbouring street during that period, other than disabled bays in addition to the one in question, all of which were empty as can be seen in the attached picture. Had my son stopped the vehicle on the middle of the street to load, it would have caused great inconvenience to others and caused a backlog of traffic, hence parking in the disabled bay adjacent to my property was the most viable and reasonable approach considering the circumstances and to be penalised with a PCN for this is unfair.
Ground 3. The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid.
-
There is no ISA (wheelchair) symbol on the sign, therefore it is not a 'parking place reserved for disabled badge holders.'
Instead, there is the standard 'P' and it is a 'Parking place' - see item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made
(the bay also looks like it doesn't meet the min. size requirements for a disabled bay)
IMO, it is a permit bay and the type of user and permit identifier are Disabled Resident Permit Holder E.
The other way of looking at the issue would be that if it was a dedicated disabled bay then as it doesn't carry the ISA symbol (column 3) then this wins on its own and it's not necessary to explore column 4 issues.
Just re-read this and it made sense, but then also re-read what Mike sent straight after, which made sense and seems to state taht this a is a non issue, ie the wheelchair sign is no longer required and thus the signage is valid. Thus am I still going ahead now with the following grounds alongside my initial loading reasoning.
"The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid."
Also whats the minimum bay side, I can go out and measure it now as im looking to submit the rep before midnight tonight - google giving multiple sizes?
-
Also I’m thinking, if they’ll reject this then I have one final appeal right to the adjudicator, so shall I submit with main reason being exception, then mention the other two points around signage etc giving us more time to solidify our case for final appeal at next stage ?
-
Understood, I’ll respond as my father and refer to the incident as a third person and say my son was loading and unloading. As for me representing at adjudication, I assume I can do and mention this after I’ve got the notice of rejection?
In respect to adjacent, the property the luggage was being loaded from was the next property to the right, t, which we can prove by providing the council tax or similar I guess.
Also I have attached the Traffic order for the bay to my initial post at the start of this thread
So HC Anderson out of the three strands weve covered 1, 2a, to which I we say contravention did not occur or we can say procedural inproprierty?
As for strand 2b and the point Mike made, would we have select a different box and are we allowed to have multiple reasons? Should I just add both summarised?
-
Yes, you're correct. Thanks.
I've amended my previous post.
-
With respect to John U.K, - HCA
@HCA - did you mean MMV Redux: I haven't mentioned traffic orders?
-
He can just refer to the driver.
OP, three strands:
1. As said by others, only the person to whom the NTO is addressed may make reps. They may either do this personally or, by written authorisation, nominate another person to do so on their behalf and to represent them at adjudication. You never become the owner, you only act for them.
2. As far as we know, two very different matters.
a. The more straightforward. Was the driver engaged in an exempt activity and therefore may the owner tick 'contravention did not occur'? With respect, although we're managing to piece together the events there is one crucial element missing i.e. is the property 'adjacent' to the parking space. We don't need you to tell us the exact property number but you WILL have to demonstrate this to the authority because they're not under any obligation just to take your word for matters.
b. The enforceability of the restriction given the arguments regarding whether the restriction is signed as required.
This is the council website: https://www.newham.gov.uk/parking-permits/resident-parking-permits-1/2?documentId=547&categoryId=20124
Unambiguous as far as they are concerned, the bays are permit bays.
With respect to MMV Redux, IMO it's not possible to get the full picture without the 'said authorisation' (17 Oct 2011) particularly the use of what would otherwise be an improper road marking i.e. TSRGD do not permit the use of the 'Disabled' road marking visible the other council photos with a permit bay.
3. What the Traffic Order provides - and we don't know at this stage.
-
my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver
The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).
Okay in that case do i have to act on behlaf of my father purely because the NtO is in the reigstered keepers name, going forward when it goes to adjudication, would I be able to take it forward or he will have to, even though I was teh driver ?
Or does this change what I say, I should it be said my son had driven the car and was loading etc?
He can certainly give you written authority to act for him at adjudication: I thinkl (but am not certain) he can to the same for reps against NtO. Probably simpler (as you're online) to write the reps as from him.
Sure I'll do the rep as from him, but I guess in temrs of the incident I should refer to myself as my son was parked and loading correct? as the initial appeal I wrote from myself and said I was loading?
-
my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver
The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).
Okay in that case do i have to act on behlaf of my father purely because the NtO is in the reigstered keepers name, going forward when it goes to adjudication, would I be able to take it forward or he will have to, even though I was teh driver ?
Or does this change what I say, I should it be said my son had driven the car and was loading etc?
He can certainly give you written authority to act for him at adjudication: I thinkl (but am not certain) he can to the same for reps against NtO. Probably simpler (as you're online) to write the reps as from him.
-
my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver
The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).
Okay in that case do i have to act on behlaf of my father purely because the NtO is in the reigstered keepers name, going forward when it goes to adjudication, would I be able to take it forward or he will have to, even though I was teh driver ?
Or does this change what I say, I should it be said my son had driven the car and was loading etc?
-
my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver
The reps against the NtO must be in the name of the person named on the NtO (should = registered keeper).
-
HC Anderson, so are we not to use Grounds 3 and 4, sorry all this goes way above my head yet am trying my best to make sense of it. - If you and Mike can give me some direction on what to do around the points of contention, do I add both points..
As for the Ground 1, which was the core point I'm relying on, so the property on xx, is my parents and I live there with them, teh car is also my parents with me a named driver, and we were loading the car as we were going up north.
"On X date I had bought my car around from the next road where it was parked to where we/parents live at no. ***, which is a property adjacent to the parking place in question....and then your we started loading the car?
I can check if my ring camera has recordings showing how long it was parked?
Good question, from what I remember I had bought the car from a car wash, so had not been parked, prior to this it was parked on a different road, which would have made it very difficult to carry the luggage across. I could have waited for a spare space, but this could be minutes or hours, and that too no garauntee it'll be near or at the end of the road. So in a nut shell I guess I would be saying
And based on waht John said around service, does that give me another day or so to place with although have had bads experience, so am keen to get this across today - asume for the intial PCN appeal to teh council this concept doesn't apply right?
-
@hca
The contravention is a Code 16 with the suffix "5" "dedicated disabled bay"; the sign reads "Disabled Resident Permit Holders Only"; the road marking reads "Disabled", all of which, I believe, is sufficient to identify what we are dealing with. That's without the clear steer from the TMO.
The Council were given permission to dispense with the wheelchair logo here:-
https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3311.pdf
In other words the sign at "Q" has the same meaning as a Diagram 661A here:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/2/made
Mike
-
With respect, I disagree and I'll set out my thinking.
There is no ISA (wheelchair) symbol on the sign, therefore it is not a 'parking place reserved for disabled badge holders.'
Instead, there is the standard 'P' and it is a 'Parking place' - see item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made
(the bay also looks like it doesn't meet the min. size requirements for a disabled bay)
IMO, it is a permit bay and the type of user and permit identifier are Disabled Resident Permit Holder E.
The other way of looking at the issue would be that if it was a dedicated disabled bay then as it doesn't carry the ISA symbol (column 3) then this wins on its own and it's not necessary to explore column 4 issues.
OP, the car was parked without displaying or holding the required permit. If you are going to rely upon an exemption, in this case loading, then it is your legal burden to prove your entitlement.
The CEO's photo shows an unattended vehicle.
You claim that you were in the process of '..loading at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'
So, IMO you need something like:
On ** I had been visiting ** who lives at no. *** which is a property adjacent to the parking place in question....and then your account. I suggest you start with this because as regards the facts regarding what you were doing, you're the only one who knows and there are very important matters which as yet haven't been aired. Your reps leap straight into legal matters when, if you are entitled to the exemption, the only issue is to set out why you are entitled.
For example:
Looking at your photo, there's enough luggage etc. for an army. If it's yours, then you must have been stating..in which case if you only moved your car into the parking place at the time of loading, where was it until then and why couldn't loading have waited until another parking place was free etc. etc.
'Adjacent', which I think is key, is not defined and therefore subjective. Here's one I saw online:
Adjacent means close to or near something. You may consider the people up and down your street to be neighbors, but your next-door neighbor is the person who lives in the house or apartment adjacent to yours. Adjacent can refer to two things that touch each other or have the same wall or border.
-
Date of Service is defined in law as two working days from date of posting which is assumed to be date of letter unless rebutted.
When sending reps online make sure you keep a copy and also a copy of the receipt/automated acknowledgement.
-
Thanks Mike! let me send the amended Groundds 3 & 4 in addition to my 1 & 2 across now.. and see what they come back with, fairly confident it'll be rejected then independant adjudicator it is.
Groudn 4 surely they'll just laught it off, while it makes sense however to them they don't even consider such things and will see this as a null point assuming as would the adjudicator?
-
Ground 3
The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid.
Ground 4
The Council's intention of reserving disabled bays for residents only is discriminatory (against non-resident disabled people) and I would refer you to both the Equality Act 2010 and moreso to The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Therefore the traffic management rationale giving rise to the TMO is fatally flawed to the extent that the Council actions are ultra vires. In such circumstances enforcement of this bay cannot proceed.
Mike
-
My attempt at the appeal as it stands is, first time I'm appealing past the initial informal council appeal, so not sure if it's worded correctly.
I am appealing the following PCN on the following grounds and request the PCN is cancelled.
Ground 1. I had parked in the said disabled bay to load my vehicle, which is allowed as per the TMO that came into force on 28th November 2015 for this bay which states on point 11.1.h - Page 7
11. (1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order, any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and if
- (h) in any other case the vehicle is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'
As it can be noted this clearly states parking in a disabled bay is allowed if one is loading/unloading at a premise adjacent, which was clearly the case here, as well as the fact I was parked in the bay for much less then 20 minutes, as the CEO had he observed would have noticed and made note of. After placing the PCN I had informed the warden I was loading yet this was not taken into consideration.
Ground 2. In addition to the above, there was no parking available in the resident or pay and display bays on the entore street or neighbouring street during that period, other than disabled bays in addition to the one I used that were empty. Had I parked on the street to load, it would have caused great inconveience to others and caused a backlog of traffic, hence the use of the disabled bay adjacent to my property was the most viable and reasonable approach and option to take and to be penalised is unfair.
Ground 3. Could add the bit that Mike mentioned and try my luck?
Ground 4. I had asked the neighbour, so can get written letter, although the bay isn;t specificially for them, rather any disabled resident permit holder
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks for you reply, I've read it a number of times and looked at the links, I think I get what your trying to say, although may be somewhat above my head, so in simple terms are we saying the signage is incorrect based on the wording used? I guess if I was to put that as part of my appeal to the nTO, would I just copy paste what you've said as I have a feeling if tried to use it in my own way, It'll just fall apart and make no sense.
-
Date of Notice to Owner - Wednesday 24 April
Date of Service - Friday 26th = day 1 of the 28 days.
Silly question, but where did you get Date of Service from, i assume youve added a 2 days for delivery? I believe the Date of notice would also be the date of service in which I don't have much time, either tonight or tomorrow but to play it safe I'm tempted to hit a reply before midnight today.
-
This is what I posted on a similar Newham thread (I've added a bit more):-
The sign which says Disabled Resident Permit Holders Only is IMO not a traffic sign which can be enforced.
The TSRGDs ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made ) indicate:-
1. “Disabled badge holders”;
2. “Disabled badge holders only”;
3. “Disabled badge holders only at all times”;
4. “Disabled badge holder” and a permit identifier; or
5. “Disabled badge holder only” and a permit identifier
The latter two are used when there is a dedicated individual disabled space for an individual user as indicated by the word "holder" (singular not plural). Also that is the only circumstance where a permit identifier can be used.
See their approval for this sort of sign here:-
https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3311.pdf
There is no provision for the words "Resident Permit Holders" in the TSRGDs and the Council would have to get DfT permission to use it----they haven't:-
https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/?search=newham
Ergo the signage is invalid and unenforceable IMO. They can't use the word Resident with disabled bays neither can they use a permit identifier for a bay which is only open to the denizens of Newham. So a Code 16 contravention which has a suffix "5" can only relate to dedicated disabled bays for individual users.
And that's without going into the legitimacy of general disabled bays for residents only which, to me, is discriminatory and against equality legislation.
Mike
-
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2587.DojhGH
says 28 days beginning with date of service.
So
Date of Notice to Owner - Wednesday 24 April
Date of Service - Friday 26th = day 1 of the 28 days.
So I make the deadline to be midnight on the 28th day = Friday 23 May.
Hopefully others can confirm.
So you have a lttle time for the experts here (I am not one) to chip in.
-
Also when it says within 28th day they need a response, would that make it today my last day to reply before midnight, or tomorrow, just conscious as last time I appealed a PCN, they said I had gone over by a day.
-
Also not sure if it helps but new TMOs seem to be a lot more summarised an example of one recently in and around the area which someone posted a snippet of on the other forum, prior to me getting the offical TMO for the bay in question
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Newham ("the Council') proposes to make the above Orders under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
2. The general effect of the Disabled Resident Parking Places Orders and the Disabled Persons Permit Parking Places Order would be to designate disabled resident parking places for use only by persons who are resident within the Beckton, Canning Town, Canning Town North, East Ham, East Ham South East, Green Street North, Market Street, Monega, Plaistow North, Plaistow South, Ruskin, Stratford, Stratford South East and Upton Park Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), who meet the current criteria for the provision of parking places for disabled persons and who have been issued disabled resident parking permits for their vehicles. Certain other vehicles may wait in the parking places in certain circumstances, e.g., to load or unload goods or pick up or set down passengers. A single parking place would be designated at each of the locations listed below. (NOTE - at locations where an 'overlap' is also stated, the proposed parking place would overlap the frontage of the adjacent property numbers, by up to 1 metre):-
-
Please see attached the PCN, NTO and the councils response, I am unable to find my initial appeal :( as it was on the other forums.
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-8538.DojGvX
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-8539.DojVqu
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-8937.Doj3I9
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-8938.Doja0e
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2587.DojhGH
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2588.DojioR
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2602.DojvLc
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-2603.DojRBZ
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ob4jkuUfPRFN81kd6
I have just checked the councils website, it lets me view and pay, but no status. I went to challange and then appeal, which just stalls and fails, however there is an option to do a formal appeal with a webcode, which I think is what the next step is with the NTO?.
Await to hear back so I can try get a formal response submitted today to avoid missing any deadlines.
Thanks Again!
-
What is the status/history of the PCN on the Council website?
Please post up as a matter of urgency all sides of the NtO - redact only name and address and leave everything else in.
Then in the absence of Pepipoo please have a read of
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/
and post up all sides of all paperwork to and from the Council and a GSV link to the location.
I know it's a faff, but without the paperwork the experts here would be working blind :(
-
Hi All,
Need some advice in appealing to the independent adjudicator, as the council rejected my initial appeal, the initial discussions in the initial appeal took place on the POPEI forums (which are down now)..
The PCN was for “Parking in a space or zone without a valid physical permit where required (dedicated disabled bay)” - Contravention code 165. I appealed on the grounds that I was loading the car and that there was no where else at all to park, had I parked in the road I would have blocked traffic, so this was the most reasonable approach, which of course was still rejected. I was also advised to look at the TMO for any conditions, which I requested.
TMO (attached) - Only point I can see that could work is 11.1.h - Page 7
'in any other case the vehicle is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a parking attendant may approve.'
A few points on the Notice to Owner
1. I have received a notice to owner, do I just respond to this or do I need to get a Notice of rejection?
2. It seems that this will go back to the council for them to see if they will accept this - which doesn’t make sense as they’ve already rejected my first appeal directly, so why would they reconsider the same reasons again?
3. The notice to owner is to the car owner (my dad), and it says do not pass this notice to the drive? however as I am appealing, will this impact the independent adjudication process that I was going to attend as this is in my dads name.
Finally to add to this my procrastination has meant I only have 28 day to respond, with notice on the 24th april, leaving only 1 day I believe :O, appreciate any advice or suggestions in writing the appeal and if the above would work?
Attached is the TMO
[attachment deleted by admin]